Oh yeah, I know there's British celebrity trash too; their tabloids are crazy, but I simply happened to think of a piece of American celebrity trash first.:)
supposedly the program's not case-sensitive, but we're cautioned to do things in the right case, because who knows what it messes up? Also, cryptic transaction codes like SE38. How "VK32" translates as 'update price list', I'm not sure.:P
SAP-type systems seem like a promising concept that get f***ed up by all these details.
I don't like issues being magically painted "moral issue - not up for discussion !1!1" because of the stubbornness it entails, even if I lean *towards* (perhaps heavily towards) one side or another. All political issues should be up for discussion.
Granted, The Right tends to do the same stuff in the other direction, and with the healthcare reform debacle as a prime example, they seem less willing to compromise, so it skews things against the left when they don't match that.
I find Douglas Adams' following anti-religion quote as surprisingly apt regarding political arguments as well:
"Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it that we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything about...you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a [political] party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument, but no one feels aggreived by it. But on the other hand if somebody says, 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that'.
Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion on how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that's holy?... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say those things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow that they shouldn't be."
Not to mention appealing to the state's rights types as well...in your system, would the Feds simply recognize any civil union/marriage recognized by the couple's home state or something like that?
Contracts and private property can be used as an alternative to copyright, but how effectively can the requirements be passed down the chain (i.e. a clause in the contract with the retailer might say that they have to impose certain clauses on purchasers)? How would you legally get ahold of Iron Man 2 without agreeing to purchase contracts with a theater/DVD retailer, et cetera?
Maybe if it's a leak in the supply chain, you wouldn't be responsible but the content producer could hammer the leaker
Yet I can see how some straights would see that as watering down straight marriages in the name of equality. I don't really buy that, but I cna see how such an attitude would be out there. (read: 'you/we aren't quite as special anymore')
Yeah, homosexual civil unions seem like they'd be such an effective practical solution if both sides could calm down with their respective idealistic ideological sticking points
aristotle-dude's post is in part a prime example of the confusion that comes form the civil and religious definitions of marriage unfortunately having gotten intertwined
And here comes your presidential cheerleader now, so “disturbed” by the marriages in my home town [San Fran] that he’s got to take the tip top law in the land down scribble on it: “I hate homos, big bad frown.” Put it back up, be like “What? It’s better! Y’all were with me a second ago when I said that marriage was threatened! And it was! Under siege by these villains.
MC Frontalot, I Heart Fags Not talking about prop 8, but judging by context, the nerdcore icon is with ya.:)
(Simpsons - more time to play the lottery - Cha-Ching)
It *does* take time to play the lottery. I've been buying a few scratchoffs recently, and I often spend a little while in the convenience store in question when going through a batch. I have a rhyme and a reason for how I go about buying tickets - I hypothesize that different scratchoffs are not wholly independent trials, because they have to be machine-printed [pseudo-random], and the lottery has some rules and policies for how they spread out the winners and losers. I'm wondering if I can discern any useful patterns. (Conversely, the numbers draws are independent trials, not to mention that their prize pools are much more top-loaded to the few large winners, rather than spread out amongst minor prizes.) Stand back, I'm going to try science.
I wonder if I could get a research grant to fund initial analysis?:P My working capital is a stack of $1s.:)
Reminds me of my first economics teacher mentioning how free trade in part shifts the unemployment - variations in salary levels are a logical extension of that offhand statement.
* Not the instant equilibrium possessed by the ideal free market, but same idea in slo-mo.
Many Britons will probably take offense to this (perhaps including the surviving members of the aforementioned band - ironic, huh?), but in a way, really good artists/entertainers seem more productive/valuable than the figurehead royalty of a constitutional monarchy.
I often hit my stride as the deadline gets closer, but sometimes the deadline's close enough that I still don't have time even working at the accelerated pace.
I remember a simulation of the moth thing in middle school as one of those cut-and-dried science-class activities, and not getting the usual answer. Teacher was OK with that, gave an "it happens; doesn't *always* work" response, but +1 Interesting on your link.
Looking at http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa, the grammar is better than that, but I can actually feel some of the crazy. Admittedly, at 137 characters, that's mainly creative get-under-limit work, but I probably would have rewritten the message by the time i started doing that much character-cutting (though that's just me)
"Todd just told me our taxes paid for poisoning+torture of fishes, to try to "prove" evilution. G-d knows better! End DOE now!" char(125)
Come to think of it, here the printed timetables do indeed only refer to the major stops on the route. I'm not sure if the website interface tries to estimate the inbetween time for the smaller stops.
Libertarians as a degree of Republican dissenters is a subset of the issue for you, then? Granted, it's unbalanced when one party's delegation has more dissent than the others.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy for people to overrate the actual concern that stems from vivid rare events like the PayPal horror stories.
Oh yeah, I know there's British celebrity trash too; their tabloids are crazy, but I simply happened to think of a piece of American celebrity trash first. :)
supposedly the program's not case-sensitive, but we're cautioned to do things in the right case, because who knows what it messes up? :P
Also, cryptic transaction codes like SE38.
How "VK32" translates as 'update price list', I'm not sure.
SAP-type systems seem like a promising concept that get f***ed up by all these details.
