I use Adobe on Mac instead of Windows not because I hate/love either operating system, but because I have 20 years worth of Applescript built for a unique workflow that involves much more than Adobe/Apple/Microsoft products.
"What really is the difference between saying 'I took a dump' and 'I took a shit'? They mean exactly the same thing, but for some reason shit is a dirty word."
My (step)son completed his Freshman term last year at a private Canadian High School. For your example "dump" *is* a dirty word in that context, and if said that way he can get into as much trouble as if he had used the word "shit" (in any context). Same goes for "frig" and many other seemingly innocent words that kids are using as codewords for naughty words.
"DSL which was close to $50 when it first came out can be had for $15 a month these days."
Lucky you. DSL is more or less the same price when it came out as it is today in my area. Sure, there's all of two providers for ISP using DSL that compete at exactly one cent per month difference, but sadly there is only one provider of the POTS landline that makes DSL possible in my home and both DSL providers require it - one of them is the same provider of the landline service, which adds to the cost of the DSL service fee even if I don't use POTS at all. I hear that if I push the issue then I can make it a "naked DSL" service line, but it still works out to more than $50/month and I have to go with just that one ISP provider.
Ya, thot so. Vague memory of being told, "That's illegal," when someone burnt a bill in protest or for a magic act or something.
Thanks for not taking my mention as an argument against your stance, as I also do not speak for the US govt (tho as a citizen of the US, I can - the whole of the people thing).
Plus, I feel better about my other reply to the parent, er, maybe gp, post when I said that burning money is as "wrong" as burning a book - both only have value that we assign to them, rather than an intrinsic value. Merely, we've assigned a very high value to a publication if it's money (so much so it is, indeed, illegal to burn it and therefore any exception to First Amendment protection is probably handled on a case by case basis).
As you state, Flag burning is more apt as a comparison to book burning (especially that it's codified by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling).
Ya, I've been all over different discussions about the whole 451 acts lately, being a literary buff and all; which is the only reason I now know that about flag burning laws.
Had to think for a minute, maybe even retract my first reply to the parent of your reply, but... I can't remember; isn't there some federal statute about the only people who can burn money is the federal mint? Otherwise, I believe, it's illegal as far as destruction of federal property (ie, no, we don't own the script, we merely use it under the conditions imposed by the real owner - the US Treasury).
I sense that you are trying to be sarcastic, but I see it as a very apt substitution. Currency has no value other than what we assign it, just like books.
Friend of mine explained the secret to me. If you go to your doctor and say you want marijuana because it's medicine that alleviates pain the doctor will prescribe you pain killers, not pot. If you go to the doctor and say you want marijuana because you're in pain and when you smoke pot you don't care about the pain and feel better from the high, then they prescribe it to you. If you go to your doctor and say the chemotherapy has depressed you and destroyed your appitite, the doctor recommends pot so you can feel better and get the munchies.
The medicinal properties of marijuana are one; it's a euphoric barbituate.
Ya, that was implied in the interview, too. I'd never seen more than glimpses of PBS news shows. Kinda party for the Democrats, but not any where as egregious as other spin machines. I actually appreciated their attempts at neutrality - for the other news show that preceded I mean, the interview was very focused, non-partisan, and non-infotainment; it all looked like real journalism!
Because he was telling his story and complaining on television about no one televising his story and complaints. Okay, maybe not ironic in a literal sense, but still kind of silly. His point was not lost on me nor on the interviewer, since the overall poor state of 15 minute journalism overshadows the one hour of fame he got, especially in the way the lack of journalism in Haiti during relief efforts effects public perception (and donations/volunteering) about the real situation in Haiti. Essentially, there was lots of coverage of the carnage right after the earthquake, but no coverage of the fallout and struggles that followed. So when journalists came back in six months to follow up they couldn't get a clear picture of "what happened" as to why the relief efforts weren't "working" as well as people assumed they would.
Ironic that just last night Sean Penn said almost the same thing on PBS Newshour while discussing the problems he faces getting funded for continued relief^^rebuilding efforts in Haiti.
