For me it was more the 4chan like behavior, as usenet was totally unmoderated in many channels.
True, the endless barrage of penis enlargement and work at home ads didn't help any, the constant stream of "show me your boobs" type posts in totally inappropriate channels was a show stopper.
Eventually, all it was good for was downloading porn and pirate software.
We all know that the REAL way you got good at using regular expressions was by bulk downloading alt.sex.binaries, then using ls, grep, and rm to automatically remove all the kiddie porn before the fbi became the porn police.
You only refuse to talk about it now out of fear of goons knocking in the door.;)
Adding wood ashes to the soil also has a strong effect on the heat of peppers. Pepper plants are alkaline loving, and a high potash content promotes obscene hotness in hot peppers.
You will have better results using dried thai peppers. You can get them in a 20lb bag at most asian stores.
The part you actually want are the seeds.
Crush up the peppers, then winnow them outside to get just the seeds. (If you don't know what winnowing is, google is your friend)
Take the seeds inside and process them dry inside a small food processor until they are a fine powder. Seeds are mostly carbohydrates, and when finely powdered like this, will feed the yeast just fine. The digestive action of the yeast will liberate the fat soluble capsaicin.
The seeds themselves have very few volatile flavor oils, so the brew shouldn't be overpowered. Some tests would need to done as bittering might be an issue.
Substituting cumin for oregano in all meat chilli magically transforms it into spaghetti sauce.
Buy a bottle, open it, and smell it. It smells like chilli. It is what makes chilli, chilli, and not sloppy joe mix, maranara sauce, or spaghetti sauce.
I am not sure as to the method of action, but sliced kiwi seems to temporarily relieve the burning sensation from hot foods.
I have a laosian brother-in-law who's mother produces papaya salad that I swear contains more red thai pepper than it does shredded green papya. (It makes other laosians wince, and mexicans cry. I have seen it myself.)
I refuse to eat it unless I have either sliced kiwi fruit or a glass of milk handy. Laosians tend to be lactose intolerant, like yourself, so usually milk is not available during social functions. Kiwi however seems well received by the locals.
Aunt has epillepsy, mom and uncle have hypoglycemia and type 1 diabetes respectively, dad has 3 of 4 genes for hematochromatosis (a reasonably rare condition causing the body to sequester lethal levels of iron), my sister has S protien deficiency, and my brother is sterile and has dislexia.
When it comes to the genetic lottery, I pretty much lost. (While never diagnosed, I also exhibit many signs of having fairly pronounced aspergers, but I don't feel that it inhibits my daily life. I just think other people are batshit crazy.)
I feel that the better solution is to do the world a favor and not purpetuate the already large collection of dangerous recessives I seem to carry. Can I get an honorable mention for the darwin award?
What I am saying is that the potential for a divine being to exist continues to persist in the face of any and all scientific discussion or discovery, because the nature of the divine is axiomatically seperated from the mundane. Science deals exclusively with the mundane, and if it cannot fin evidence to show a god diddles with mundane reality, that is all it shows. It does not show that the divinity cannot exist.
I do not artificially limit "divinity" to a narrow subset of "divine creator"-- a divinity could also simply not give two shits about the universe, or may even wish the universe went away, or may even have created the universe accidentally. The only qualification I place to satisfy "divinity" is a being that exists, and does so in a fashion, mode, or form such that no science of our understanding or creation could ever describe or predict it.
Eg, if there was a conciousness inside one of the tiny rolled up dimensions described by string theory, or in another or outside our universe as such a sapce is required for supergravity, then it would qualify, even if it does absolutly nothing but exist.
I cannot discount that such a being could exist, therefor I cannot assert or accept an assertion that it cannot or does not.
Asserting that the question itself is useless because a divine being that does nothing is a non actor, and tenders no predictions or effects, *IS* an answer I can accept, and is indeed the position I hold.
I am glad to see that the quality of ac trolling has not totally slipped by the wayside here!
But I am a little disappointed that you didn't slip at least one reference to my mother's basement, or to my neckbeard being of such a horrific nature that it even gives RMS pause.