I don't like issues being magically painted "moral issue - not up for discussion !1!1" because of the stubbornness it entails, even if I lean *towards* (perhaps heavily towards) one side or another. All political issues should be up for discussion.
Granted, The Right tends to do the same stuff in the other direction, and with the healthcare reform debacle as a prime example, they seem less willing to compromise, so it skews things against the left when they don't match that.
I find Douglas Adams' following anti-religion quote as surprisingly apt regarding political arguments as well:
"Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it that we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything about...you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a [political] party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument, but no one feels aggreived by it. But on the other hand if somebody says, 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that'.
Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion on how the Universe began, about who created the Universe ... no, that's holy? ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say those things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow that they shouldn't be."
Not to mention appealing to the state's rights types as well...in your system, would the Feds simply recognize any civil union/marriage recognized by the couple's home state or something like that?
Contracts and private property can be used as an alternative to copyright, but how effectively can the requirements be passed down the chain (i.e. a clause in the contract with the retailer might say that they have to impose certain clauses on purchasers)?
How would you legally get ahold of Iron Man 2 without agreeing to purchase contracts with a theater/DVD retailer, et cetera?
Maybe if it's a leak in the supply chain, you wouldn't be responsible but the content producer could hammer the leaker
Maybe my idea isn't perfect, but I see it as a reasonable compromise except amongst those unwilling to compromise. At least an intermediate step.
I like compromise as a practical reality; I don't like terminological nitpicking.
Yet I can see how some straights would see that as watering down straight marriages in the name of equality. I don't really buy that, but I cna see how such an attitude would be out there.
(read: 'you/we aren't quite as special anymore')
"Hardcoded German" is definitely one of the problems with Satan's Accounting Program. :P
I agree with you, but cracked.com can also be in the running.
Yeah, homosexual civil unions seem like they'd be such an effective practical solution if both sides could calm down with their respective idealistic ideological sticking points
aristotle-dude's post is in part a prime example of the confusion that comes form the civil and religious definitions of marriage unfortunately having gotten intertwined
And here comes your presidential cheerleader now,
so “disturbed” by the marriages in my home town [San Fran]
that he’s got to take the tip top law in the land down
scribble on it: “I hate homos, big bad frown.”
Put it back up, be like “What? It’s better!
Y’all were with me a second ago
when I said that marriage was threatened!
And it was! Under siege by these villains.
MC Frontalot, I Heart Fags :)
Not talking about prop 8, but judging by context, the nerdcore icon is with ya.
I'm not a Brit either...what I meant with that comment is that the Queen's importance seems mainly sentimental to some who are.
Granted, while I stand by my comment about the band, I'd rather have a dignified stateswoman than celebrity trash such as Paris Hilton.
However, does justified admiration for the person's work justify the stupidities of celebrity obsession?
I'm not Alex Jones either. :)
(I think one of the big problems with conspiracy theorists is that they tend to promulgate non-falsifiable concepts)
Anyhoo, even if I also doubt pre-attack collusion, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened and the powers that be decided to abuse it after the fact.
(Simpsons - more time to play the lottery - Cha-Ching)
It *does* take time to play the lottery.
I've been buying a few scratchoffs recently, and I often spend a little while in the convenience store in question when going through a batch.
I have a rhyme and a reason for how I go about buying tickets - I hypothesize that different scratchoffs are not wholly independent trials, because they have to be machine-printed [pseudo-random], and the lottery has some rules and policies for how they spread out the winners and losers. I'm wondering if I can discern any useful patterns. (Conversely, the numbers draws are independent trials, not to mention that their prize pools are much more top-loaded to the few large winners, rather than spread out amongst minor prizes.) Stand back, I'm going to try science.
I wonder if I could get a research grant to fund initial analysis? :P :)
My working capital is a stack of $1s.
Reminds me of my first economics teacher mentioning how free trade in part shifts the unemployment - variations in salary levels are a logical extension of that offhand statement.
* Not the instant equilibrium possessed by the ideal free market, but same idea in slo-mo.
Many Britons will probably take offense to this (perhaps including the surviving members of the aforementioned band - ironic, huh?), but in a way, really good artists/entertainers seem more productive/valuable than the figurehead royalty of a constitutional monarchy.
could you say the same of non-royal celebrities as well?
Perhaps they try to hold on to what little bit of privacy they have left.
I often hit my stride as the deadline gets closer, but sometimes the deadline's close enough that I still don't have time even working at the accelerated pace.
Come on, people, this isn't brain surgery...
I remember a simulation of the moth thing in middle school as one of those cut-and-dried science-class activities, and not getting the usual answer. Teacher was OK with that, gave an "it happens; doesn't *always* work" response, but +1 Interesting on your link.
Looking at http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa, the grammar is better than that, but I can actually feel some of the crazy.
Admittedly, at 137 characters, that's mainly creative get-under-limit work, but I probably would have rewritten the message by the time i started doing that much character-cutting (though that's just me)
"Todd just told me our taxes paid for poisoning+torture of fishes, to try to "prove" evilution. G-d knows better! End DOE now!"
char(125)
Come to think of it, here the printed timetables do indeed only refer to the major stops on the route. I'm not sure if the website interface tries to estimate the inbetween time for the smaller stops.
Libertarians as a degree of Republican dissenters is a subset of the issue for you, then?
Granted, it's unbalanced when one party's delegation has more dissent than the others.