I got a 400 dollar phone, with rebates and subsidies, for 39.99. One month of service, another 39.99, and the fee for canceling my contract (175) and I paid about $260 for a $400 phone.
Saying "All my friends are locked into contracts and have NO negotiating ability" is not accurate. Nothing I did is unusual or difficult, and in no way changes my ability to sign up for another plan, or get a per minute plan from one of the companies that offer them.
Either you don't know how easy it is to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto or you're vastly ignorant about how easy it is to operate a machine press.
Either way, the fact that people don't have access to full-auto weapons right now has absolutely no bearing on what would happen if a revolution broke out.
India got fucked longer and harder than the Middle East, but they didn't resort to the same kind of idiotic behavior. And look at India now.
Stop defending people who do horrible things just because they had horrible things done to them. It's been shown time and again that enlightened, civilized people can find a different way to stop getting fucked, regardless of how badly they were previously treated.
"you rock on with that ad hominem fixation, buddy."
Sucks to be reminded of what YOU said doesn't it?
"It's easy enough to prove me wrong."
Yes, you're typing. Proof indeed.
You didn't say a single thing in you original post that doesn't boil down to "FBI EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" and you're talking to me about lack of substance.
"I think you're a moron"
I am not your father, why would you think such a thing?
I said: "Now go ahead and reply with an insult, you can't help yourself."
You replied: "Crazy. You're fucked up crazy."
Thanks for proving me right again, it must be terrible for you to be someones puppet, completely and totally predictable because of your intellectual simplicity. Such a fun puppet.
"It's not that you're homosexual - there's nothing wrong with that."
No, it's that YOU said "dirty queerfantasies"
You're a bigot and a homophobe, and your failure to address that statement, and your repeated omission of it, proves me right. You said it, and are now trying to avoid admitting it, just like your kind always does.
Why should I bother, you assumed those who disagreed with you are morons. I think the only way that would be true is if they wasted time debating with you.
I know you like being hyperbolic, but it doesn't impress. It really only makes you look like exactly what you claim other are.
I said: "Now go ahead and reply with your vitriol, because you're so predictably warped and ill that you can't not respond."
You proved me right. Thanks
You said "I'll just comment on your.sig: Wherein I reply to someone's obscene homosexual fantasies..." by saying they "can't stop their dirty queer fantasies about me"
YOU said it, so why omit it in your "comment on my sig"?
"You're so obsessed with my snide agreement to do you that you've made it into your"
OR I'm so disgusted by your obvious bigotry that I think it should be remebered for as long as you continue to pretend it didn;t happen.
Lying by omission is still lying.
Now go ahead and reply with an insult, you can't help yourself.
You're he one who questioned my background. Don't be a twat about my answer when it was YOU who brought it up.
"As you are clearly speaking from zero experience"
YOU said that. YOU made the claim that I was speaking from "zero experience". YOU were wrong.
Save that appeal to authority shit for when you're actually right about it and not propping up a faulty argument based on your assumptions and misunderstandings.
How am I missing the point when it's you who restated exactly what I wrote?
I said: "The problem you seem to be having is that you're confusing the compulsion to behave in a certain way (the reflex) with the ability to physically perform the action."
To which your reply was: "Having a reflex is not the same as being able to perform a task that depends on that reflex."
Thanks for so clearly reinforcing my point by restating it nearly exactly, but what point do you think that proves I'm missing?
I have no idea why you decided to be such a twit in your reply, but telling me I'm wrong then repeating what I say doesn't go very far in proving your point. Unless your point is that you'll needlessly argue while being wrong, in which case, well done! Nicely proven!
"They most certainly do not have a reflex for breastfeeding...They have a reflex for suckling, which is not the same thing at all."
Read the link and see why you're wrong.
"As you are clearly speaking from zero experience"
I was independently responsible for feeding and caring for disabled newborns for 6 years. You are extremely presumptive for assuming like you did.
You are wrong about the rooting/sucking reflex, and you are wrong about me.
"because you didn't even bother to look up the correct article."
