Oh, but they are! You see, by telling minorities that they are still oppressed, they are keeping minorities in the mindset of oppression. All that minorities need to do to have an equal opportunity is to believe they have an equal opportunity.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go believe that happy fucking peace and sunshine fairies are gonna fly outta my ass and spread freedom and justice throughout the world. I'm sure you'll be seeing one soon, because, you know, I believe.
Hey Kano, I just clicked your journal link. I metamod all the time, and I never let shit like that slide. Unpopular opinions don't make you a troll. I'm as radically progressive as they come, but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone turn slashdot into a liberal echo chamber. The whole reason I come here is for the free thought and good argumentation. The above post is proof of what you are talking about, I'm a liberal, born after the Kennedy era, and I still know there was more than likely real fraud going on.
Read your brief bio, too. Hehe, black, pagan & republican? My friend Malcolm has you beat: ex military, gay, native american republican. I'm guessing you're old school, like him: fiscally conservative, states rights, small federal government, am I right? I have nothing against conservatives like that. I frickin' dream of and pray for more conservatives like that. I still think the federal government has to take a strong hand in ending injustice, regulating market inefficiencies like monopolies and externalities, and generally moving the country forward. But I'm more than willing to discuss that civily with my conservative friends.
What I have a problem with is sociopathic bandits operating under the banner of conservativism destroying everything great about our nation, all for short term profit. That and idiotic dittoheads on both sides screeching and flinging poo.
Now, if you really are trolling I'm not gonna metamod that unfair. I troll sometimes, too. It's a great stress relief and a better option than my going completely postal on all y'all, but I deserve it when I'm really trolling and I get modded that way. However, the above post is not trolling.
To my liberal friends: politics isn't a game. It's not "rah-rah-rah my team is always right." This is our country we're talking about, and it's every American's patriotic duty to think for themselves and consider all sides in a political debate. Don't just take "our side's" word on anything, and don't automatically discount what "the other side" has to say.
On the flip side, how about everybody stops making excuses and apologies for sociopaths, okay?
Tell her you need to get to know what her breasts are like before hand, so you will know if that lump you find is unusual. Explain that this will probably take quite a bit of time, say ten minutes a day for the next several years. Tell her, that in the interests of fairness, she should manually palpitate your genitals during the process to see if she can find any lumps.
Oh, but Doc, what are you talking about? How could right wingers be modding anyone down? Everyone knows there is a tremendous left wing bias here, you simply must be mistaken./sarcasm
Fucking neo-cons. Talking out of both sides of their mouth. Projecting their own guilt onto the world. If a necon complains about something, that is a gaurantee they are actually doing it. The fact is, it's probably centrists modding you down, and you know why? Because they are scared to admit how fucked they really are. They are scared to even think about how they bent over and let the neo-cons make them their bitch. You come up and say, "Hey, you do realize a neo-con thug is ass-raping you at this very moment, don't you?" And they politely wait until the current round of ass-raping is over, hike up their bloody undies and call you a troll for pointing out what just happened.
Of course not. Right wingers are never interested in thought that is cogent, powerful, and contradicts their own so-called thinking. They are like four year olds, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever someone raising a valid and contradictory point.
While I am a talking cow that can do derivatives in my head while whistling Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi and dancing an Irish jig, your post just proves that an AC can claim to be anything, so why bother claiming you are a Democrat? Maybe because you actually aren't a Democrat and you want to make them look bad?
The guy has a point, there is no liberal bias here, there is no liberal bias in the media. There is a conservative bias here and in the media, it's just become so blatant no on recognizes it, and what was once centrist is now considered left wing. Left wing is now called kooksville, right wing is now centrist, and the old right wing lunatic fringe is accepted as the new right wing. And anyways, who cares if there is a liberal bias, with conservatives holding all positions of power, doesn't that call for a little loyal opposition?
CNN is right wing. NPR and BBC are neutral-to-slightly left. Fox is batshit insane. Right wingers have gotten so used to living in an echo chamber of conservative agreement that what used to be considered normal discourse they now consider to be insanity. Anyone advgocating social responsibility is called a communist. Nut jobs like Anne Coulter make outrageous statements that, while not believed or accepted at first, continue to shift the center of acceptable discourse further and further to the right. When anyone from the left tries to counteract this trend, we are told that WE are the ones shifting to the left, when we are just trying to bring things back where they were.