But I will applaud a good troll when I see one. Good job sir!
As a customer (former at least) of thiers, it does concern me if the money I spend is used to finance the harrassment of other developers, much like it IS the business of customers who buy clothing made in sweatshops to ask if the clothing they are buying finances the use of said sweatshops. Asking the question is not a crime, regardless of your opinion of the matter.
As for your admission about resorting instantly to violence, that simply exposes your own personality failings as a host. That is NOT proper ettiquette for hosting a social function, such as a party or a public forum.
1) the bethsoft game forums allow all kinds of discussions about other games from other vendors. There was even a thriving dwarf fortress discussion going on there several years ago. How is asking about "scrolls" any different, given this information?
2) as a hypothetical fan of bethesda or of their games, where else would you go to ask about their decision to sue this man?
3) as a respectful host, why would you treat any guest, even one that asks an uncomfortable question (even if the question is asked politely) like they had just raped your wife, and not simply calmly and politely answer the question? Does this not show a lack of genuine respect for ones guests? I did not suggest going there and trolling, I suggested there and politely asking. Big difference.
Actually, I value their "wonderful content" so much that I wait for the actual retail price to drop below 20$, THEN buy it second hand, and then only on a whim to see if it was even worth the effort.
Also, second hand sales are not stealing. Stop drinking the industry koolaid.
If you don't believe me, just try going there and asking innocently about it in the forum, and see how politely it gets treated. Seriously, go try it.:)
And no, I am not being hipocritical here. I really do not regret my decision to stop giving them my money.
The very topic of this pending lawsuit is a forbidden one on the bethesda game studios forums.
From my own expierences on that forum several years ago, I can pretty much assure you that it is enforced with gestapo like ferocity, at the behest of the legal and corporate drones, and the moderator staff is all too willing to enforce such censorship.
Long ago I swore off ever buying another bethesda softworks title as direct retail (I will only purchase second hand, to ensure that they never receive any of my money) and things like this only reinforce that opinion.
While sesame street really isn't well suited to adults, at least it isn't as bad as UK preschool television, or AU preschool television.
UK television has such desirable programming as the boobahs, which are vaguely humanoid shaped blobs that fly around crapping out rainbows while making farting sounds, and the notoriously famous tellietubbies who must obey everything the narrator says, eat a strict diet of pink goop, and play with random items that mysteriously appear underneath a giggling babyfaced sun. (Oh yes, they appear to live in a crashed UFO.)
AU children's television at least treats children like they have brains a little meatier than lumpy tapioca, but their bananas in pajamas has some questionable things going on. While I applaud that they try to flesh out the character personalities (each character set has thing that they seem to prefer, such as favorite toys, foods, etc) more than the UK offerings do, I find that the setting is questionable.
Somehow the bananas, the teddies, and the rat in the hat are the only residents of their town. Further, the only male character that is not either of ambiguous sexual preference (I don't have anything against the bananas being apparently gay, just so you know.) Or a total shyster is poor Morgan, the only male teddy on the show. Morgan is presented as being a young boy without any father figure, who lives with his two older sisters, and no parents. He has obvious issues fitting into the setting, as the bananas are more like goofy uncles, and rat in the hat is not a good role model. I feel that this displays an unrealistic and unheathly model for children to follow. The show would be much better with a more diverse and well rounded cast. (Especially since it seems to be focused on teaching kids how to interact with each other, and be more socially aware.)
Granted, american childrens shows tend to revolved around physical slapstik more often than they should, sesame street at least doesn't feature flying balls of rainbow flatulence.:)
Today's episode is brought to you by the number "i", "e", and "pi".
(Count von count enters the scene with a notebook, and a pencil. Cookie monster comes in from the opposite stage carrying a giant bag of crystallized fructose.) (Cvc) One! One giant bag of sugar! (CM) Not now! Cookie monster must work dayjob to pay rent! Cookie monster get cushy job at cookie factory downtown-- cookie monster must make 2 MILLION cookies before end of week! (Hushed voice) (but cookie monster no can count high enough to figure out how many bags of sugar cookie monster need...)