Well, I know that every level of government, not just the feds, now frowns upon fishing with explosives than they did before; but it's a negligible difference.
And there's that whole Burning Man thing that started with 1,200 or so people forced out into the middle of an empty desert because the San Francisco beaches were not an appropriate place for fires and explosions of the size that they grew into. For fun, mind you. And back then it was do whatever you want since you can only hurt yourself. While there has been an escalation of regulation and licensing and imposing fire/ambulance support while being allowed to blow stuff up, for fun mind you, it seems to me that it is not a paranoid response but one of public safety since now the crowds gathered around to watch stuff blow up in the middle of nowhere now stands at 40 to 50 thousand.
There was this one art piece I remember, a wooden oil rig that was supposed to spew a propane jet of fire instead of oil, and then fireworks and fanfare and then burn it up. I was told there had been trouble with the firework license and the fuel tank or fire safety of the thing that put the artists at odds with the state, not fed, agencies. It didn't work as expected, and then the fireworks went ahead as planned anyway and they just paid the fines, and then they blew it up instead of just burning it and figured what the hell can they do about it after it's done. It was spectacular, and never were there any jackboots involved (just regulators and inspectors).
Motorla Razor 3G still going strong here, as a phone. If I had more than a phone in my phone I might need or want to change phones every 2 years, but it's just a phone that continues to be a phone whether or not it's X years old.
PCA versus (forget her last name): Executive Director quit after membership of 501c3 corporation petitioned for her removal, then sued the board of directors for hostile work environment; she won and was awarded compensation.
No, I don't have a case number because I resigned from my post as Secretary several months prior to the case, since i saw it coming.
Not as the courts have defined it (the public record of a petition and it's intent is not circumstantial when the record of employment changes are proof of opportunity making the petition itself a motive).
Besides that, if living in fear of my employer is enough that I have to compromise my "vote" on a petition, to me it means either the petition is something that isn't all that important to me, just to my boss. If the petition is something that's important to me I'd have to weigh exactly how important it is as to whether or not it's worth the risk to stand on my principles and sign/not sign - which again, is not writ in stone. I can wait until my boss checks whether or not I'm agreeing with him on the petition, and then petition the petitioners to retract or invalidate my participation in said petition. If the petitioner is my boss, that's even more fodder for the labor courts or labor union or human resource department, depending on what kind of employment contract I have with this person and what kind of business/company is employing me. If it's just some private schmo calling the shots for his family business and there's no checks and balances afforded me like there are in larger companies, then it's unlikely the job is worth more than my opinion (again, depending on what the petition is about and whether or not any action will result of me or anyone else signing it).
And ya know, for that matter, if his name shows up on both lists (the petition and the IRS as my employer) and my name shows up on the same lists, both public record, and then only my name shows up on another list, like the unemployment or tax bracket one, I think it'd be very easy to prove my allegations of illegal coercion for a political agenda by a superior (called harassment).
At least my experiences to date on both sides of the courtroom of labor law have shown that good courts easily prevail over bad luck.
For that matter, I can sign or not sign his silly petition and later say my opinion has changed, or perhaps vote differently when (or if) the petition results in any action.
That's the key difference. A vote is an action, a choice, and is my power. A petition is deliberation, an argument, all of which precedes action that doesn't necessarily follow.
Good grief, for that matter so what? What incentive could anybody have to coheres a signature of a petition. A signature on a ballot has the actual power of more than an opinion, a signature on a petition does not.
Except the petition is none of his business, and I can sue him for harassment with a clear cut case since my boss cannot make that kind of threat anonymously.
Except that a petition is putting my name to an opinion urging people to vote, whereas a vote is simply putting my name as a vote not as how I voted.
Slashdot Mirror
Thar it is!
I use Adobe on Mac instead of Windows not because I hate/love either operating system, but because I have 20 years worth of Applescript built for a unique workflow that involves much more than Adobe/Apple/Microsoft products.
As someone who just fairly recently subscribed to Netflix in defiance to all video stores, redboxes, cable and satellite plans, I just wanna say....
THANK YOU!!!