Ok let's see from MY link
"The Rooting Reflex assists in breastfeeding, and thus is present at birth"
"The sucking reflex seems to belong with the Rooting reflex. It is present before birth, and also aids in breastfeeding. It causes the child to instinctively begin to suck on anything that touches the roof of their mouth. This reflex is common to mammals, and specifically adapted to express milk through the breastfeeding process."
Hmm, seems you're wrong.
From YOUR link
"When babies' cheeks are stroked, the rooting instinct makes them move their face towards the stroking and open their mouth."
Hey look, YOUR ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME.
"then have a nice big glass of STFU on me."
Seems like you'll have a bigger need for that than me.
"I suggest you inform yourself before you talk to an actual girl."
I suggest that you stop arguing with someone who devoted 12 years to the discipline of caring for and feeding infants as ap profession. Or if you do, prepare yourself with correct information.
You're wrong about everything you said and you link proves me right.
If you're going to be a asshole like you were, being right about what you're discussing would help.
The problem you seem to be having is that you're confusing the compulsion to behave in a certain way (the reflex) with the ability to physically perform the action. The problems you describe are much more likely a result of the limited motor control of newborn infants.
"But really, I'm just full of it, and these are problems that no one has."
No, you're just confused.
The rooting reflex is very well established empirically.
"You might not get it, but I'm from NYC, and showing someone they're wrong is our national pasttime."
Yeah, but the rest of the world doesn't call what you do proving someone wrong, we call it throwing a tantrum and shutting down discussion.
Sadly for you, the rest of the world is right.
Now go ahead and reply with your vitriol, because you're so predictably warped and ill that you can't not respond. Will I be a Republican shill too (even though I've been registered and voted Democrat since I was legally able?) Will I be a Republitard because I think you're a vile disgusting human being and a bigot? Will I be a Republican stooge because I don't kowtow to your hamhanded childish attempts to verbally bully those who disagree with you, as a way of avoiding your inability to debate them effectively?
What insult do you plan to launch at me, someone who has never posted a single word about his political views, and is so far from being a Neo-con/Republican/Conservative that claiming so would cause those who know me to question your sanity?
"I believe that, if they abuse power, I have the ability to vote them out (trust me, people get very passionate when their healthcare program is threatened)."
In other words, you still show "Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality".
If they control your health care they control you. It's very easy to say "I'll vote them out" until they make your health care contingent upon something that prevents you from voting them out, or otherwise blunting their power.
And please don't say that won't happen. That level of naivety has no place in this discussion.
"Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality. It's truly bizarre, IMHO."
This coming from someone who trusts the government to provide efficient long term health care. What's that about power corrupts and something...
You genuinely believe that the government, once it has control of your health care, won't abuse the power? If so then it's you who is showing "Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality".
"Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent."
I'm skeptical. While this subject may be a pet cause for many slashdotters, I'd wager the number of people who consider it as a legitimate criterion for university selection is vanishingly small.
Keep in mind, many of the schools listed have a significant number of students that went there because they had to, not because they wanted to. The schools in my state recently began limiting incoming freshman enrollment because they simply didn't have room.
In light of that, the idea that schools will lose revenue because of this just doesn't seem realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
That you think "looks like a man" when you see a thin woman?
I think "hey she's thin" and you think "she looks like a dude". That says way more about your gay tendencies than mine.
"which is caused by a seratonin trigger that improperly dilates the blood vessels and causes intense pressure in the head"
What part of this is "non-physical"?
I got a 400 dollar phone, with rebates and subsidies, for 39.99. One month of service, another 39.99, and the fee for canceling my contract (175) and I paid about $260 for a $400 phone.
Saying "All my friends are locked into contracts and have NO negotiating ability" is not accurate. Nothing I did is unusual or difficult, and in no way changes my ability to sign up for another plan, or get a per minute plan from one of the companies that offer them.
I'm sorry, but this point is just stupid.
Either you don't know how easy it is to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto or you're vastly ignorant about how easy it is to operate a machine press.
Either way, the fact that people don't have access to full-auto weapons right now has absolutely no bearing on what would happen if a revolution broke out.
"If you have to resort to guerrilla insurgency, in the modern world it's quite questionable how much there is left to gain by the action."