(Cue lesson in note taking, and introduction of the natural logarithm. Cookie monster declares "e is for EVIL!", to which count von count goes on a tangent about how exponentiation is his favorite kind of math, and finds irrational numbers the most fantastic of all, before rapidly exponentiating using e, cackling madly while spinning off stage, leaving cookie monster alone and helpless in the cookie factory.)
Pointing out how extraordinary a claim of divinity is to contrast the lesser degree of extraordinary claim that no such entity or force exists, does not itself make the latter the rational choice. (The 'less wong' answer of two wrong answers, is still a wrong answer.)
That's like choosing the giant douche over the turd sandwich, because at least the douche is clean. (Professor ikkeda and his.. unique.. work in the latter field withstanding.)
To me the sensible choice is to not select either choice, because both choices are faulted.
If it were likened to a political debate between the epinomous "kang" and "kodos" for who to elect as president, my position would be not to go to the voting booth at all. (Neither deserve my vote, regardless of kodos's claim that if he were elected, fewer human fatalities would result. Both delegates suffer the same fundemental flaw: they are illegal extraterrestrials, with no real right to even run for that office.)
That is to say, I am neither a theist, no an atheist. I can accept that you hold an opinion about the (non)probability of a divinity due to the precept of the razor, but I cannot accept an absolute judgement in that direction, as the razor does not work that way. Any atheist that eschews theists and claims they are stupid for their opinion is innately hipocritical to my observation, because that is what theists claiming divine knowledge do. (The claim that no divinity exists is claiming to posess with certainty, knowledge of the (non existence of) the divine.)
Asserting "Hey, I think believing in the sky fairy is silly and I don't want to placate that mindset." Is OK, so long as you don't also throw in the "and you are silly too if you do believe in the magic sky fairy!" At the end.
Likewise, the ardent apostle of the sacred order of the divine and powerful sky fairy should not contort his mitred, fairy-wing encrusted brow and prognosticate your untimely demise for failing to love the allmighty skyfairy, because he does not know for sure about the sky fairy either.
In that respect, your refusal of the skyfairy is a bit like my refusal to eat asparagus. I hate asparagus, I find it tastes revolting in each and every way it can be prepaired. (Blach) however, my bias against asparagus should not push me to tell people they are gross for eating it, nor should a person who (gawd knows how) actually likes the stuff try endlessly to get me to eat it.
By asserting that the skyfairy is not divine, you have automatically lowered it to the same level as the asparagus. (That is not a bad thing. I can totally dig that)
I pretty much ignore the entire question of divinity, and am only fast to point out the logical failures of both obvious choices. (Pro, angst, respectively.) To me the actual question is moot, and the devotion is to the logic itself that points this out.
(I am not a theistic apologist, despite having had that accusation leveled at me in the past. With regard to any hypothetical divine, I am totally ambivalent, if not outright apathetic.)
This argument makes a faulted premise; if you do no "not believe" in something, then it must mean that you DO believe in it.
This suffers a false choice fallacy, in that I don't actively choose to do either. Instead, I hold that the question itself has no real merit, because the outcome of either choice leads to an untestable and therefor useless conclusion.
Bluntly, I chose not to choose, and then disregard the issue completely. I do not actively disbelieve, but I don't actively believe either.
As such, I do not spend any inordinate amount of my time chasing after sky fairies, or any other nonrational being.
I would personally say that the flat assertion "there are no gods" is an extraordinary claim, given that there is no direct evidence to support it; eg, no direct test currently exists that can verify the assertion.
It therefor suffers the exact same rational failing.
Slashdot Mirror
Some 12 year old AOLer back in 1990.
It just took this long for the court clerks to figure out how to use NNTP. You know how hard such new fangled technology is for them.
Just wait till they figure out facebook!
I remember those!
I used to bulk send requests for trials, then use a roll of masking tape to cover the write protect hole. Free floppies!
It's a shame they stopped the practice after cds. Getting a bunch of usb sticks in the mail would make me feel like a kid again. :)
For me it was more the 4chan like behavior, as usenet was totally unmoderated in many channels.
