It seems that in the modern era of flight, with high tech radio and navigation equipment, and modern weather forecasting, that solo flight isn't quite the feat it used to be. Not to say that this is easy, but it doesn't seem like it is the risky endeavour it used to be, either.
The gay marriage matter was going to go that way sooner or later regardless. Look at younger voters of any party in the US (after all the overwhelming majority of slashdot readers are in the US) and you'll find increasing support for gay marriage even amongst those young voters who vote republican. I don't have the time to look through 1000+ comments in that article to see how many are viewing the matter through each possible prism but there is also a very heavy conservative-libertarian bend here, who will often be saying "let them do whatever as long as it doesn't increase my taxes" - and gay marriage certainly doesn't increase anyone's taxes.
While you're at it, see the posts about AGW.
The key part of that acronym is the letter A - for anthropogenic. There are occasionally posts here on climate change, but very exceptionally rarely do we see any that tie it directly to human activity. Furthermore if we look at the comment sections in any of those articles - anthropogenic or not - we see the true voice of slashdot readers bends heavily to the right.
And finally, notice that at least once a week we see an anti-Obama - or generally anti-democrat - article on the front page here. How often do we see an anti-GOP article? Almost never. And I challenge you to show me an article that ever made the front page that dared to challenge Ron Paul on anything, ever.
Personally, I find/. to be center to center-left, depending on the subject.
I'm curious to know what subject you think that would be. Certainly not politics, science, economics, constitutional liberty, crime, taxes, religion, birth control, or education.
You can opt to not use a cell phone. There are other communication options. Civilization got along just fine for thousands of years without them, and will continue to go on without them.
the top link on the Drudge Report led to a YouTube video in which an Ohio woman said she's going to vote for President Obama because he gave her a phone.
...
If you're upset that Obama is giving "freeloaders" gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don't be. Firstly, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the "Obama phone" narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn't paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers. Some of those providersâ"like Verizon, for instanceâ"pass off that cost to their customers with a Universal Service fee, but the government doesn't mandate that the money come from citizens, meaning it's technically not a tax.
...
It is sort of sad that the woman in Drudge's "Obama phone" video has no idea that her free cell phone has nothing to do with Obama. But conservatives who would try and hold her up as an example of a liberal president gone wild with handouts are just as sad and ignorant, and more cruel by a large margin.
It would appear the weak troll is you, who couldn't bother to follow the link that slashdot provided. The surprise here though is that slashdot is actually countering - rather than propagating - something from drudge report. The latter is far more the standard m.o. around here, especially when samzenpus is involved.
Indeed, touchpads suck - tremendously. Even the best of them have unintended problems. But you don't have to live in a touchpad-or-mouse world. ThinkPads still have trackpoint, and there are a few business-class laptops from other vendors (Dell and HP, I believe) that also have them available.
It is generally counter to the conservative majority narrative here on slashdot to dare to disprove a drudge report myth. And considering the conservative FUD that samzenpus has posted to the front page in the past, this is highly out of character for him to point out that the "Obamaphone" program is neither government sponsored nor was it started under Obama.
Samzenpus, are you OK? Were you recently hit in the head or something?
You said what she doesn't want to do, but gave no indication of what she wants to do. There may be a not-terribly-difficult way to get from programming to what she wants to do, but without knowing what that is it is impossible to say.
It would have been quite hilarious had they instead hired former slashdot employee Pudge. I would have happily taken bets on how long that appointment would have lasted...
It is hard to reach your level of disconnection, for sure. You're not quite on the same level of conspiracy nuttery as some other people here, but your statements do require a certain amount of "X leads to Y leads to NWO".
That doesn't indicate that Lieberman was gunning for Iraq ahead of time. He was just looking for self-preservation, and knew that being the first to jump up and declare support would be good for that. You seem to be perhaps a little hazy in your memory of what unfolded in that time period, but some of us recall how the GOP used 9/11 as a way to initiate a witch hunt against anyone who didn't support every last foolish quest they asked for.
