Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression... poser cowboys
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
My, what a savage troll.
Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
And what's wrong with that? If we were continuously at the beck and call of the rest of the world, we'd no longer have our freedom. The US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that instead of bitching about it, maybe the other countries would try to notice the reasons why we are the most powerful.
Face it. If the opinion of the rest of the world mattered in American politics, the US would effectively be flushed down the toilet.
Fortunately, most MS hardware specs fail in the marketplace.
.NET isn't even able to save the pocketPC.
Re:Fear... Anger... Aggression
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.
He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack. I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.
George W. is a feared man. He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not. This is the reason for fear.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to aggression, aggression leads to the dark side. They fear him, they are angry with him, and now, albeit puny, they've aggressively "voted" against him.
It's amusing, though. The votes online are mostly from the US, where it's more likely that the web surfing learned are going to put in a vote for Kerry, and the untech people don't have that representation.
As long as the dems don't pass a law that makes it legal for non-citizens to vote, we'll be ok. Take everything else with a grain of salt, and a shrug of the shoulders. In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.
Except for the fact that Population is an integer number, not a percentage. You don't divide a population by anything. If you did, you'd be looking at something labelled "Population Density."
So, in effect:
4. Population: ~4,000,000,000
5. Pupulation Density: 0 in/mi^3
I'm talking about the unstable packages, not the stable ones. If your unstable packages create menu items, that's great. The ones I've installed haven't. Most notably MonoDevelop and newer versions of Eclipse.
In fact, Gentoo's stable mono package is still stuck around 0.28, when mono has already had a 1.0 release.
Yeah. I feel your pain. I run gentoo, and it doesn't properly create menu shortcuts for new applications either. I usually have to create launchers manually, then stick them in the menu.
For what it's worth, most user applications get a binary put into/usr/bin or/usr/sbin. You can usually create a launcher to the executable in those directories. Like the other responders, this is really just sloppy coding of the package creators. If it's a distro that has strict rules (Debian), you probably won't have a problem. If it is a distro like Gentoo, and you're installing ~x86 stuff, it's more than likely that you'll have to do some stuff on your own.
If you have many network drives mapped, your IE startup time will be killed. At least, mine is. I swear it establishes a connection with each folder before the window appears.
Except that when *we* decide to do something ourselves, it counts as the government. It isn't the federal government, it's more of the localized version, but it still is government... you know, of the people, by the people, for the people?
The problem is that people can't distinguish between the forms of government. There's nothing wrong with local governments being so&so large, because the locals have more control over what is going on. If things get to the federal level, people automatically have less control over what is going on.
The federal government is a bit too large, and shouldn't be. The local governments have been squashed by the states and feds a bit too much, and don't have enough power. Instead of having a set of united states, we have a large mass of controlled states. If the state, for instance, makes a law that takes away the rights of the local governments, it's bad. The state isn't completely in tune with all of it's residents, and can't possibly know what is best for them. When it gets closer to the local level, the residents know what is going on in the community, and what is best for that community.
If a company bitches and whines about a community enabling itself, I would tell it to go pound sand. If they truly wanted business in that area, they would go that extra step to provide the people with what they want. It's a market, and they aren't filling it properly. You can't blame the locals for that.
How very narrow minded of you for assuming a party for me based on my personal opinion.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make observations about an economy. Instead of having an original thought, I guess that I'm automatically a fan of the republicans./Sarcasm
that/. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters." Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era). We're just as arrogant as ever, we're just as whiny, and we still demand everything while giving nothing. It hasn't changed a bit.
So tell me. Why does it matter who we vote for? The American culture isn't going to change at all. We're still going to be just as damn greedy as we used to be. We won't be humanitarian much at all... just like we weren't really under Clinton.
The problem isn't the leaders that we elect, even though they are the easiest to blame. The problem is ourselves, and our reluctance to do anything about it.
I'm surprised that no one modded me as a troll, or that this wasn't flamebait.
You can all see by the replies, however, that it is the leftist portion of America that is extremely defensive and loud, while the other side remains silent. I prefer to be in the middle, but I can gaurrantee you that the Democrats would rather turn this country into a socialist heaven, which undermines the democratic nature of our government.
The original meaning of "Liberal" meant a mentality of "every man for himself" (a big whatever to the PC bullshit). Now, the modern day liberals have decided to take that name, and slap it on to some good ol Marxism. Screw the American ideal. Screw democracy too.
As for the eroding of democracy... The percentage that democrats get from welfare is vote generation from the poor. They hold them captive to their own greed, by giving crappy handouts in exchange for votes. This skews the democratic process immensely. Now, they want to allow non-citizens to vote.
Just the other side of your leftist BS coin.
I have more glowing ideas about the conservatives as well, and a definite view of the labelling of "Christian" to them, so don't just think that I'm picking on Democrats.
I'm doubtful if the fence-sitters would get divorced. They are the ones that are most sympathetic, I suppose. Then again, they'll sit on the fence when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to divorce.
A successful marriage depends upon a lot more than political thought, and I'd even venture that it doesn't even depend on political thought. Right, Left... whatever. I see little difference between the American parties, and the ones that I'd like to see are too undersupported.
