Sounds like fun. Yes, but what they don't show are the penis shaped "safety devices" that you must shove up your ass before using the device. And the penis shaped steering device that you control with your mouth.
The GP was not humorous. It was simply insulting, and in a completely derivative way. It's like the whole Clinton blowjob thing, it's been done to death, okay? Yes, we get it, you think people who believe in global warming are stupid.
1.) Earth is warming much, much faster than other planets.
2.) Venus isn't warming.
3.) The amount of warming on Earth can not be explained by increased solar activity.
4.) The fact is not unknown, it is accounted for, and this fact is what is not known by idiot deniers.
5.) The discrepancy between earthly warming and extraterrestrial warming is glossed over entirely by deniers because it would "damage the cause."
You have obviously already made up your mind about global warming, and no amount of evidence will sway you. Your biased mindset causes you to jump down the throat of anyone who presents an opinion different than yours. It also causes you to think that juvenile insults and cheap shots are "humorous."
You implied that anyone who believes in anthropogenic global warming must be stupid enough to think it could affect Jupiter as well. And that everyone who believes in AGW must be a Bush basher.
Very clever, and such a perfect example of the unbiased and scientific mindset of deniers everywhere. No one has ever thought of putting it quite like that before. You must be so proud of yourself.
Well, he's a twit, but that was still no reason for me to go off on him. Honestly I was just frustrated because I was in the middle of a hairy VM ESX upgrade that should have been a piece of cake. VMWare support is hit or miss, and the problem probably boils down to the fact that our SAN is flaky because I work for the state and apparently no one taught anyone there how to run fiber. Just because it has a freakin' strain relief and it comes pre made doesn't mean you can hang it to the floor and tangle it up in other cables.
That is an oversimplification. As one example, supermarkets in poor areas usually charge more than in rich areas because people in rich areas have more options. Also for the same reason, supermarkets in poor areas charge more at the register than the marked price more frequently.
Some types of goods are not voluntary purchases. Food, for instance. You can't go without it, so you have to buy it at whatever price it is available. If everyone in your area refuses to sell you food at a reasonable price, as often happens in company towns, then you are being taken advantage of.
Not only does money make it easier to game the market system, having less money means you have fewer options for dealing with people screwing you over.
In theory, you are right, every transaction is voluntary. But in practice, your theory is wrong, and an unregulated free market supports and encourages tyranny, and takes away freedoms. Not for everyone, certainly it gives more freedom to some. And I'm not suggesting its a zero sum game, either. Options are created which weren't there before.
What I specifically dispute is the idea that all trade is inherently fair. I dispute the idea that money can not be used to manipulate the market creating unfair conditions. I dispute that the market is prefect and has no failure modes.
I also dispute that negative freedoms are the highest goal of society. I believe that it is worthwhile to trade a few negative freedoms for positive freedoms, but I guess that is the defining divide between social and individualist anarchism, isn't it?
She also had this little rubber cup that she stuck up her twat. She used it to catch her blood during her time of the month. No lie, she fertilized her garden with it. Gotta love hippie chicks.
Wrong. If everyone agrees to elect others to act in their place, then it isn't authoritarian because it is agreed upon by all. But you don't get to pick and choose, you agree to play by those rules or you don't. You don't get to agree to do it that way and then reneg when you don't like the agreement. But that's still not authoritarian, it's a simple matter of contract.
Of course, there are other options besides "unregulated market" and "put the good people in charge." Such as direct democracy, or consensus based systems for decision making; and economic systems such as the Mondragon collective uses. But if you want to try to pigeonhole me as a closet authoritarian, have fun.
Damn it, it can be so hard to count your money with one hand while covering your ass with the other. Sort of like talking out of both sides of your mouth, it takes practice.
As you are obviously amazingly simple minded, allow me to explain the meaning of my post: you are a histrionic idiot. Or, in more detail: you have redefined the word "fair" in order to attempt to make some kind of inane point.
Let me clarify for your tiny monkey brain. When your intellectual superiors talk about fairness, they can mean a lot of things, only one of which is equality of opportunity, which is what you have focused on. And you have seized on a particularly negative form of equality of outcome, which amounts to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Which is unbelievably stupid and unrealistic when there are so many better ways of achieving equality of outcome, assuming that's what you want to do.