Conservatives have no real arguments, and when this is pointed out to them all they can do is whine about how no one listens to them and we are all just a bunch of insane ditto-heads. Conservatives have forgotten how to even have a dialogue about the issues, you are now either with them or you are completely nuts and not worth listening too. Fortunately, not all conservatives are like this, it's mostly the neo-cons. As a hard core leftist, I never thought I would be grateful to hear what conservatives have to say, but when I hear an actual old-school conservative talking these days, I am so fucking relieved to hear rational thought coming out of their mouths that I could listen for hours. Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, states rights? Sounds damn good to me! No abortions, no gay marriage, borrow and spend, adventures in empire, say what? That's not conservativism, stop fucking calling it that, find a new name for yourselves. How about the "BOHICA party?" That's Bend Over, Here It Comes Again, in case you didn't know.
Your criticism of the left is especially ironic, considering that the left has always been known for rational discourse and argumentation. That's one reason we leftists have been losing, we consider all sides. Neo-cons know how to circle the wagons and present a united front. Neo-con forums are completely intolerant of dissent. Most of what passes for discourse in neo-con circles would be considered the lowest form of trolling. I will admit that there are some loopy thinkers on the left, too, but no one even comes close to the level of insanity of that drug addled transsexual, Anne Coulter.
Democrats see Republicans as the ones selling out the moral foundation of our country while praising some fictitious version of it out of the other side of their mouths. We see you refusing to be held accountable to world-wide notions of justice, fairness, and decency. We see you raising straw man issues like illegal immigrants (who can't fucking well vote, by the way, or receive any kind of federal services aside from emergency room care.) We see you enshrining the interests of international corporations that hold no loyalty to our country over the interests of the small business person who is the real backbone of our national economy.
Your ideas are bankrupt and rooted in a deep seated inability to look at the real world. Your attempts at discourse are arrogant and insulting. Your ideas of fairness, decency, and morals would disgust a rabid hyena. You and people like you are destroying the greatest country on earth. You should all be tried as traitors.
How do you like it, when we talk like you do? I hear that shit from the right all the time. I'd love a rational dialogue, but we on the left have been trying for years and getting our asses handed to us because we try to play fair while people like you use language like I've used in the paragraph above. I, for one, am tired of it.
I'm addicted to calling everything and anything that people enjoy doing an addiction. I get wads of cash for treating these so-called addictions, and I have a powerful co-enabler called the pharmaceutical industry telling me it's all okay and I should keep doing it. What should I do?
Signed, I'll take 'The Rapists' for $500, Alex.
(Please, if there are any psychologists or psychiatrists who read Slashdot, don't have me committed. It's a joke, m'kay?)
If an OS crashes, most of the time it's buggy device drivers. At least from what I've seen. I've seen every version of windows act weird, and I've seen every version act rock solid, the onyl major difference was the hardware. Linux is more stable more often, but even in Linux a bad device driver can take down your system. Macs tend to be the most stable because Apple makes (made? I've been out of the Mac game for a while) most of the hardware themselves.
Arguing with you is pointless. I said 'Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse. ' You said, 'there's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign."' You were the first to use the word necessarily. I simply repeated it because you had used it and a cursory glance at some online dictionaries seemed to indicate it was a fairly necessary part of the definition.
The more telling point is that you said it doesn't usually mean false, and I think I have shown that it does usually mean false. You cleverly used dictionaries that are not available on line, so no one can check the veracity of your claims. I used only online dictionaries, so my claims are easily verifiable. Sure, dictionaries may be wrong, but the first three that come up in a google search for online dictionary? That's a big coincidence, if true.
I will admit that I was wrong about malign necessarily meaning false if you will admit to being wrong about it usually not meaning false. The best argument that you can make that malign does not usually imply false is that most dictionaries are wrong, and that is a very weak and pompous argument.
You lose, sorry. Let me refresh your obviously deficient memory. This is what you stated: 'There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.'
You managed to find a dictionary that got you out of "necessarily." I will concede that point. I put that in because you had used that word, and the first three dictionaries I happened to look at online include it as a necessary part of the defintion. But usually? When most of the dictionaries referenced by me or you include falsehood as part of the definition, it's a safe bet that that is the accepted useage. Are you at least capable of conceding you were wrong on that point?