"What really is the difference between saying 'I took a dump' and 'I took a shit'? They mean exactly the same thing, but for some reason shit is a dirty word."
My (step)son completed his Freshman term last year at a private Canadian High School. For your example "dump" *is* a dirty word in that context, and if said that way he can get into as much trouble as if he had used the word "shit" (in any context). Same goes for "frig" and many other seemingly innocent words that kids are using as codewords for naughty words.
"DSL which was close to $50 when it first came out can be had for $15 a month these days."
Lucky you. DSL is more or less the same price when it came out as it is today in my area. Sure, there's all of two providers for ISP using DSL that compete at exactly one cent per month difference, but sadly there is only one provider of the POTS landline that makes DSL possible in my home and both DSL providers require it - one of them is the same provider of the landline service, which adds to the cost of the DSL service fee even if I don't use POTS at all. I hear that if I push the issue then I can make it a "naked DSL" service line, but it still works out to more than $50/month and I have to go with just that one ISP provider.
Ya, thot so. Vague memory of being told, "That's illegal," when someone burnt a bill in protest or for a magic act or something.
Thanks for not taking my mention as an argument against your stance, as I also do not speak for the US govt (tho as a citizen of the US, I can - the whole of the people thing).
Plus, I feel better about my other reply to the parent, er, maybe gp, post when I said that burning money is as "wrong" as burning a book - both only have value that we assign to them, rather than an intrinsic value. Merely, we've assigned a very high value to a publication if it's money (so much so it is, indeed, illegal to burn it and therefore any exception to First Amendment protection is probably handled on a case by case basis).
As you state, Flag burning is more apt as a comparison to book burning (especially that it's codified by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling).
Ya, I've been all over different discussions about the whole 451 acts lately, being a literary buff and all; which is the only reason I now know that about flag burning laws.
Had to think for a minute, maybe even retract my first reply to the parent of your reply, but... I can't remember; isn't there some federal statute about the only people who can burn money is the federal mint? Otherwise, I believe, it's illegal as far as destruction of federal property (ie, no, we don't own the script, we merely use it under the conditions imposed by the real owner - the US Treasury).
I sense that you are trying to be sarcastic, but I see it as a very apt substitution. Currency has no value other than what we assign it, just like books.
Narcotic, then?
Friend of mine explained the secret to me. If you go to your doctor and say you want marijuana because it's medicine that alleviates pain the doctor will prescribe you pain killers, not pot. If you go to the doctor and say you want marijuana because you're in pain and when you smoke pot you don't care about the pain and feel better from the high, then they prescribe it to you. If you go to your doctor and say the chemotherapy has depressed you and destroyed your appitite, the doctor recommends pot so you can feel better and get the munchies.
The medicinal properties of marijuana are one; it's a euphoric barbituate.
I can't let you do that, Dave.
I'd laugh very hard with you and the Funny mod except you have completely captured the quintessential essense of my hate for that application.
Ya, that was implied in the interview, too. I'd never seen more than glimpses of PBS news shows. Kinda party for the Democrats, but not any where as egregious as other spin machines. I actually appreciated their attempts at neutrality - for the other news show that preceded I mean, the interview was very focused, non-partisan, and non-infotainment; it all looked like real journalism!
Because he was telling his story and complaining on television about no one televising his story and complaints. Okay, maybe not ironic in a literal sense, but still kind of silly. His point was not lost on me nor on the interviewer, since the overall poor state of 15 minute journalism overshadows the one hour of fame he got, especially in the way the lack of journalism in Haiti during relief efforts effects public perception (and donations/volunteering) about the real situation in Haiti. Essentially, there was lots of coverage of the carnage right after the earthquake, but no coverage of the fallout and struggles that followed. So when journalists came back in six months to follow up they couldn't get a clear picture of "what happened" as to why the relief efforts weren't "working" as well as people assumed they would.
Ironic that just last night Sean Penn said almost the same thing on PBS Newshour while discussing the problems he faces getting funded for continued relief^^rebuilding efforts in Haiti.
Well, I know that every level of government, not just the feds, now frowns upon fishing with explosives than they did before; but it's a negligible difference.
