Now that joke was funny. Macabre, but funny. We're well beyond the "too soon" period, so I think people should lighten up a bit. As a species we need to be able to laugh, however wryly, about our mortality sometimes.
My wife sometimes forgets who she's talking about and makes 'your mom' jokes about our kids. Then stammers for a bit when she realizes that would be her. Seriously.
You and the poster above you are very, very naive about the role of "Westerners" (really just bai ren, white people, Latinos not so much because Asians think they're like the diaosi of Westerners) in East Asian businesses, especially mainland Chinese. It's often not about talent at all, it's about the company's image. Having a 'white guy' on your staff is 'impressive', so much so that there are 'rent a white guy' services in China for business affairs where you want to impress but don't want a full time 'white guy' just hanging around on the payroll.
Written like a real cultist idiot. All the hardware Apple uses is available in OEM form for less money. They don't have some sort of magical fairy dust that makes Intel processors better, despite what the Apple Tax apologist advertising they've run might claim otherwise.
I have open carried plenty in Virginia, never had any problem with law enforcement, most of whom are properly trained and will usually tell whiny people that it's legal and they should mind their own business. Virginia is awesome that way, but where the rest of the benighted country is concerned law enforcement is still generally accommodating since groups like opencarry.org have been organizing people to reestablish their rights. This has catalyzed a few court cases, and where the law is on the carriers' side it ends up making the agencies look bad and costs said agencies money too, so they straighten up and fly right usually after a couple of such burns. (And thanks to a supportive community, the pay to play aspect of our legal system is frequently collectively defrayed.)
I love how you ask for citation, then say that some unspecified, unsourced, vaguely referenced "data" suggests otherwise. Alright, pot, how about you pony up a citation yourself, and maybe then the kettle can be arsed to dig up things as simple as FBI's uniform crime stats or whatever for your lazy, ignorant ass.
And I'd love it if you dug up some nonsense by the hyper-biased VPC. Then I could lay bare their intellectually dishonest methodologies borne of pure desperation for maximum numbers. They're so whacko they actually called Tamarlan Tsarnaev a "victim of gun violence" because he was shot by police. (Or it was Bloomberg. One or the other.)
Did you miss the part where I noted that many states' open carry is predicated on concealed carry? As in, since I apparently have to spell it out for you, "if you have a concealed carry license you can then open carry because of it, but not before". How much more the opposite could reality be from what you said? And most everywhere else, open carry is valid by default and coexists with concealed carry. So, for something like 80+% of the country, you either can open carry BECAUSE OF concealed carry laws/licenses, or IRRESPECTIVE of concealed carry laws/licenses. This demonstrates clearly that "the point of most states' concealed carry laws" is nothing at all to do with restricting open carry. You really should just admit you were ignorant.
Also saying "open carry laws" is further ignorant, since often open carry is often not so much legal as "not illegal" because there are no laws, just as should be the case. It's usually only in cases of reform, such as Mississippi's recent laws, that open carry is possible because of a specific law rather than the simple absence of law.
This is why it's important to restore the Constitution as much as possible and enable "Constitutional carry" as Vermont has always had and Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and Wyoming have resumed. If you're not a criminal, you can carry whatever/however you want, no permission slip required.
Wow, look at that, a perfectly preserved example of uniformed, ahistorical nonsense intended to provoke smug feelings in other uniformed persons with no historical knowledge. Please note, today's gun controlled cities have a dozen times more crime than the "Wild West" ever had. Stop parroting things and do at least some cursory research.
"Most states" says the person who clearly knows very little about states' firearms laws. Open carry is legal throughout most of the US, in many (but not most) cases predicated on having a concealed carry license/permit.
Concealed carry is now the norm in more than 80% of the United States, and in every case, every case without exception, violent crime has either decreased or remained the same after concealed carry laws went into effect. There is nothing "out there" about it.