For me, the most important thing in a marriage is religious faith. I won't marry a non-christian. I know many people, though, that are democrats and christian, as well as christian republicans.
The "marriage success rate" probably includes a number of drunken shot-gun marriages in Vegas too. The figure is most likely flawed.
I don't understand how this is informative. How the hell does party affiliation affect sexual prowess?
I can think of a republican who's been laid many more times than most people on/. combined (Arnold), and democrats that drink so much that they can't get it up (Kennedy.) It's complete bullshit.
Sexual prowess is good indicator of sexual prowess. Party affiliation is a good indication of... nothing. People choose parties for so many reasons that it's a joke. Most of them choose based on what union that they are in, or what job that they have, or what party their parents are, or their friends. It's a seldom occurance that people actually make an informed decision of what party to vote for.
Given the political bullshit that both parties are spewing, I doubt that most people in the US have a basis for an informed decision. The only thing that they are being given is: "He dodged the draft," and "he injured himself in a non-combat situation." As if either of these really give me an impression of how one or the other is going to do a job in the law-execution department.
After all, who was the sitting president who had information of 9/11, but willingly left his seat so that another could take the fall?
At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us. We'd also still be sitting ducks for Bin Laden. It's our capitalism and media that Osama hates and wants to destroy, and that would have been the same regardless of who sits in office.
That's amazing. I have lived quite a bit. I wouldn't put myself into the "geeky" or "kiddie" category.
I also never said that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. I do not have the ability to control other people's choices, which may or may not affect me negatively.
I also was not commenting on the negative/positive ramifications of choices. If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.
Perhaps it's the need to be contrary that fuels your fire. Things are fortunate and unfortunate. That's how it will always be. There is a right and a wrong, there is a correct and incorrect. There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.
I call BS on 9/11! It was done by someone who has been completely discredited in the academic community. Oh wait, he was never a part of that community.
Don't confuse conservatives with libertarians. They have similar political/economic views, but distinct and separate social views. Libertarians probably don't care if boobies show up on television. Conservatives would rather edit the words "mammary gland" from the dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
My, what a savage troll.
And what's wrong with that? If we were continuously at the beck and call of the rest of the world, we'd no longer have our freedom. The US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that instead of bitching about it, maybe the other countries would try to notice the reasons why we are the most powerful.
Face it. If the opinion of the rest of the world mattered in American politics, the US would effectively be flushed down the toilet.
The best part is when they asked "Do you ever listen to your fans' opinions about this?" And he says "No."
It's a pity that we feel this compulsion to shove money down Lucas's throat.
UPNP?
Fortunately, most MS hardware specs fail in the marketplace.
.NET isn't even able to save the pocketPC.
Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.
He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack. I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.
George W. is a feared man. He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not. This is the reason for fear.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to aggression, aggression leads to the dark side. They fear him, they are angry with him, and now, albeit puny, they've aggressively "voted" against him.
It's amusing, though. The votes online are mostly from the US, where it's more likely that the web surfing learned are going to put in a vote for Kerry, and the untech people don't have that representation.
As long as the dems don't pass a law that makes it legal for non-citizens to vote, we'll be ok. Take everything else with a grain of salt, and a shrug of the shoulders. In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.
Except for the fact that Population is an integer number, not a percentage. You don't divide a population by anything. If you did, you'd be looking at something labelled "Population Density."
So, in effect:
4. Population: ~4,000,000,000
5. Pupulation Density: 0 in/mi^3
I'm talking about the unstable packages, not the stable ones. If your unstable packages create menu items, that's great. The ones I've installed haven't. Most notably MonoDevelop and newer versions of Eclipse.
In fact, Gentoo's stable mono package is still stuck around 0.28, when mono has already had a 1.0 release.
Yeah. I feel your pain. I run gentoo, and it doesn't properly create menu shortcuts for new applications either. I usually have to create launchers manually, then stick them in the menu.
For what it's worth, most user applications get a binary put into /usr/bin or /usr/sbin. You can usually create a launcher to the executable in those directories. Like the other responders, this is really just sloppy coding of the package creators. If it's a distro that has strict rules (Debian), you probably won't have a problem. If it is a distro like Gentoo, and you're installing ~x86 stuff, it's more than likely that you'll have to do some stuff on your own.
heh.
If you have many network drives mapped, your IE startup time will be killed. At least, mine is. I swear it establishes a connection with each folder before the window appears.
FireFox, OTOH, starts up fairly quickly.
I use something called "Shift-1." It goes something like: jr;;p@ Jpe str upiZ.
Then again, it's probably not that bad of a scheme... it is sorta dependant on a key, after all.
Except this guy.
He used to wear an onion on his belt.
Not to mention that Gecko provides proper PNG support, as well as better / according-to-standards CSS support.
Except that when *we* decide to do something ourselves, it counts as the government. It isn't the federal government, it's more of the localized version, but it still is government... you know, of the people, by the people, for the people?
The problem is that people can't distinguish between the forms of government. There's nothing wrong with local governments being so&so large, because the locals have more control over what is going on. If things get to the federal level, people automatically have less control over what is going on.