And there's that whole Burning Man thing that started with 1,200 or so people forced out into the middle of an empty desert because the San Francisco beaches were not an appropriate place for fires and explosions of the size that they grew into. For fun, mind you. And back then it was do whatever you want since you can only hurt yourself. While there has been an escalation of regulation and licensing and imposing fire/ambulance support while being allowed to blow stuff up, for fun mind you, it seems to me that it is not a paranoid response but one of public safety since now the crowds gathered around to watch stuff blow up in the middle of nowhere now stands at 40 to 50 thousand.
There was this one art piece I remember, a wooden oil rig that was supposed to spew a propane jet of fire instead of oil, and then fireworks and fanfare and then burn it up. I was told there had been trouble with the firework license and the fuel tank or fire safety of the thing that put the artists at odds with the state, not fed, agencies. It didn't work as expected, and then the fireworks went ahead as planned anyway and they just paid the fines, and then they blew it up instead of just burning it and figured what the hell can they do about it after it's done. It was spectacular, and never were there any jackboots involved (just regulators and inspectors).
**applause**
A simple 6ft drop to test whether or not it will survive falling out of a pocket?
Man those are some long legs.
"Agree with it or not, the whole idea of a government takeover of a website at the flip of a switch just gives me the heebie jeebies."
Haaaaaaay... wasn't there just a story about that now being legal for the government to do? A flip swi... no, a kill switch or something?
Man, that was quick (both the implementation and the abuse thereof).
"People change phones every 2 years"
Motorla Razor 3G still going strong here, as a phone. If I had more than a phone in my phone I might need or want to change phones every 2 years, but it's just a phone that continues to be a phone whether or not it's X years old.
PCA versus (forget her last name): Executive Director quit after membership of 501c3 corporation petitioned for her removal, then sued the board of directors for hostile work environment; she won and was awarded compensation.
No, I don't have a case number because I resigned from my post as Secretary several months prior to the case, since i saw it coming.
Not as the courts have defined it (the public record of a petition and it's intent is not circumstantial when the record of employment changes are proof of opportunity making the petition itself a motive).
Besides that, if living in fear of my employer is enough that I have to compromise my "vote" on a petition, to me it means either the petition is something that isn't all that important to me, just to my boss. If the petition is something that's important to me I'd have to weigh exactly how important it is as to whether or not it's worth the risk to stand on my principles and sign/not sign - which again, is not writ in stone. I can wait until my boss checks whether or not I'm agreeing with him on the petition, and then petition the petitioners to retract or invalidate my participation in said petition. If the petitioner is my boss, that's even more fodder for the labor courts or labor union or human resource department, depending on what kind of employment contract I have with this person and what kind of business/company is employing me. If it's just some private schmo calling the shots for his family business and there's no checks and balances afforded me like there are in larger companies, then it's unlikely the job is worth more than my opinion (again, depending on what the petition is about and whether or not any action will result of me or anyone else signing it).
It's not a vote.
And ya know, for that matter, if his name shows up on both lists (the petition and the IRS as my employer) and my name shows up on the same lists, both public record, and then only my name shows up on another list, like the unemployment or tax bracket one, I think it'd be very easy to prove my allegations of illegal coercion for a political agenda by a superior (called harassment).
At least my experiences to date on both sides of the courtroom of labor law have shown that good courts easily prevail over bad luck.
That's up to the courts to decide, not luck.
For that matter, I can sign or not sign his silly petition and later say my opinion has changed, or perhaps vote differently when (or if) the petition results in any action.
That's the key difference. A vote is an action, a choice, and is my power. A petition is deliberation, an argument, all of which precedes action that doesn't necessarily follow.
Good grief, for that matter so what? What incentive could anybody have to coheres a signature of a petition. A signature on a ballot has the actual power of more than an opinion, a signature on a petition does not.
Except the petition is none of his business, and I can sue him for harassment with a clear cut case since my boss cannot make that kind of threat anonymously.
Except that a petition is putting my name to an opinion urging people to vote, whereas a vote is simply putting my name as a vote not as how I voted.