Lierberman is far from perfect, but what you cited does not support your argument as well as you wish it to, either.
he has never given indication of himself being a war-mongerer...
Picking Lieberman for VP says otherwise.
I'm not particularly a fan of Lieberman, but I don't recall hearing anything of him having held a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein either. If you have a reference to show that Lieberman was hankering specifically for a war with Iraq, please share.
On top of that, the Bush Jr. Administration set a new precedent for VP involvement - really more like VP dictation - of policy. Was there a reason to expect that Lieberman would have been driving the ship similarly? By contrast I haven't heard anyone claim that Biden is in control currently at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Gore would have had the same information Bush, Senator Clinton and 99.9% of the house did - and voted to do it.
You are whitewashing history with that line. The information that was given to Bush was hand-picked to support an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Some of those intelligence advisers were themselves hand-picked by the Bush administration. The Bush administration was furthermore willing to then take the shaky evidence - note that they were not afraid to take advice from someone code-named "curveball" by the CIA - and spin it to support their agenda.
Regardless of how much you hate Gore, he has never given indication of himself being a war-mongerer, nor did he have a personal score to settle with Saddam Hussein.
I can imagine in. We would not have launched an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Evidently that would have been a terrible thing?
No special skills, knowledge or anything else remarkable
Wait, which 2000 POTUS candidate are you talking about now?
I understand that he is criticizing the rest of the court, and that he thinks that he is the smartest and most important man in the room. He has projected that arrogance for some time. At this point though he seems to have such disdain for the court that he seems to actually loathe the task assigned to him. Hence my point is that if it is that awful, he could just retire and go live somewhere else.
But seriously what are the odds that I am friends with that hypothetical person, and they let me use their transcript for this completely ridiculous purpose?
Much better than the odds of you passing a statistics course. Similarly, very high are the odds of a serial liar such as yourself having such documentation around to try to "support" you fact-free argument.
And this conversation is now over.
So you are a failure and a liar. But you established that several comments ago. Have a nice weekend, kid. Maybe some day you'll learn enough to realize how foolish you made yourself look here.
I don't have to pretend what I said was facetious in retrospect. It should be pretty apparent to anyone who is not retarded.
So now you are insulting me for taking your seriously? You gave a direct numeric answer to a question. You were then embarrassed to realize the colossal statistical failure that you made and you felt the need to fabricate a pile of lies to cover it up. Insulting me isn't helping your cause any.
More importantly you seem to be trying desperately to change the subject away
Change the subject? No, I have been repeatedly pointing out how far from the subject you have strayed. We were talking about spam filters and you keep going back to lying about yourself instead.
You made some statements thinking they were pretty safe, but now you've been called out, and you want to just pretend you weren't.
Called out on what, exactly? You have provided far more evidence in support of my claims about your lack of education than you have in opposition to them.
And if we were to dare return to the original topic of discussion, we would find there is plenty of evidence on this very site that supports my original argument. It is not my problem if you can't be bothered to read it.
Despite producing a transcript, showing my major and degree, from the correct university, in the correct year month and year (June 2004), and with the same name as first name as my screen name, your position is that it must be fake, and you are so sure it's fake you don't even want to see it.
You claim to have it, yet have not shown it. Considering how large UCLA is, the chance of someone graduating in any given year with the first name Brian - particularly in a CSci program - is very very high.
I called your bluff a long time ago. Your own writing - in particular your logical and statistical failures - supports my claim and not yours.
And again, none of this is related to the topic of this thread. That you keep trying to drag this discussion back to being about you speaks volumes about you and your own insecurities - particularly when coupled to the giant mountains of lies you have created in this thread.
But this is exactly what I am saying. You took one comment I made (facetiously) , and extrapolated it out to mean that it is impossible I could have graduated from a particular school with a particular degree.