Not everyone defines equality of outcome as fair. Some people think it's unfair. Some people think equality of opportunity is more fair. But all this is clearly beyond the mind of someone like you, who is only capable of seeing the world in black and white simplicities. Which is why I didn't bother including any content in my first post, as anything of sufficient intelligence is clearly beyond your capacity to comprehend.
Utopia is not an option. On the other hand, free markets and private property limit the negative effects of greed and turn it into a positive externality. Prove it. From what I've seen, free markets allow greedy and selfish people to accumulate more money than cooperative people. Money is force. With enough money, one can manipulate markets. This allows the greedy to attack the rest of us economically, to force us into servitude.
By encouraging greed and discouraging cooperation, a free market system ensures that everyone will have to act in a greedy and selfish fashion in order not to be taken advantage of by the greedy and selfish.
Wow, what a tottering tower of misinterpretation, unfounded assumptions and bogus straw men. I don't even know where to start wading through this pile of horse shit, so I'm not even going to try. You've been reading too much Phillip Dick, haven't you?
All I'll say is, you have a pretty fucked up definition of fair.
I'd amend that as "as long as there are those who are both greedy and short sighted there will never be utopia." Enlightened self interest usually coincides with everyone else's self interest.
Enlightenment aside, human nature is not static. We have several stable states, selfishness being one of them. In a society that encourages selfishness, does not allow the common person the ability to easily punish unfairness. If everyone around you is being selfish, chances are you will be, too, because you have to, or be taken advantage of. But if everyone around you is being cooperative, you most likely will act that way, too. So human society has an impact on human nature. Which is the point of utopias.
I had a girlfriend for a couple years who was quite adept at peeing standing up. She'd just spread her lips with two fingers and kinda arch her hips forward. She could even manage a fair bit of accuracy and distance. Although she would only try it while wearing a dress because of the dribble problem.
As for the funnel/hose idea, well, it's been around for a while. I think they called it "Le funnel" or something.
Tasmanian Tigers were marsupials. Dingos are dogs brought to the islands by seafarers withing the last 5,000 years or so. Dingos and Tassie Tigers are about as non closely related as two mammals can be.
In that case why don't they bloody bring something useful like the Steller Cow. Cows that can graze on the sun? That IS useful! I suppose they must be nocturnal, you know, so they don't get burnt up.
I believe the damage we are talking about is micro-fractures that would be filled in with self healing goo. I think that the issue is more materials fatigue than macro scale damage.
Well, you lose your bet, been over five minutes and no anti Microsoft screeds let alone spelling it with a $.
Just so everyone understands, the tactic used here is known as "Poisoning the well." The idea is the discredit an argument's source before the argument is presented. Here, our AC friend is trying to ward off criticism of Microsoft by insinuating that anyone who does so is a 13 year old "Slashbot."
The fallacy is in the fact that even someone who is 13 and often goes along with the Slashdot zeitgeist may still have legitimate criticisms of Microsoft, such as the fact that Microsoft sucks giant hairy donkey balls.
Well, I meant I would have grudging respect had they been honest, which they weren't. Grudging as in, "Damn, look at the size of the balls on those guys." Not as in, "That's a cool thing they are doing."
You know that feeling you got when Walter Bender left the project over a disagreement with Nicholas? That "Wozniak has left the building" feeling? Turns out we were right.
I think we can safely say that this has nothing to education of the third world or software idealism or even free market economics but is simply a nasty little case of cronyism and under the table deals. Nicholas is a board member and OLPC is a nonprofit. Last time I checked board members of nonprofits don't draw a salary.
This is the thing I hate about our current system. See, it would be one thing if they just flat out stated what they were doing, "It's in our corporate best interests to make sure that everyone learns to use our software, so we're going to make this cheap laptop and put Windows on it and sell it to third world kids." I would actually have a little grudging respect for that.