Remember kids, when it supports ecofascism, it's climate, when it supports skepticism, it's weather. When a huge storm does a ton of damage, don't go thinking that's just weather, it's climate change, boogah boogah! But when temperature delta flatlines for years, don't go thinking that's climate, it's just weather. Yay! (Political) "science"!
(I'm so glad I have more karma than Ghandi. Bring on the downmods fascists!)
Actually, if you were serious about acting against a particular target, then finding out the methods, timing, degree, and flexibility of their response is indeed important, especially if your own resources are particularly limited or if the location is inimical to withdrawal (which actually could be used for a secondary attack against responders, depending on the outcome of the "test" attack). These sorts of things are not nearly so straightforward or intuitive as you imagine. They're not called "strategy" and "tactics" without a reason.
Several teams of terrorists hijacked four different planes on the same day, and that was when the internet wasn't even really involved. It's only a matter of time before somebody organizes a hostile flash mob, though I doubt something as intelligent as utility infrastructure will be the first target. It will probably be some political flashpoint.
"Hey, I have an idea, let's take concepts, deliberately misunderstand and exaggerate them, and then the person who created the concepts will look stupid!
Oh, wait, that's a dumb idea, because we'll end up looking like the stupid ones."
That is the conversation you should have had with yourself before you posted.
In the excerpt one of the chars expresses a begrudged acceptance of the 'gels' because they haven't 'fucked up' which is not, despite the anecdote which precedes the opinion, exclusive to fatalities. The responding party understands this, because he's not a total idiot, and says that he wishes the 'gels' made some kind of mistakes (again, with NO exclusivity to fatalities as you ridiculously assert in your summation).
Make me wonder how people like those in these comments ever passed verbal standardized tests. Reading comprehension is negligible and it seems even actively avoided.
Apparently YOUR reading comprehension isn't so great, since you were replying to where I had just already addressed it in the context of a joke, and you're making claims about me without demonstrating any basis even abstractly.
Nor was I "backing off" of anything, I merely dealt with how the possibility of it being a joke did not ultimately make the scenarios (plural) redeemable, and furthermore we'll never know what would have happened if the conditions had been met, eh?
You misunderstood my antecedent, I'm talking about evaluating character by proxy, how people evaluate others is itself a dimension for how they themselves can and should be judged.
And joke or not, it's a pattern (i.e. done more than once) of very irresponsible and tasteless behavior to pretend to offer bulk sexual favors in exchange for political action.
Somebody who is a bad judge of character where it is most important is most likely either a) deficient of character themselves or b) dangerously/irresponsibly naive/gullible. Neither is a quality I want in somebody acting as an intermediary for millions of dollars. Quite frankly it's only the responsibility factor that makes it even important to me. If I was just casually interacting with somebody who had a crazy s/o, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. However I wouldn't want them to be, for instance, my business partner for the reason outlined above.
What I say is not bullshit. The guy's s/o is Tania Derveaux and her 'antics' are well recorded. I have a hard time trusting somebody who gets into a serious relationship with a person on record as trying to buy votes with blowjobs. (Even if that's potentially more honest and ethical than most political behavior.)
I don't know that I would trust this guy. At least Child's Play has an established record, and they've raised $17 million since inception.
Also this guy's s/o is way out there... she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate, and offered to take the virginity of any neckbeard who 'defended net neutrality'.
I think the only reason this has gained any significant traction is the "reward" people get for "donating". Though really all that means is that it's the game publishers who are donating, and the people buying games are just buying games. So... congrats? I guess it's better to buy from a charity than Walmart, but still, given the background of these people I wouldn't be surprised if some scandal emerged eventually.
Somebody call the Waaahmbulance. Some guy who hates libertarians and loves statism unsurprisingly also hates an option for trading value that states can't really control. Cry me a river. Oh well, luckily the whole system is fire and forget, decentralized and independent. Unstoppable no matter how much anybody stamps and whines.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that joke was funny. Macabre, but funny. We're well beyond the "too soon" period, so I think people should lighten up a bit. As a species we need to be able to laugh, however wryly, about our mortality sometimes.