Funny, when you first made that statement you were confident of it. Now after I have pointed out - repeatedly - what a complete statistical failure that statement is, you are trying to pretend it was facetious. Even worse, you are trying to pretend that you actually know something about statistics - in spite of having already demonstrated the contrary.
Seriously, just quit lying and walk away. You should have done that days ago. You are only making yourself look more ridiculous as you keep making this thread about yourself instead of the topic it was actually started on. If you don't want to talk about the problems inherent to spam filters, go pester someone else. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not knowledgeable on the matter, you can either now go for an about-face and try to learn something relevant to this discussion, or you can just take your lying self elsewhere.
I understand that appointments to the SCOTUS are for life, but justices have resigned in the past. However, reading Scalia's dissent makes it sound like we are actually forcing him to sit there until he dies:
If, even as the price to be paid for
a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all
within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their
identity," I would hide my head in
a bag. The Supreme Court of the
United States has descended from
the disciplined legal reasoning of
John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the
fortune cookie.
You have a real knack for grasping onto some small detail, making a non-sensical deduction from it, and then sticking to it regardless of any subsequent evidence.
This is not a small detail. There is nothing minor about false positive rates in statistics. You didn't make a minor error in it either, you completely and utterly screwed up in a way that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would be embarrassed by. People who drop out of statistics after two weeks of instruction would know more about statistics than you have demonstrated.
You have no useful knowledge of statistics. If you did, you would not have made such a massive error. If by some fluke you made it but did know even a little about statistics, you would have long ago said something along the lines of "oops, I completely miscalculated FP because XYZ". Instead you tried to lie your way out of it. Eventually you were piling lies on top of lies in the hope of making your situation better.
you no doubt inappropriately infer to be a formal statistical claim
I asked you what your FP rate was. You gave me a number and said "FP is.5 per year". You were making a formal statistical claim. I then pointed out that your claim was a total failure of statistics and you tried to lie your way out of it.
You also demonstrated repeated failures in logic. Pretending that you could somehow complete a CSci degree without understanding statistics or logic is laughable.
Seriously, kid. Just quit lying, and walk away. You admitted defeat when you resorted to lying heavily and abandoned the topic of discussion completely. I don't want to talk about you, but you made the discussion about yourself entirely. Do you remember we were talking about spam and why spam filters won't ever solve the spam problem?
There are no physical stores that sell ThinkPad laptops that I know of. Every ThinkPad I have purchased in the past decade or so I have ordered through their website.
Though if they can make a new X300 and put it in ultrabook pricing, I would rush to their website to make it mine.
If the democrats had any better ideas, they SHOULD have put those into the bill and passed it.
I agree with you on that one. I have championed single payer for decades and was sorely disappointed with this giant corporate handout sold to us as "health care reform".
IF you think they bent to republican pressure and passed something they didn't like, then take it up with the democrats for not doing what they should have.
The democrats were indeed weak on this. They couldn't gather up the courage to write up something that actually resembled any kind of reform, let alone a liberal attempt at reform. They were told by republicans than they would get support from their side if it retained certain features from Romney's signature bill in MA; so they did that. Then the republicans realized that this bill was going to become Obama's signature accomplishment and did everything they could to undermine it.
No republicans where involved in writing it, they where not allowed to offer amendments to it or even debate it before it was passed on 100% partisan votes.
Except of course for the republicans who wrote the bill it was based on, or the republicans who said they would vote on it if it contained the same actions as that bill. Excluding also the republicans who wrote the Heritage Foundation piece saying that they wanted an individual mandate as well.
Also important to my previous comment is the contents of every single proposed "Obamacare alternative" that has been shown by an elected official. Every single one of those "alternative" proposals has taken the vast majority of its content directly from this bill. Some of them hardly do anything but change the name.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that in the modern era of flight, with high tech radio and navigation equipment, and modern weather forecasting, that solo flight isn't quite the feat it used to be. Not to say that this is easy, but it doesn't seem like it is the risky endeavour it used to be, either.