True, the endless barrage of penis enlargement and work at home ads didn't help any, the constant stream of "show me your boobs" type posts in totally inappropriate channels was a show stopper.
Eventually, all it was good for was downloading porn and pirate software.
You aren't fooling anyone AC.
We all know that the REAL way you got good at using regular expressions was by bulk downloading alt.sex.binaries, then using ls, grep, and rm to automatically remove all the kiddie porn before the fbi became the porn police.
You only refuse to talk about it now out of fear of goons knocking in the door. ;)
Adding wood ashes to the soil also has a strong effect on the heat of peppers. Pepper plants are alkaline loving, and a high potash content promotes obscene hotness in hot peppers.
You will have better results using dried thai peppers. You can get them in a 20lb bag at most asian stores.
The part you actually want are the seeds.
Crush up the peppers, then winnow them outside to get just the seeds. (If you don't know what winnowing is, google is your friend)
Take the seeds inside and process them dry inside a small food processor until they are a fine powder. Seeds are mostly carbohydrates, and when finely powdered like this, will feed the yeast just fine. The digestive action of the yeast will liberate the fat soluble capsaicin.
The seeds themselves have very few volatile flavor oils, so the brew shouldn't be overpowered. Some tests would need to done as bittering might be an issue.
You forgot the single most important ingredient.
Cumin
Substituting cumin for oregano in all meat chilli magically transforms it into spaghetti sauce.
Buy a bottle, open it, and smell it. It smells like chilli. It is what makes chilli, chilli, and not sloppy joe mix, maranara sauce, or spaghetti sauce.
I am not sure as to the method of action, but sliced kiwi seems to temporarily relieve the burning sensation from hot foods.
I have a laosian brother-in-law who's mother produces papaya salad that I swear contains more red thai pepper than it does shredded green papya. (It makes other laosians wince, and mexicans cry. I have seen it myself.)
I refuse to eat it unless I have either sliced kiwi fruit or a glass of milk handy. Laosians tend to be lactose intolerant, like yourself, so usually milk is not available during social functions. Kiwi however seems well received by the locals.
You might give it a shot sometime.
But does it have matched luggage?
Same here.
Aunt has epillepsy, mom and uncle have hypoglycemia and type 1 diabetes respectively, dad has 3 of 4 genes for hematochromatosis (a reasonably rare condition causing the body to sequester lethal levels of iron), my sister has S protien deficiency, and my brother is sterile and has dislexia.
When it comes to the genetic lottery, I pretty much lost. (While never diagnosed, I also exhibit many signs of having fairly pronounced aspergers, but I don't feel that it inhibits my daily life. I just think other people are batshit crazy.)
I feel that the better solution is to do the world a favor and not purpetuate the already large collection of dangerous recessives I seem to carry. Can I get an honorable mention for the darwin award?
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the potential for a divine being to exist continues to persist in the face of any and all scientific discussion or discovery, because the nature of the divine is axiomatically seperated from the mundane. Science deals exclusively with the mundane, and if it cannot fin evidence to show a god diddles with mundane reality, that is all it shows. It does not show that the divinity cannot exist.
I do not artificially limit "divinity" to a narrow subset of "divine creator"-- a divinity could also simply not give two shits about the universe, or may even wish the universe went away, or may even have created the universe accidentally. The only qualification I place to satisfy "divinity" is a being that exists, and does so in a fashion, mode, or form such that no science of our understanding or creation could ever describe or predict it.
Eg, if there was a conciousness inside one of the tiny rolled up dimensions described by string theory, or in another or outside our universe as such a sapce is required for supergravity, then it would qualify, even if it does absolutly nothing but exist.
I cannot discount that such a being could exist, therefor I cannot assert or accept an assertion that it cannot or does not.
Asserting that the question itself is useless because a divine being that does nothing is a non actor, and tenders no predictions or effects, *IS* an answer I can accept, and is indeed the position I hold.
Much better!
I am glad to see that the quality of ac trolling has not totally slipped by the wayside here!
But I am a little disappointed that you didn't slip at least one reference to my mother's basement, or to my neckbeard being of such a horrific nature that it even gives RMS pause.