But no, once again the system has eaten up idealism and spat out lies and manipulation. Most people involved in this project were idealists who thought they were bringing something good and pure into the world. Many of them were devoted to open source. And they just got fucked, and the motherfuckers who did it to them are laughing all the way to the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for making me feel old. I graduated four years before Matt and Trey had even started on Cannibal! the Musical, let alone South Park.
Now git offa mah lawn, I have to go crap myself or buy dentures or whatever it is old people are supposed to do.
The GP was not humorous. It was simply insulting, and in a completely derivative way. It's like the whole Clinton blowjob thing, it's been done to death, okay? Yes, we get it, you think people who believe in global warming are stupid.
1.) Earth is warming much, much faster than other planets.
2.) Venus isn't warming.
3.) The amount of warming on Earth can not be explained by increased solar activity.
4.) The fact is not unknown, it is accounted for, and this fact is what is not known by idiot deniers.
5.) The discrepancy between earthly warming and extraterrestrial warming is glossed over entirely by deniers because it would "damage the cause."
You have obviously already made up your mind about global warming, and no amount of evidence will sway you. Your biased mindset causes you to jump down the throat of anyone who presents an opinion different than yours. It also causes you to think that juvenile insults and cheap shots are "humorous."
You implied that anyone who believes in anthropogenic global warming must be stupid enough to think it could affect Jupiter as well. And that everyone who believes in AGW must be a Bush basher.
Very clever, and such a perfect example of the unbiased and scientific mindset of deniers everywhere. No one has ever thought of putting it quite like that before. You must be so proud of yourself.
Me too. When I saw this pot o' spaghetti, I nearly cried, and of course it's all 24x7 production stuff.
Well, he's a twit, but that was still no reason for me to go off on him. Honestly I was just frustrated because I was in the middle of a hairy VM ESX upgrade that should have been a piece of cake. VMWare support is hit or miss, and the problem probably boils down to the fact that our SAN is flaky because I work for the state and apparently no one taught anyone there how to run fiber. Just because it has a freakin' strain relief and it comes pre made doesn't mean you can hang it to the floor and tangle it up in other cables.
That is an oversimplification. As one example, supermarkets in poor areas usually charge more than in rich areas because people in rich areas have more options. Also for the same reason, supermarkets in poor areas charge more at the register than the marked price more frequently.
Some types of goods are not voluntary purchases. Food, for instance. You can't go without it, so you have to buy it at whatever price it is available. If everyone in your area refuses to sell you food at a reasonable price, as often happens in company towns, then you are being taken advantage of.
Not only does money make it easier to game the market system, having less money means you have fewer options for dealing with people screwing you over.
In theory, you are right, every transaction is voluntary. But in practice, your theory is wrong, and an unregulated free market supports and encourages tyranny, and takes away freedoms. Not for everyone, certainly it gives more freedom to some. And I'm not suggesting its a zero sum game, either. Options are created which weren't there before.
What I specifically dispute is the idea that all trade is inherently fair. I dispute the idea that money can not be used to manipulate the market creating unfair conditions. I dispute that the market is prefect and has no failure modes.
I also dispute that negative freedoms are the highest goal of society. I believe that it is worthwhile to trade a few negative freedoms for positive freedoms, but I guess that is the defining divide between social and individualist anarchism, isn't it?
She also had this little rubber cup that she stuck up her twat. She used it to catch her blood during her time of the month. No lie, she fertilized her garden with it. Gotta love hippie chicks.
Wrong. If everyone agrees to elect others to act in their place, then it isn't authoritarian because it is agreed upon by all. But you don't get to pick and choose, you agree to play by those rules or you don't. You don't get to agree to do it that way and then reneg when you don't like the agreement. But that's still not authoritarian, it's a simple matter of contract.
I completely agree. Well regulated free markets are good, but individual and absolute control of natural resources leads to tyranny.
Of course, there are other options besides "unregulated market" and "put the good people in charge." Such as direct democracy, or consensus based systems for decision making; and economic systems such as the Mondragon collective uses. But if you want to try to pigeonhole me as a closet authoritarian, have fun.
Damn it, it can be so hard to count your money with one hand while covering your ass with the other. Sort of like talking out of both sides of your mouth, it takes practice.