While you're at it, see the posts about AGW.
The key part of that acronym is the letter A - for anthropogenic. There are occasionally posts here on climate change, but very exceptionally rarely do we see any that tie it directly to human activity. Furthermore if we look at the comment sections in any of those articles - anthropogenic or not - we see the true voice of slashdot readers bends heavily to the right.
And finally, notice that at least once a week we see an anti-Obama - or generally anti-democrat - article on the front page here. How often do we see an anti-GOP article? Almost never. And I challenge you to show me an article that ever made the front page that dared to challenge Ron Paul on anything, ever.
Personally, I find /. to be center to center-left, depending on the subject.
I'm curious to know what subject you think that would be. Certainly not politics, science, economics, constitutional liberty, crime, taxes, religion, birth control, or education.
there is nothing voluntary about it
You can opt to not use a cell phone. There are other communication options. Civilization got along just fine for thousands of years without them, and will continue to go on without them.
ObamaPhone.com is not affiliated with any department of the US government, the FCC, or the Lifeline phone program
Did you not bother reading to the bottom of the page?
a drudge report myth
Weak troll. And citation needed.
How about this link, which is at the end of the article that is here on slashdot? It plainly states
the top link on the Drudge Report led to a YouTube video in which an Ohio woman said she's going to vote for President Obama because he gave her a phone.
...
If you're upset that Obama is giving "freeloaders" gratis cell phones paid for with your tax money, don't be. Firstly, Obama had nothing to do with the Lifeline program: the "Obama phone" narrative is a myth that both liberals and conservatives have fallen for since 2009. Secondly, Lifeline isn't paid for with tax revenues. Rather, Lifeline is funded with a pool of money, called the Universal Service Fund, which is paid for with revenue donations from telecommunications providers. Some of those providersâ"like Verizon, for instanceâ"pass off that cost to their customers with a Universal Service fee, but the government doesn't mandate that the money come from citizens, meaning it's technically not a tax.
...
It is sort of sad that the woman in Drudge's "Obama phone" video has no idea that her free cell phone has nothing to do with Obama. But conservatives who would try and hold her up as an example of a liberal president gone wild with handouts are just as sad and ignorant, and more cruel by a large margin.
It would appear the weak troll is you, who couldn't bother to follow the link that slashdot provided. The surprise here though is that slashdot is actually countering - rather than propagating - something from drudge report. The latter is far more the standard m.o. around here, especially when samzenpus is involved.
Indeed, touchpads suck - tremendously. Even the best of them have unintended problems. But you don't have to live in a touchpad-or-mouse world. ThinkPads still have trackpoint, and there are a few business-class laptops from other vendors (Dell and HP, I believe) that also have them available.
Frankly, if a PC game doesn't require a Sound Blaster 16 card and arrive on 25 floppy disks, then I don't want know.
Sounds rightfully 80s to me. Really, though, the most important line - at least, if it is true - comes later in the article:
if you already own a copy of either the Windows or Mac version of Retro City Rampage, you can pick up the new port for free.
It is generally counter to the conservative majority narrative here on slashdot to dare to disprove a drudge report myth. And considering the conservative FUD that samzenpus has posted to the front page in the past, this is highly out of character for him to point out that the "Obamaphone" program is neither government sponsored nor was it started under Obama.
Samzenpus, are you OK? Were you recently hit in the head or something?
You said what she doesn't want to do, but gave no indication of what she wants to do. There may be a not-terribly-difficult way to get from programming to what she wants to do, but without knowing what that is it is impossible to say.
It would have been quite hilarious had they instead hired former slashdot employee Pudge. I would have happily taken bets on how long that appointment would have lasted...
It is hard to reach your level of disconnection, for sure. You're not quite on the same level of conspiracy nuttery as some other people here, but your statements do require a certain amount of "X leads to Y leads to NWO".