My favorite part is where you say, "Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary." Obviously, I got it directly from not one, but three dictionaries. You have been proven completely wrong on that point, though I'm beginning to suspect you are incapable of admitting it.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.
Actually, yes, it does. It necessarily implies false. That's from dictionary.com, which is based on the Random House dictionary. Merriam Webster says this: "MALIGN suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying." Cambridge says "to say false and unpleasant things about someone or to unfairly criticize them" Not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't imply false, but in any case, you need to take a refresher course in vocabulary before you go spreading more misinformation about what words mean or don't mean.
Based on that, the rest of your points are moot. Now I understand why you said what you said. You simply didn't know the definition of malign. As you have shown yourself to be less than informed about the meanings of basic words and unable to present a rational defense of your own stated position, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
Look up the word "maligned." Oh, wait, I did that for you, in the post you are responding to. How is saying that someone is falsely and maliciously accused of something blaming them?
What's more, I just did google those names, and Mayor Daley died in 1976. That's a long time ago. I'm looking for more recent information. I can't find anything about voting irregularites googling about "Philadelphia" "Rendell" "Stinson". Maybe you could help me? If it's that easy to find, just point me to some newspaper articles or something.
Nice way to win converts, AC. Call someone with a legitimate and politely phrased question an idiot. Good work. Now because you hurt my feelings, I'm going to vote Democrat. Twice.
Good lord, either I haven't had enough coffee, or you're not making any sense. Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse. I'm not saying the GOP is exploiting anything. I'm just wondering why you would make a statement like you did. It doesn't make any sense. If the GOP exploits electronics, then they should want to stay with that. If the Dems are good at exploiting paper, they should want to move to that. If you were trying for irony, it was lost on me.
Just answer my first question before you pose one to me. I'm a confused old man, and I want to know why you would say the democrats are well known for exploiting paper ballots, when the democrats are the ones protesting moving back to paper ballots.
How exactly is this partisan, and who is it partisan towards? I'm not following. I think you're trying to say that the submitter has a republican bias because he is pointing out that although republicans are often maligned (meaning to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame) for exploiting flaws in electronic voting system, in this case it is the democrats who are opposing moving back to paper ballots. But I'm really not sure. Could you clarify, please? Is it that you think the republicans really do exploit flaws in the electronic voting system, and you object to the use of the word maligned, which implies that that is false and malicious?
They are still around. We use them here at the New Mexico Child, Youth and Family Development Department. It's actually one of the main reasons we managed to convince our management to go open source. Novell bought SuSE Linux, and we got 50 free SuSE Linux Enterprise Server licenses with full support. Now most of our back end stuff runs on SuSE. We still use Novell file and print servers, though.
Nah, Tom, you just need better drugs, then all this will become completely fascinating. I've found that old coots like us need a high dose of dammitol and gedawfmaielauntin just to get through boring crap like this.
That's my opinion, but feel free to look into it on your own. The wikipedia article is a good place to start. It sounds like the parent post is somehow trying to tie this fringe theory into global warming. Energy turning into enough matter to alter the gravitational field of the earth?!? WTF!?! This is grade A wingnut territory, IMHO. But feel free to look into it and judge for yourself. I first approached it with an open mind, but the extreme looniness of the theory soon made itself clear. This is only one step removed from the Time-Cube on the crackpot scale.
The sheer arrogance of calling the theories which have produced all the wonders and luxuries of our modern world "worthless" astounds me.
I'm sorry. I wasn't calling you a ricer. I really didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. But there are some people who use gentoo who are clueless, and they think running gentoo makes them l33t. Choice is a good thing, I said it before, I'll say it again, I like gentoo.
Well she told me yesterday she wanted to be a purple monkey dishwasher. You have any openings for 90-year-old, senile, purple monkey dishwashers? All right, I should stop. Somebody who's relative actually does have Alzheimer's is gonna read this and get really offended. Alzheimer's isn't funny when it happens to someone you love.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, but they are! You see, by telling minorities that they are still oppressed, they are keeping minorities in the mindset of oppression. All that minorities need to do to have an equal opportunity is to believe they have an equal opportunity.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go believe that happy fucking peace and sunshine fairies are gonna fly outta my ass and spread freedom and justice throughout the world. I'm sure you'll be seeing one soon, because, you know, I believe.