Please list the time when an occupying force has successfully defeated a significant guerrilla insurgency.
Now list the times when a guerrilla insurgency has successfully defeated an occupying force.
You'll find, if you're honest and check the facts, that the second list is FAR FAR longer than the first.
So, your assertion that there is little to gain simply isn't supported by the facts.
India got fucked longer and harder than the Middle East, but they didn't resort to the same kind of idiotic behavior. And look at India now.
Stop defending people who do horrible things just because they had horrible things done to them. It's been shown time and again that enlightened, civilized people can find a different way to stop getting fucked, regardless of how badly they were previously treated.
"you rock on with that ad hominem fixation, buddy."
Sucks to be reminded of what YOU said doesn't it?
"It's easy enough to prove me wrong."
Yes, you're typing. Proof indeed.
You didn't say a single thing in you original post that doesn't boil down to "FBI EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" and you're talking to me about lack of substance.
"I think you're a moron"
I am not your father, why would you think such a thing?
I said: "Now go ahead and reply with an insult, you can't help yourself."
You replied: "Crazy. You're fucked up crazy."
Thanks for proving me right again, it must be terrible for you to be someones puppet, completely and totally predictable because of your intellectual simplicity. Such a fun puppet.
"It's not that you're homosexual - there's nothing wrong with that."
No, it's that YOU said "dirty queerfantasies"
You're a bigot and a homophobe, and your failure to address that statement, and your repeated omission of it, proves me right. You said it, and are now trying to avoid admitting it, just like your kind always does.
Now reply with another insult puppet.
Why should I bother, you assumed those who disagreed with you are morons. I think the only way that would be true is if they wasted time debating with you.
I know you like being hyperbolic, but it doesn't impress. It really only makes you look like exactly what you claim other are.
I said: "Now go ahead and reply with your vitriol, because you're so predictably warped and ill that you can't not respond."
.sig: Wherein I reply to someone's obscene homosexual fantasies..." by saying they "can't stop their dirty queer fantasies about me"
You proved me right. Thanks
You said "I'll just comment on your
YOU said it, so why omit it in your "comment on my sig"?
"You're so obsessed with my snide agreement to do you that you've made it into your"
OR I'm so disgusted by your obvious bigotry that I think it should be remebered for as long as you continue to pretend it didn;t happen.
Lying by omission is still lying.
Now go ahead and reply with an insult, you can't help yourself.
You're he one who questioned my background. Don't be a twat about my answer when it was YOU who brought it up.
"As you are clearly speaking from zero experience"
YOU said that. YOU made the claim that I was speaking from "zero experience". YOU were wrong.
Save that appeal to authority shit for when you're actually right about it and not propping up a faulty argument based on your assumptions and misunderstandings.
"Your claims that there are never problems with breastfeeding are trumped by tens of thousands of pages saying you're wrong."
I NEVER claimed that, nor anything that resembles that.
Post a quote or admit you were wrong.
"I call bullshit."
I don't care. It's clear now your contentiousness is the result of your limited reading ability, and not the subject at hand.
Please post a quote from m saying what you claim I said, or admit you were wrong and apologize.
How am I missing the point when it's you who restated exactly what I wrote?
I said: "The problem you seem to be having is that you're confusing the compulsion to behave in a certain way (the reflex) with the ability to physically perform the action."
To which your reply was: "Having a reflex is not the same as being able to perform a task that depends on that reflex."
Thanks for so clearly reinforcing my point by restating it nearly exactly, but what point do you think that proves I'm missing?
I have no idea why you decided to be such a twit in your reply, but telling me I'm wrong then repeating what I say doesn't go very far in proving your point. Unless your point is that you'll needlessly argue while being wrong, in which case, well done! Nicely proven!
"I think the previous poster expects that you have the same context the rest of us do... we're alive, we can read, and we're not morons."
Except only two of those things are true for you.
You are alive and literate right? Then two it is.
In other words, you want to openly bitch like a child while simultaneously ignoring the fact that they folowed procedure.
I guess it's a good thing I don't give two shits what idiots like you think.
I'm only playing at it, you're serious.
"They most certainly do not have a reflex for breastfeeding...They have a reflex for suckling, which is not the same thing at all."