My wife sometimes forgets who she's talking about and makes 'your mom' jokes about our kids. Then stammers for a bit when she realizes that would be her. Seriously.
I would prefer a one way ticket to midnight.
Irish Ted Stevens. Needs more tubes.
You and the poster above you are very, very naive about the role of "Westerners" (really just bai ren, white people, Latinos not so much because Asians think they're like the diaosi of Westerners) in East Asian businesses, especially mainland Chinese. It's often not about talent at all, it's about the company's image. Having a 'white guy' on your staff is 'impressive', so much so that there are 'rent a white guy' services in China for business affairs where you want to impress but don't want a full time 'white guy' just hanging around on the payroll.
Written like a real cultist idiot. All the hardware Apple uses is available in OEM form for less money. They don't have some sort of magical fairy dust that makes Intel processors better, despite what the Apple Tax apologist advertising they've run might claim otherwise.
There are a lot of OEMs, dawg. Clevo, Uniwill, Compal, Arima, MSI, etc. Those are just what immediately spring to mind.
I have open carried plenty in Virginia, never had any problem with law enforcement, most of whom are properly trained and will usually tell whiny people that it's legal and they should mind their own business. Virginia is awesome that way, but where the rest of the benighted country is concerned law enforcement is still generally accommodating since groups like opencarry.org have been organizing people to reestablish their rights. This has catalyzed a few court cases, and where the law is on the carriers' side it ends up making the agencies look bad and costs said agencies money too, so they straighten up and fly right usually after a couple of such burns. (And thanks to a supportive community, the pay to play aspect of our legal system is frequently collectively defrayed.)
I love how you ask for citation, then say that some unspecified, unsourced, vaguely referenced "data" suggests otherwise. Alright, pot, how about you pony up a citation yourself, and maybe then the kettle can be arsed to dig up things as simple as FBI's uniform crime stats or whatever for your lazy, ignorant ass.
And I'd love it if you dug up some nonsense by the hyper-biased VPC. Then I could lay bare their intellectually dishonest methodologies borne of pure desperation for maximum numbers. They're so whacko they actually called Tamarlan Tsarnaev a "victim of gun violence" because he was shot by police. (Or it was Bloomberg. One or the other.)
Did you miss the part where I noted that many states' open carry is predicated on concealed carry? As in, since I apparently have to spell it out for you, "if you have a concealed carry license you can then open carry because of it, but not before". How much more the opposite could reality be from what you said? And most everywhere else, open carry is valid by default and coexists with concealed carry. So, for something like 80+% of the country, you either can open carry BECAUSE OF concealed carry laws/licenses, or IRRESPECTIVE of concealed carry laws/licenses. This demonstrates clearly that "the point of most states' concealed carry laws" is nothing at all to do with restricting open carry. You really should just admit you were ignorant.
Also saying "open carry laws" is further ignorant, since often open carry is often not so much legal as "not illegal" because there are no laws, just as should be the case. It's usually only in cases of reform, such as Mississippi's recent laws, that open carry is possible because of a specific law rather than the simple absence of law.
This is why it's important to restore the Constitution as much as possible and enable "Constitutional carry" as Vermont has always had and Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and Wyoming have resumed. If you're not a criminal, you can carry whatever/however you want, no permission slip required.
Wow, look at that, a perfectly preserved example of uniformed, ahistorical nonsense intended to provoke smug feelings in other uniformed persons with no historical knowledge. Please note, today's gun controlled cities have a dozen times more crime than the "Wild West" ever had. Stop parroting things and do at least some cursory research.
"Most states" says the person who clearly knows very little about states' firearms laws. Open carry is legal throughout most of the US, in many (but not most) cases predicated on having a concealed carry license/permit.
Concealed carry is now the norm in more than 80% of the United States, and in every case, every case without exception, violent crime has either decreased or remained the same after concealed carry laws went into effect. There is nothing "out there" about it.