Hey Kano, I just clicked your journal link. I metamod all the time, and I never let shit like that slide. Unpopular opinions don't make you a troll. I'm as radically progressive as they come, but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone turn slashdot into a liberal echo chamber. The whole reason I come here is for the free thought and good argumentation. The above post is proof of what you are talking about, I'm a liberal, born after the Kennedy era, and I still know there was more than likely real fraud going on.
Read your brief bio, too. Hehe, black, pagan & republican? My friend Malcolm has you beat: ex military, gay, native american republican. I'm guessing you're old school, like him: fiscally conservative, states rights, small federal government, am I right? I have nothing against conservatives like that. I frickin' dream of and pray for more conservatives like that. I still think the federal government has to take a strong hand in ending injustice, regulating market inefficiencies like monopolies and externalities, and generally moving the country forward. But I'm more than willing to discuss that civily with my conservative friends.
What I have a problem with is sociopathic bandits operating under the banner of conservativism destroying everything great about our nation, all for short term profit. That and idiotic dittoheads on both sides screeching and flinging poo.
Now, if you really are trolling I'm not gonna metamod that unfair. I troll sometimes, too. It's a great stress relief and a better option than my going completely postal on all y'all, but I deserve it when I'm really trolling and I get modded that way. However, the above post is not trolling.
To my liberal friends: politics isn't a game. It's not "rah-rah-rah my team is always right." This is our country we're talking about, and it's every American's patriotic duty to think for themselves and consider all sides in a political debate. Don't just take "our side's" word on anything, and don't automatically discount what "the other side" has to say.
On the flip side, how about everybody stops making excuses and apologies for sociopaths, okay?
Tell her you need to get to know what her breasts are like before hand, so you will know if that lump you find is unusual. Explain that this will probably take quite a bit of time, say ten minutes a day for the next several years. Tell her, that in the interests of fairness, she should manually palpitate your genitals during the process to see if she can find any lumps.
Clinton was notorious for using his mod points to silence dissent, didn't you know?
I'm thinking of making a new sig:
Q. How do you know when a neo-con is guilty of something?
A. When he blames others for doing that very thing.
But I guess I want to keep my anti-pudge sig for a while.
Oh, but Doc, what are you talking about? How could right wingers be modding anyone down? Everyone knows there is a tremendous left wing bias here, you simply must be mistaken. /sarcasm
Fucking neo-cons. Talking out of both sides of their mouth. Projecting their own guilt onto the world. If a necon complains about something, that is a gaurantee they are actually doing it. The fact is, it's probably centrists modding you down, and you know why? Because they are scared to admit how fucked they really are. They are scared to even think about how they bent over and let the neo-cons make them their bitch. You come up and say, "Hey, you do realize a neo-con thug is ass-raping you at this very moment, don't you?" And they politely wait until the current round of ass-raping is over, hike up their bloody undies and call you a troll for pointing out what just happened.
Of course not. Right wingers are never interested in thought that is cogent, powerful, and contradicts their own so-called thinking. They are like four year olds, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever someone raising a valid and contradictory point.
While I am a talking cow that can do derivatives in my head while whistling Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi and dancing an Irish jig, your post just proves that an AC can claim to be anything, so why bother claiming you are a Democrat? Maybe because you actually aren't a Democrat and you want to make them look bad?
The guy has a point, there is no liberal bias here, there is no liberal bias in the media. There is a conservative bias here and in the media, it's just become so blatant no on recognizes it, and what was once centrist is now considered left wing. Left wing is now called kooksville, right wing is now centrist, and the old right wing lunatic fringe is accepted as the new right wing. And anyways, who cares if there is a liberal bias, with conservatives holding all positions of power, doesn't that call for a little loyal opposition?
CNN is right wing. NPR and BBC are neutral-to-slightly left. Fox is batshit insane. Right wingers have gotten so used to living in an echo chamber of conservative agreement that what used to be considered normal discourse they now consider to be insanity. Anyone advgocating social responsibility is called a communist. Nut jobs like Anne Coulter make outrageous statements that, while not believed or accepted at first, continue to shift the center of acceptable discourse further and further to the right. When anyone from the left tries to counteract this trend, we are told that WE are the ones shifting to the left, when we are just trying to bring things back where they were.