That doesn't indicate that Lieberman was gunning for Iraq ahead of time. He was just looking for self-preservation, and knew that being the first to jump up and declare support would be good for that. You seem to be perhaps a little hazy in your memory of what unfolded in that time period, but some of us recall how the GOP used 9/11 as a way to initiate a witch hunt against anyone who didn't support every last foolish quest they asked for.
Lierberman is far from perfect, but what you cited does not support your argument as well as you wish it to, either.
he has never given indication of himself being a war-mongerer...
Picking Lieberman for VP says otherwise.
I'm not particularly a fan of Lieberman, but I don't recall hearing anything of him having held a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein either. If you have a reference to show that Lieberman was hankering specifically for a war with Iraq, please share.
On top of that, the Bush Jr. Administration set a new precedent for VP involvement - really more like VP dictation - of policy. Was there a reason to expect that Lieberman would have been driving the ship similarly? By contrast I haven't heard anyone claim that Biden is in control currently at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Gore would have had the same information Bush, Senator Clinton and 99.9% of the house did - and voted to do it.
You are whitewashing history with that line. The information that was given to Bush was hand-picked to support an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Some of those intelligence advisers were themselves hand-picked by the Bush administration. The Bush administration was furthermore willing to then take the shaky evidence - note that they were not afraid to take advice from someone code-named "curveball" by the CIA - and spin it to support their agenda.
Regardless of how much you hate Gore, he has never given indication of himself being a war-mongerer, nor did he have a personal score to settle with Saddam Hussein.
Could you imaging if that dumbass won?
I can imagine in. We would not have launched an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Evidently that would have been a terrible thing?
No special skills, knowledge or anything else remarkable
Wait, which 2000 POTUS candidate are you talking about now?
I understand that he is criticizing the rest of the court, and that he thinks that he is the smartest and most important man in the room. He has projected that arrogance for some time. At this point though he seems to have such disdain for the court that he seems to actually loathe the task assigned to him. Hence my point is that if it is that awful, he could just retire and go live somewhere else.
Microcenter is currently offering 13 Thinkpad models at its retail outlets.
Maybe the one near me is just specifically selected not to carry them, then. I haven't seen a recent (ie, not refurb) ThinkPad in there in years.
But seriously what are the odds that I am friends with that hypothetical person, and they let me use their transcript for this completely ridiculous purpose?
Much better than the odds of you passing a statistics course. Similarly, very high are the odds of a serial liar such as yourself having such documentation around to try to "support" you fact-free argument.
And this conversation is now over.
So you are a failure and a liar. But you established that several comments ago. Have a nice weekend, kid. Maybe some day you'll learn enough to realize how foolish you made yourself look here.
I don't have to pretend what I said was facetious in retrospect. It should be pretty apparent to anyone who is not retarded.
So now you are insulting me for taking your seriously? You gave a direct numeric answer to a question. You were then embarrassed to realize the colossal statistical failure that you made and you felt the need to fabricate a pile of lies to cover it up. Insulting me isn't helping your cause any.
More importantly you seem to be trying desperately to change the subject away
Change the subject? No, I have been repeatedly pointing out how far from the subject you have strayed. We were talking about spam filters and you keep going back to lying about yourself instead.
You made some statements thinking they were pretty safe, but now you've been called out, and you want to just pretend you weren't.
Called out on what, exactly? You have provided far more evidence in support of my claims about your lack of education than you have in opposition to them.
And if we were to dare return to the original topic of discussion, we would find there is plenty of evidence on this very site that supports my original argument. It is not my problem if you can't be bothered to read it.
Despite producing a transcript, showing my major and degree, from the correct university, in the correct year month and year (June 2004), and with the same name as first name as my screen name, your position is that it must be fake, and you are so sure it's fake you don't even want to see it.
You claim to have it, yet have not shown it. Considering how large UCLA is, the chance of someone graduating in any given year with the first name Brian - particularly in a CSci program - is very very high.
I called your bluff a long time ago. Your own writing - in particular your logical and statistical failures - supports my claim and not yours.