As you are obviously amazingly simple minded, allow me to explain the meaning of my post: you are a histrionic idiot. Or, in more detail: you have redefined the word "fair" in order to attempt to make some kind of inane point.
Let me clarify for your tiny monkey brain. When your intellectual superiors talk about fairness, they can mean a lot of things, only one of which is equality of opportunity, which is what you have focused on. And you have seized on a particularly negative form of equality of outcome, which amounts to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Which is unbelievably stupid and unrealistic when there are so many better ways of achieving equality of outcome, assuming that's what you want to do.
Not everyone defines equality of outcome as fair. Some people think it's unfair. Some people think equality of opportunity is more fair. But all this is clearly beyond the mind of someone like you, who is only capable of seeing the world in black and white simplicities. Which is why I didn't bother including any content in my first post, as anything of sufficient intelligence is clearly beyond your capacity to comprehend.
By encouraging greed and discouraging cooperation, a free market system ensures that everyone will have to act in a greedy and selfish fashion in order not to be taken advantage of by the greedy and selfish.
Wow, what a tottering tower of misinterpretation, unfounded assumptions and bogus straw men. I don't even know where to start wading through this pile of horse shit, so I'm not even going to try. You've been reading too much Phillip Dick, haven't you?
All I'll say is, you have a pretty fucked up definition of fair.
I'd amend that as "as long as there are those who are both greedy and short sighted there will never be utopia." Enlightened self interest usually coincides with everyone else's self interest.
Enlightenment aside, human nature is not static. We have several stable states, selfishness being one of them. In a society that encourages selfishness, does not allow the common person the ability to easily punish unfairness. If everyone around you is being selfish, chances are you will be, too, because you have to, or be taken advantage of. But if everyone around you is being cooperative, you most likely will act that way, too. So human society has an impact on human nature. Which is the point of utopias.
I had a girlfriend for a couple years who was quite adept at peeing standing up. She'd just spread her lips with two fingers and kinda arch her hips forward. She could even manage a fair bit of accuracy and distance. Although she would only try it while wearing a dress because of the dribble problem.
As for the funnel/hose idea, well, it's been around for a while. I think they called it "Le funnel" or something.
Tasmanian Tigers were marsupials. Dingos are dogs brought to the islands by seafarers withing the last 5,000 years or so. Dingos and Tassie Tigers are about as non closely related as two mammals can be.
I believe the damage we are talking about is micro-fractures that would be filled in with self healing goo. I think that the issue is more materials fatigue than macro scale damage.
Well, you lose your bet, been over five minutes and no anti Microsoft screeds let alone spelling it with a $.
Just so everyone understands, the tactic used here is known as "Poisoning the well." The idea is the discredit an argument's source before the argument is presented. Here, our AC friend is trying to ward off criticism of Microsoft by insinuating that anyone who does so is a 13 year old "Slashbot."
The fallacy is in the fact that even someone who is 13 and often goes along with the Slashdot zeitgeist may still have legitimate criticisms of Microsoft, such as the fact that Microsoft sucks giant hairy donkey balls.
Well, I meant I would have grudging respect had they been honest, which they weren't. Grudging as in, "Damn, look at the size of the balls on those guys." Not as in, "That's a cool thing they are doing."
You know that feeling you got when Walter Bender left the project over a disagreement with Nicholas? That "Wozniak has left the building" feeling? Turns out we were right.
I think we can safely say that this has nothing to education of the third world or software idealism or even free market economics but is simply a nasty little case of cronyism and under the table deals. Nicholas is a board member and OLPC is a nonprofit. Last time I checked board members of nonprofits don't draw a salary.
This is the thing I hate about our current system. See, it would be one thing if they just flat out stated what they were doing, "It's in our corporate best interests to make sure that everyone learns to use our software, so we're going to make this cheap laptop and put Windows on it and sell it to third world kids." I would actually have a little grudging respect for that.
But no, once again the system has eaten up idealism and spat out lies and manipulation. Most people involved in this project were idealists who thought they were bringing something good and pure into the world. Many of them were devoted to open source. And they just got fucked, and the motherfuckers who did it to them are laughing all the way to the bank.