Conservatives have no real arguments, and when this is pointed out to them all they can do is whine about how no one listens to them and we are all just a bunch of insane ditto-heads. Conservatives have forgotten how to even have a dialogue about the issues, you are now either with them or you are completely nuts and not worth listening too. Fortunately, not all conservatives are like this, it's mostly the neo-cons. As a hard core leftist, I never thought I would be grateful to hear what conservatives have to say, but when I hear an actual old-school conservative talking these days, I am so fucking relieved to hear rational thought coming out of their mouths that I could listen for hours. Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, states rights? Sounds damn good to me! No abortions, no gay marriage, borrow and spend, adventures in empire, say what? That's not conservativism, stop fucking calling it that, find a new name for yourselves. How about the "BOHICA party?" That's Bend Over, Here It Comes Again, in case you didn't know.
Your criticism of the left is especially ironic, considering that the left has always been known for rational discourse and argumentation. That's one reason we leftists have been losing, we consider all sides. Neo-cons know how to circle the wagons and present a united front. Neo-con forums are completely intolerant of dissent. Most of what passes for discourse in neo-con circles would be considered the lowest form of trolling. I will admit that there are some loopy thinkers on the left, too, but no one even comes close to the level of insanity of that drug addled transsexual, Anne Coulter.
Democrats see Republicans as the ones selling out the moral foundation of our country while praising some fictitious version of it out of the other side of their mouths. We see you refusing to be held accountable to world-wide notions of justice, fairness, and decency. We see you raising straw man issues like illegal immigrants (who can't fucking well vote, by the way, or receive any kind of federal services aside from emergency room care.) We see you enshrining the interests of international corporations that hold no loyalty to our country over the interests of the small business person who is the real backbone of our national economy.
Your ideas are bankrupt and rooted in a deep seated inability to look at the real world. Your attempts at discourse are arrogant and insulting. Your ideas of fairness, decency, and morals would disgust a rabid hyena. You and people like you are destroying the greatest country on earth. You should all be tried as traitors.
How do you like it, when we talk like you do? I hear that shit from the right all the time. I'd love a rational dialogue, but we on the left have been trying for years and getting our asses handed to us because we try to play fair while people like you use language like I've used in the paragraph above. I, for one, am tired of it.
Dear Slashdot,
I'm addicted to calling everything and anything that people enjoy doing an addiction. I get wads of cash for treating these so-called addictions, and I have a powerful co-enabler called the pharmaceutical industry telling me it's all okay and I should keep doing it. What should I do?
Signed,
I'll take 'The Rapists' for $500, Alex.
(Please, if there are any psychologists or psychiatrists who read Slashdot, don't have me committed. It's a joke, m'kay?)
If an OS crashes, most of the time it's buggy device drivers. At least from what I've seen. I've seen every version of windows act weird, and I've seen every version act rock solid, the onyl major difference was the hardware. Linux is more stable more often, but even in Linux a bad device driver can take down your system. Macs tend to be the most stable because Apple makes (made? I've been out of the Mac game for a while) most of the hardware themselves.
Arguing with you is pointless. I said 'Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse. ' You said, 'there's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign."' You were the first to use the word necessarily. I simply repeated it because you had used it and a cursory glance at some online dictionaries seemed to indicate it was a fairly necessary part of the definition.
The more telling point is that you said it doesn't usually mean false, and I think I have shown that it does usually mean false. You cleverly used dictionaries that are not available on line, so no one can check the veracity of your claims. I used only online dictionaries, so my claims are easily verifiable. Sure, dictionaries may be wrong, but the first three that come up in a google search for online dictionary? That's a big coincidence, if true.
I will admit that I was wrong about malign necessarily meaning false if you will admit to being wrong about it usually not meaning false. The best argument that you can make that malign does not usually imply false is that most dictionaries are wrong, and that is a very weak and pompous argument.
You lose, sorry. Let me refresh your obviously deficient memory. This is what you stated: 'There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.'
You managed to find a dictionary that got you out of "necessarily." I will concede that point. I put that in because you had used that word, and the first three dictionaries I happened to look at online include it as a necessary part of the defintion. But usually? When most of the dictionaries referenced by me or you include falsehood as part of the definition, it's a safe bet that that is the accepted useage. Are you at least capable of conceding you were wrong on that point?