Remember kids, when it supports ecofascism, it's climate, when it supports skepticism, it's weather. When a huge storm does a ton of damage, don't go thinking that's just weather, it's climate change, boogah boogah! But when temperature delta flatlines for years, don't go thinking that's climate, it's just weather. Yay! (Political) "science"!
(I'm so glad I have more karma than Ghandi. Bring on the downmods fascists!)
Actually, if you were serious about acting against a particular target, then finding out the methods, timing, degree, and flexibility of their response is indeed important, especially if your own resources are particularly limited or if the location is inimical to withdrawal (which actually could be used for a secondary attack against responders, depending on the outcome of the "test" attack). These sorts of things are not nearly so straightforward or intuitive as you imagine. They're not called "strategy" and "tactics" without a reason.
Several teams of terrorists hijacked four different planes on the same day, and that was when the internet wasn't even really involved. It's only a matter of time before somebody organizes a hostile flash mob, though I doubt something as intelligent as utility infrastructure will be the first target. It will probably be some political flashpoint.
"Hey, I have an idea, let's take concepts, deliberately misunderstand and exaggerate them, and then the person who created the concepts will look stupid!
Oh, wait, that's a dumb idea, because we'll end up looking like the stupid ones."
That is the conversation you should have had with yourself before you posted.
In the excerpt one of the chars expresses a begrudged acceptance of the 'gels' because they haven't 'fucked up' which is not, despite the anecdote which precedes the opinion, exclusive to fatalities. The responding party understands this, because he's not a total idiot, and says that he wishes the 'gels' made some kind of mistakes (again, with NO exclusivity to fatalities as you ridiculously assert in your summation).
Make me wonder how people like those in these comments ever passed verbal standardized tests. Reading comprehension is negligible and it seems even actively avoided.
Apparently YOUR reading comprehension isn't so great, since you were replying to where I had just already addressed it in the context of a joke, and you're making claims about me without demonstrating any basis even abstractly.
Nor was I "backing off" of anything, I merely dealt with how the possibility of it being a joke did not ultimately make the scenarios (plural) redeemable, and furthermore we'll never know what would have happened if the conditions had been met, eh?
That ok. Thank you for money. (Signed) China Dictated but not read.
You misunderstood my antecedent, I'm talking about evaluating character by proxy, how people evaluate others is itself a dimension for how they themselves can and should be judged.
And joke or not, it's a pattern (i.e. done more than once) of very irresponsible and tasteless behavior to pretend to offer bulk sexual favors in exchange for political action.
Somebody who is a bad judge of character where it is most important is most likely either a) deficient of character themselves or b) dangerously/irresponsibly naive/gullible. Neither is a quality I want in somebody acting as an intermediary for millions of dollars. Quite frankly it's only the responsibility factor that makes it even important to me. If I was just casually interacting with somebody who had a crazy s/o, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. However I wouldn't want them to be, for instance, my business partner for the reason outlined above.
What I say is not bullshit. The guy's s/o is Tania Derveaux and her 'antics' are well recorded. I have a hard time trusting somebody who gets into a serious relationship with a person on record as trying to buy votes with blowjobs. (Even if that's potentially more honest and ethical than most political behavior.)
I don't know that I would trust this guy. At least Child's Play has an established record, and they've raised $17 million since inception.
Also this guy's s/o is way out there... she tried to trade BJs for votes to get elected to the Belgian senate, and offered to take the virginity of any neckbeard who 'defended net neutrality'.
I think the only reason this has gained any significant traction is the "reward" people get for "donating". Though really all that means is that it's the game publishers who are donating, and the people buying games are just buying games. So... congrats? I guess it's better to buy from a charity than Walmart, but still, given the background of these people I wouldn't be surprised if some scandal emerged eventually.
Somebody call the Waaahmbulance. Some guy who hates libertarians and loves statism unsurprisingly also hates an option for trading value that states can't really control. Cry me a river. Oh well, luckily the whole system is fire and forget, decentralized and independent. Unstoppable no matter how much anybody stamps and whines.