Read the link and see why you're wrong.
"As you are clearly speaking from zero experience"
I was independently responsible for feeding and caring for disabled newborns for 6 years. You are extremely presumptive for assuming like you did.
You are wrong about the rooting/sucking reflex, and you are wrong about me.
"because you didn't even bother to look up the correct article."
Ok let's see from MY link
"The Rooting Reflex assists in breastfeeding, and thus is present at birth"
"The sucking reflex seems to belong with the Rooting reflex. It is present before birth, and also aids in breastfeeding. It causes the child to instinctively begin to suck on anything that touches the roof of their mouth. This reflex is common to mammals, and specifically adapted to express milk through the breastfeeding process."
Hmm, seems you're wrong.
From YOUR link
"When babies' cheeks are stroked, the rooting instinct makes them move their face towards the stroking and open their mouth."
Hey look, YOUR ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME.
"then have a nice big glass of STFU on me."
Seems like you'll have a bigger need for that than me.
"I suggest you inform yourself before you talk to an actual girl."
I suggest that you stop arguing with someone who devoted 12 years to the discipline of caring for and feeding infants as ap profession. Or if you do, prepare yourself with correct information.
You're wrong about everything you said and you link proves me right.
If you're going to be a asshole like you were, being right about what you're discussing would help.
But you weren't so fuck off.
If you think AMX > Crestron.
I told some of our designers what you said, and their derision is not something I can share in mixed company.
Having installed and programmed both systems myself, I have to say, I agree with them.
Babies most certainly do have a reflex for breastfeeding.
n g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucking_reflex#Rooti
The problem you seem to be having is that you're confusing the compulsion to behave in a certain way (the reflex) with the ability to physically perform the action. The problems you describe are much more likely a result of the limited motor control of newborn infants.
"But really, I'm just full of it, and these are problems that no one has."
No, you're just confused.
The rooting reflex is very well established empirically.
"You might not get it, but I'm from NYC, and showing someone they're wrong is our national pasttime."
Yeah, but the rest of the world doesn't call what you do proving someone wrong, we call it throwing a tantrum and shutting down discussion.
Sadly for you, the rest of the world is right.
Now go ahead and reply with your vitriol, because you're so predictably warped and ill that you can't not respond. Will I be a Republican shill too (even though I've been registered and voted Democrat since I was legally able?) Will I be a Republitard because I think you're a vile disgusting human being and a bigot? Will I be a Republican stooge because I don't kowtow to your hamhanded childish attempts to verbally bully those who disagree with you, as a way of avoiding your inability to debate them effectively?
What insult do you plan to launch at me, someone who has never posted a single word about his political views, and is so far from being a Neo-con/Republican/Conservative that claiming so would cause those who know me to question your sanity?
I can't wait.
"I believe that, if they abuse power, I have the ability to vote them out (trust me, people get very passionate when their healthcare program is threatened)."
In other words, you still show "Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality".
If they control your health care they control you. It's very easy to say "I'll vote them out" until they make your health care contingent upon something that prevents you from voting them out, or otherwise blunting their power.
And please don't say that won't happen. That level of naivety has no place in this discussion.
"Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality. It's truly bizarre, IMHO."
This coming from someone who trusts the government to provide efficient long term health care. What's that about power corrupts and something...
You genuinely believe that the government, once it has control of your health care, won't abuse the power? If so then it's you who is showing "Complete blindness to the realities of humanity, instead favouring an idealism that is clearly at odds with reality".
"Throwing their own students in front of the RIAA bus would only lose them potential (and maybe current) students, and all the revenue they represent."
I'm skeptical. While this subject may be a pet cause for many slashdotters, I'd wager the number of people who consider it as a legitimate criterion for university selection is vanishingly small.
Keep in mind, many of the schools listed have a significant number of students that went there because they had to, not because they wanted to. The schools in my state recently began limiting incoming freshman enrollment because they simply didn't have room.
In light of that, the idea that schools will lose revenue because of this just doesn't seem realistic.
Has a suitable long term solution for archiving data been developed?
But then the Constitution itself just a list of formalities by your standard. Your point makes no sense.