But I will applaud a good troll when I see one. Good job sir!
As a customer (former at least) of thiers, it does concern me if the money I spend is used to finance the harrassment of other developers, much like it IS the business of customers who buy clothing made in sweatshops to ask if the clothing they are buying finances the use of said sweatshops. Asking the question is not a crime, regardless of your opinion of the matter.
As for your admission about resorting instantly to violence, that simply exposes your own personality failings as a host. That is NOT proper ettiquette for hosting a social function, such as a party or a public forum.
Lol
Thanks, I needed that. Good ol ac we know and love.
I amsurprised you didn't insinuate that I am gay though. Afterall, if I am not interested in pussy I must be interested in dick, right?
You are losing your touch ac. I expected so much more from you.
Better luck next time.
1) the bethsoft game forums allow all kinds of discussions about other games from other vendors. There was even a thriving dwarf fortress discussion going on there several years ago. How is asking about "scrolls" any different, given this information?
2) as a hypothetical fan of bethesda or of their games, where else would you go to ask about their decision to sue this man?
3) as a respectful host, why would you treat any guest, even one that asks an uncomfortable question (even if the question is asked politely) like they had just raped your wife, and not simply calmly and politely answer the question? Does this not show a lack of genuine respect for ones guests? I did not suggest going there and trolling, I suggested there and politely asking. Big difference.
Firstly, what is your gender? Inquiring minds want to know!
Actually, I value their "wonderful content" so much that I wait for the actual retail price to drop below 20$, THEN buy it second hand, and then only on a whim to see if it was even worth the effort.
Also, second hand sales are not stealing. Stop drinking the industry koolaid.
Seeing as I am not married, nor interested in being married, I fail to see how that would impact me in the least. Knock yourself out.
If you don't believe me, just try going there and asking innocently about it in the forum, and see how politely it gets treated. Seriously, go try it. :)
And no, I am not being hipocritical here. I really do not regret my decision to stop giving them my money.
The very topic of this pending lawsuit is a forbidden one on the bethesda game studios forums.
From my own expierences on that forum several years ago, I can pretty much assure you that it is enforced with gestapo like ferocity, at the behest of the legal and corporate drones, and the moderator staff is all too willing to enforce such censorship.
Long ago I swore off ever buying another bethesda softworks title as direct retail (I will only purchase second hand, to ensure that they never receive any of my money) and things like this only reinforce that opinion.
While sesame street really isn't well suited to adults, at least it isn't as bad as UK preschool television, or AU preschool television.
UK television has such desirable programming as the boobahs, which are vaguely humanoid shaped blobs that fly around crapping out rainbows while making farting sounds, and the notoriously famous tellietubbies who must obey everything the narrator says, eat a strict diet of pink goop, and play with random items that mysteriously appear underneath a giggling babyfaced sun. (Oh yes, they appear to live in a crashed UFO.)
AU children's television at least treats children like they have brains a little meatier than lumpy tapioca, but their bananas in pajamas has some questionable things going on. While I applaud that they try to flesh out the character personalities (each character set has thing that they seem to prefer, such as favorite toys, foods, etc) more than the UK offerings do, I find that the setting is questionable.
Somehow the bananas, the teddies, and the rat in the hat are the only residents of their town. Further, the only male character that is not either of ambiguous sexual preference (I don't have anything against the bananas being apparently gay, just so you know.) Or a total shyster is poor Morgan, the only male teddy on the show. Morgan is presented as being a young boy without any father figure, who lives with his two older sisters, and no parents. He has obvious issues fitting into the setting, as the bananas are more like goofy uncles, and rat in the hat is not a good role model. I feel that this displays an unrealistic and unheathly model for children to follow. The show would be much better with a more diverse and well rounded cast. (Especially since it seems to be focused on teaching kids how to interact with each other, and be more socially aware.)
Granted, american childrens shows tend to revolved around physical slapstik more often than they should, sesame street at least doesn't feature flying balls of rainbow flatulence. :)
Today's episode is brought to you by the number "i", "e", and "pi".