My favorite part is where you say, "Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary." Obviously, I got it directly from not one, but three dictionaries. You have been proven completely wrong on that point, though I'm beginning to suspect you are incapable of admitting it.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.
Actually, yes, it does. It necessarily implies false. That's from dictionary.com, which is based on the Random House dictionary. Merriam Webster says this: "MALIGN suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying." Cambridge says "to say false and unpleasant things about someone or to unfairly criticize them" Not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't imply false, but in any case, you need to take a refresher course in vocabulary before you go spreading more misinformation about what words mean or don't mean.
Based on that, the rest of your points are moot. Now I understand why you said what you said. You simply didn't know the definition of malign. As you have shown yourself to be less than informed about the meanings of basic words and unable to present a rational defense of your own stated position, I see no reason to continue this conversation.
Good day, sir.
Look up the word "maligned." Oh, wait, I did that for you, in the post you are responding to. How is saying that someone is falsely and maliciously accused of something blaming them?
What's more, I just did google those names, and Mayor Daley died in 1976. That's a long time ago. I'm looking for more recent information. I can't find anything about voting irregularites googling about "Philadelphia" "Rendell" "Stinson". Maybe you could help me? If it's that easy to find, just point me to some newspaper articles or something.
Nice way to win converts, AC. Call someone with a legitimate and politely phrased question an idiot. Good work. Now because you hurt my feelings, I'm going to vote Democrat. Twice.
Good lord, either I haven't had enough coffee, or you're not making any sense. Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse. I'm not saying the GOP is exploiting anything. I'm just wondering why you would make a statement like you did. It doesn't make any sense. If the GOP exploits electronics, then they should want to stay with that. If the Dems are good at exploiting paper, they should want to move to that. If you were trying for irony, it was lost on me.
Just answer my first question before you pose one to me. I'm a confused old man, and I want to know why you would say the democrats are well known for exploiting paper ballots, when the democrats are the ones protesting moving back to paper ballots.
I find this fascinating, do you have any sources so I can research this further?
How exactly is this partisan, and who is it partisan towards? I'm not following. I think you're trying to say that the submitter has a republican bias because he is pointing out that although republicans are often maligned (meaning to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame) for exploiting flaws in electronic voting system, in this case it is the democrats who are opposing moving back to paper ballots. But I'm really not sure. Could you clarify, please? Is it that you think the republicans really do exploit flaws in the electronic voting system, and you object to the use of the word maligned, which implies that that is false and malicious?
Say what? If Democrats were well known for exploiting paper ballots, why would they be protesting moving back to paper ballots?
They are still around. We use them here at the New Mexico Child, Youth and Family Development Department. It's actually one of the main reasons we managed to convince our management to go open source. Novell bought SuSE Linux, and we got 50 free SuSE Linux Enterprise Server licenses with full support. Now most of our back end stuff runs on SuSE. We still use Novell file and print servers, though.
Nah, Tom, you just need better drugs, then all this will become completely fascinating. I've found that old coots like us need a high dose of dammitol and gedawfmaielauntin just to get through boring crap like this.
That's my opinion, but feel free to look into it on your own. The wikipedia article is a good place to start. It sounds like the parent post is somehow trying to tie this fringe theory into global warming. Energy turning into enough matter to alter the gravitational field of the earth?!? WTF!?! This is grade A wingnut territory, IMHO. But feel free to look into it and judge for yourself. I first approached it with an open mind, but the extreme looniness of the theory soon made itself clear. This is only one step removed from the Time-Cube on the crackpot scale.
The sheer arrogance of calling the theories which have produced all the wonders and luxuries of our modern world "worthless" astounds me.
I'm sorry. I wasn't calling you a ricer. I really didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. But there are some people who use gentoo who are clueless, and they think running gentoo makes them l33t. Choice is a good thing, I said it before, I'll say it again, I like gentoo.
Well she told me yesterday she wanted to be a purple monkey dishwasher. You have any openings for 90-year-old, senile, purple monkey dishwashers? All right, I should stop. Somebody who's relative actually does have Alzheimer's is gonna read this and get really offended. Alzheimer's isn't funny when it happens to someone you love.