And again, none of this is related to the topic of this thread. That you keep trying to drag this discussion back to being about you speaks volumes about you and your own insecurities - particularly when coupled to the giant mountains of lies you have created in this thread.
But this is exactly what I am saying. You took one comment I made (facetiously) , and extrapolated it out to mean that it is impossible I could have graduated from a particular school with a particular degree.
Funny, when you first made that statement you were confident of it. Now after I have pointed out - repeatedly - what a complete statistical failure that statement is, you are trying to pretend it was facetious. Even worse, you are trying to pretend that you actually know something about statistics - in spite of having already demonstrated the contrary.
Seriously, just quit lying and walk away. You should have done that days ago. You are only making yourself look more ridiculous as you keep making this thread about yourself instead of the topic it was actually started on. If you don't want to talk about the problems inherent to spam filters, go pester someone else. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not knowledgeable on the matter, you can either now go for an about-face and try to learn something relevant to this discussion, or you can just take your lying self elsewhere.
Your choice, kid.
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
You have a real knack for grasping onto some small detail, making a non-sensical deduction from it, and then sticking to it regardless of any subsequent evidence.
This is not a small detail. There is nothing minor about false positive rates in statistics. You didn't make a minor error in it either, you completely and utterly screwed up in a way that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would be embarrassed by. People who drop out of statistics after two weeks of instruction would know more about statistics than you have demonstrated.
You have no useful knowledge of statistics. If you did, you would not have made such a massive error. If by some fluke you made it but did know even a little about statistics, you would have long ago said something along the lines of "oops, I completely miscalculated FP because XYZ". Instead you tried to lie your way out of it. Eventually you were piling lies on top of lies in the hope of making your situation better.
you no doubt inappropriately infer to be a formal statistical claim
I asked you what your FP rate was. You gave me a number and said "FP is .5 per year". You were making a formal statistical claim. I then pointed out that your claim was a total failure of statistics and you tried to lie your way out of it.
You also demonstrated repeated failures in logic. Pretending that you could somehow complete a CSci degree without understanding statistics or logic is laughable.
Seriously, kid. Just quit lying, and walk away. You admitted defeat when you resorted to lying heavily and abandoned the topic of discussion completely. I don't want to talk about you, but you made the discussion about yourself entirely. Do you remember we were talking about spam and why spam filters won't ever solve the spam problem?
There are no physical stores that sell ThinkPad laptops that I know of. Every ThinkPad I have purchased in the past decade or so I have ordered through their website.
Though if they can make a new X300 and put it in ultrabook pricing, I would rush to their website to make it mine.
A system of government that makes the people to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
Being as he was one of the unelected lawyers who selected our president in 2000, he apparently has no sense of irony.
If the democrats had any better ideas, they SHOULD have put those into the bill and passed it.
I agree with you on that one. I have championed single payer for decades and was sorely disappointed with this giant corporate handout sold to us as "health care reform".
IF you think they bent to republican pressure and passed something they didn't like, then take it up with the democrats for not doing what they should have.
The democrats were indeed weak on this. They couldn't gather up the courage to write up something that actually resembled any kind of reform, let alone a liberal attempt at reform. They were told by republicans than they would get support from their side if it retained certain features from Romney's signature bill in MA; so they did that. Then the republicans realized that this bill was going to become Obama's signature accomplishment and did everything they could to undermine it.
No republicans where involved in writing it, they where not allowed to offer amendments to it or even debate it before it was passed on 100% partisan votes.
Except of course for the republicans who wrote the bill it was based on, or the republicans who said they would vote on it if it contained the same actions as that bill. Excluding also the republicans who wrote the Heritage Foundation piece saying that they wanted an individual mandate as well.
Also important to my previous comment is the contents of every single proposed "Obamacare alternative" that has been shown by an elected official. Every single one of those "alternative" proposals has taken the vast majority of its content directly from this bill. Some of them hardly do anything but change the name.