(Count von count enters the scene with a notebook, and a pencil. Cookie monster comes in from the opposite stage carrying a giant bag of crystallized fructose.)
(Cvc)
One! One giant bag of sugar!
(CM)
Not now! Cookie monster must work dayjob to pay rent! Cookie monster get cushy job at cookie factory downtown-- cookie monster must make 2 MILLION cookies before end of week! (Hushed voice) (but cookie monster no can count high enough to figure out how many bags of sugar cookie monster need...)
(Cue lesson in note taking, and introduction of the natural logarithm. Cookie monster declares "e is for EVIL!", to which count von count goes on a tangent about how exponentiation is his favorite kind of math, and finds irrational numbers the most fantastic of all, before rapidly exponentiating using e, cackling madly while spinning off stage, leaving cookie monster alone and helpless in the cookie factory.)
You are kinda singing to the choir here. :)
(I am agnostic and not atheist)
Pointing out how extraordinary a claim of divinity is to contrast the lesser degree of extraordinary claim that no such entity or force exists, does not itself make the latter the rational choice. (The 'less wong' answer of two wrong answers, is still a wrong answer.)
That's like choosing the giant douche over the turd sandwich, because at least the douche is clean. (Professor ikkeda and his.. unique.. work in the latter field withstanding.)
To me the sensible choice is to not select either choice, because both choices are faulted.
If it were likened to a political debate between the epinomous "kang" and "kodos" for who to elect as president, my position would be not to go to the voting booth at all. (Neither deserve my vote, regardless of kodos's claim that if he were elected, fewer human fatalities would result. Both delegates suffer the same fundemental flaw: they are illegal extraterrestrials, with no real right to even run for that office.)
That is to say, I am neither a theist, no an atheist. I can accept that you hold an opinion about the (non)probability of a divinity due to the precept of the razor, but I cannot accept an absolute judgement in that direction, as the razor does not work that way. Any atheist that eschews theists and claims they are stupid for their opinion is innately hipocritical to my observation, because that is what theists claiming divine knowledge do. (The claim that no divinity exists is claiming to posess with certainty, knowledge of the (non existence of) the divine.)
Asserting "Hey, I think believing in the sky fairy is silly and I don't want to placate that mindset." Is OK, so long as you don't also throw in the "and you are silly too if you do believe in the magic sky fairy!" At the end.
Likewise, the ardent apostle of the sacred order of the divine and powerful sky fairy should not contort his mitred, fairy-wing encrusted brow and prognosticate your untimely demise for failing to love the allmighty skyfairy, because he does not know for sure about the sky fairy either.
In that respect, your refusal of the skyfairy is a bit like my refusal to eat asparagus. I hate asparagus, I find it tastes revolting in each and every way it can be prepaired. (Blach) however, my bias against asparagus should not push me to tell people they are gross for eating it, nor should a person who (gawd knows how) actually likes the stuff try endlessly to get me to eat it.
By asserting that the skyfairy is not divine, you have automatically lowered it to the same level as the asparagus.
(That is not a bad thing. I can totally dig that)
I pretty much ignore the entire question of divinity, and am only fast to point out the logical failures of both obvious choices. (Pro, angst, respectively.) To me the actual question is moot, and the devotion is to the logic itself that points this out.
(I am not a theistic apologist, despite having had that accusation leveled at me in the past. With regard to any hypothetical divine, I am totally ambivalent, if not outright apathetic.)
This argument makes a faulted premise; if you do no "not believe" in something, then it must mean that you DO believe in it.
This suffers a false choice fallacy, in that I don't actively choose to do either. Instead, I hold that the question itself has no real merit, because the outcome of either choice leads to an untestable and therefor useless conclusion.
Bluntly, I chose not to choose, and then disregard the issue completely. I do not actively disbelieve, but I don't actively believe either.
As such, I do not spend any inordinate amount of my time chasing after sky fairies, or any other nonrational being.
I would personally say that the flat assertion "there are no gods" is an extraordinary claim, given that there is no direct evidence to support it; eg, no direct test currently exists that can verify the assertion.
It therefor suffers the exact same rational failing.