The federal government is a bit too large, and shouldn't be. The local governments have been squashed by the states and feds a bit too much, and don't have enough power. Instead of having a set of united states, we have a large mass of controlled states. If the state, for instance, makes a law that takes away the rights of the local governments, it's bad. The state isn't completely in tune with all of it's residents, and can't possibly know what is best for them. When it gets closer to the local level, the residents know what is going on in the community, and what is best for that community.
If a company bitches and whines about a community enabling itself, I would tell it to go pound sand. If they truly wanted business in that area, they would go that extra step to provide the people with what they want. It's a market, and they aren't filling it properly. You can't blame the locals for that.
How very narrow minded of you for assuming a party for me based on my personal opinion.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make observations about an economy. Instead of having an original thought, I guess that I'm automatically a fan of the republicans. /Sarcasm
that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters." Our country is hardly different from where it was four years ago, except that we have an economy that has a firmer foundation than an extremely volatile bubble (which was put firmly into place by the economic policies of the Clinton era). We're just as arrogant as ever, we're just as whiny, and we still demand everything while giving nothing. It hasn't changed a bit.
So tell me. Why does it matter who we vote for? The American culture isn't going to change at all. We're still going to be just as damn greedy as we used to be. We won't be humanitarian much at all... just like we weren't really under Clinton.
The problem isn't the leaders that we elect, even though they are the easiest to blame. The problem is ourselves, and our reluctance to do anything about it.
I'm surprised that no one modded me as a troll, or that this wasn't flamebait.
You can all see by the replies, however, that it is the leftist portion of America that is extremely defensive and loud, while the other side remains silent. I prefer to be in the middle, but I can gaurrantee you that the Democrats would rather turn this country into a socialist heaven, which undermines the democratic nature of our government.
The original meaning of "Liberal" meant a mentality of "every man for himself" (a big whatever to the PC bullshit). Now, the modern day liberals have decided to take that name, and slap it on to some good ol Marxism. Screw the American ideal. Screw democracy too.
As for the eroding of democracy... The percentage that democrats get from welfare is vote generation from the poor. They hold them captive to their own greed, by giving crappy handouts in exchange for votes. This skews the democratic process immensely. Now, they want to allow non-citizens to vote.
Just the other side of your leftist BS coin.
I have more glowing ideas about the conservatives as well, and a definite view of the labelling of "Christian" to them, so don't just think that I'm picking on Democrats.
At least this is evidence that republican politicians are doing something. Heck, they are even attending.
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Then again, this whole story is basically a long-winded way of sayind "The system of checks and balances still works!"
I'm doubtful if the fence-sitters would get divorced. They are the ones that are most sympathetic, I suppose. Then again, they'll sit on the fence when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to divorce.
A successful marriage depends upon a lot more than political thought, and I'd even venture that it doesn't even depend on political thought. Right, Left... whatever. I see little difference between the American parties, and the ones that I'd like to see are too undersupported.
For me, the most important thing in a marriage is religious faith. I won't marry a non-christian. I know many people, though, that are democrats and christian, as well as christian republicans.
The "marriage success rate" probably includes a number of drunken shot-gun marriages in Vegas too. The figure is most likely flawed.
I don't understand how this is informative. How the hell does party affiliation affect sexual prowess?
I can think of a republican who's been laid many more times than most people on /. combined (Arnold), and democrats that drink so much that they can't get it up (Kennedy.) It's complete bullshit.
Sexual prowess is good indicator of sexual prowess. Party affiliation is a good indication of... nothing. People choose parties for so many reasons that it's a joke. Most of them choose based on what union that they are in, or what job that they have, or what party their parents are, or their friends. It's a seldom occurance that people actually make an informed decision of what party to vote for.
Given the political bullshit that both parties are spewing, I doubt that most people in the US have a basis for an informed decision. The only thing that they are being given is: "He dodged the draft," and "he injured himself in a non-combat situation." As if either of these really give me an impression of how one or the other is going to do a job in the law-execution department.
After all, who was the sitting president who had information of 9/11, but willingly left his seat so that another could take the fall?
At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us. We'd also still be sitting ducks for Bin Laden. It's our capitalism and media that Osama hates and wants to destroy, and that would have been the same regardless of who sits in office.
That's amazing. I have lived quite a bit. I wouldn't put myself into the "geeky" or "kiddie" category.
I also never said that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. I do not have the ability to control other people's choices, which may or may not affect me negatively.
I also was not commenting on the negative/positive ramifications of choices. If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.
Perhaps it's the need to be contrary that fuels your fire. Things are fortunate and unfortunate. That's how it will always be. There is a right and a wrong, there is a correct and incorrect. There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.
Yeah, I think it should be on TV too. I might even watch it. I sure wasn't going to contribute to his next movie by watching this one in the theaters.
I call BS on 9/11! It was done by someone who has been completely discredited in the academic community. Oh wait, he was never a part of that community.
Go blow smoke up someone else's ass.
Don't confuse conservatives with libertarians. They have similar political/economic views, but distinct and separate social views. Libertarians probably don't care if boobies show up on television. Conservatives would rather edit the words "mammary gland" from the dictionary.