look at how they got the numbers -- I don't know about this particular study, but an anonymous poll that goes
1. do you or have you ever enjoyed an adult internet site?
_Y _N
2. Did you, have you, or will you ever tell anyone about this?
_Y _N
many people will say things anonymously who won't say them when they can be traced back to them. Anonymous cowards on slashdot are a clear example of this. Sometimes they even say accurate, useful, interesting things.
Though personally I don't give a crap what you drink, I wish that the dairy board weren't so powerful as to get my tax money so that milk drinkers pay less for an animal product (which is more expensive per calorie to produce) while those of us who can't or choose not to (I'm one of the former) drink milk must pay more for substitutes.
And I wish that 'non-dairy' didn't involve caesin (as I'm violently allergic to it, but it can be added to all sorts of things, including lox, without being mentioned. why? because the dairy board sucks and told the FDA that it was better that way)
They don't mention it in their faq (funny that) but as of last year, at least (the last time I needed western union) they did allow you to pick up money without an ID. The sender had to specifically allow this, and a question was asked with an answer (theoretically) only you should know for authentication.
To confirm this, go down to your local western union and read the 'to send money' form.
Serious suggestion: In your copious spare time (that was very toungue in cheek -- I'm a sysadmin, I don't know what spare time is ) something you could do to fight the higher ups, is:
make a list of all the costs involved with spam -- man hours tracking it down, downtime of mail servers swamped with it, getting yourself out of the RBL, business lost/cost to customers of being RBL'd -- make it as detailed as possible, be realistic, but remember that things like the amount they paid some sysadmin to come in at midnight to fix the mail server 'cos some spammer brought it down counts!
Split this into per-spammer chunks (i.e. maybe each spamming incident costs $250 or something, this is, btw, probably too low an estimate)
find out how much your lawyer costs
compare number-of-spammers times per-spammer-costs to lawyer-costs
if a is greater than b, tell the higher ups.
otherwise, file it and return to it occasionally -- increases in costs or spammers might make it useful eventually
The reason for not vaccinating is because then you can't tell if the animal has the disease (and is contagious) or merely has anti-bodies from the vaccine (and is not contagious)
Incidently, hoof/foot and mouth is often not fatal by itself, but causes animals to lose weight and generally become unsalable/unproductive. Also, in animals that have recovered, you have the same antibodies/contagion problem you have with vaccines. The virus is very very contagious -- a human can pass it on simply by walking through a field where an infected animal has been, and then walking through another field where a non-infected animal will be soon.
No, but nature/god/what have you released far more dangerous things into the woods in which *I* played as a child. Cougars and rattle snakes are generally much more deadly than porn, spam or even bomb making instructions. And that doesn't even take into account the possibility that some pervert might have been hiding back there (a remote, but scary, possibility).
The world is not safe. It has never been safe (at least not since God cast Adam and Eve out ofthe garden, if you happen to believe that. I don't) The only time you'll be safe is when you're dead. The only time your children will be safe is when they are dead. It's your responsibility to raise your children, and protect them as you see fit. It is not my responsibility to do so, nor is it your responsibility to raise my children and protect them as you see fit.
This isn't to say that real dangers shouldn't be dealt with. I'm all for killing or confining cougars who have eaten humans, but I am against doing the same for cougars who have not. In a similar vein, I am all for killing or confining those who would rape or kill those of any age, but esspecially children, but I cannot condone the outlawing of porn (spam is a different matter -- defined as that which uses other peoples resources it is theft, not speech, which is the issue) even though I feel that it is used to spread societal memes of female subordination and male domination/violence. To do so would be to institute laws against thought. That's a much bigger crime against humanity than anything ever said.
Except that's not really marketing, except in the broadest sense. Yeah, sure, they mentioned the site, but it's pretty clear that it's not actually a site explaining what badgers really eat (at least not in depth, I have no clue whether badgers actually eat woodpeckers), it doesn't look like they're making gobs of money (yeah, there's some banner ads, but last time I checked no one was getting rich off banner ads) and the site itself isn't promoting anything, really.
I think you're missing the original point -- when your parents let you go out in the woods alone (I assume) they didn't ask the U.S. government to send a swat team in first to kill anything that might harm you and burn out all the poison ivy just for good measure.
*constant* supervision is bad, but expecting everyone to take care of your kids for you is worse.
A. Amount of energy vs weight (yes, that energy can be replenished over and over, but one charging of 1 kilo [or choose your preferred measure of mass] of battery is less than 1 kilo of any reasonable fuel) You also have to carry dead weight around as the battery is drained -- 'dead' fuel is burned and is not carried by your vehical.
B. Recharging -- granted, part of this is a social problem and can be dealt with (by having recharging stations) but even your corner recharging station isn't going to help the fact that it takes far longer to recharge a battery than to fill a fuel tank. And if you happen to be going somewhere without stations of the appropriate type, it's more efficient to carry containers of fuel than fuel + generator.
C. Hydrogen (in particular) is far less polluting than Lead Acid batteries -- in generation and in getting rid of it at the end of it's useful life. (Yes, recycling is good. however, I'm not seeing americans recycle -- in fact, I'm beginning to see backlash -- recycling is *not* cool -- I don't believe that, but my belief doesn't change the fact that many do believe that)
And leaking gasoline isn't half so dangerous as an exploding gas tank on your standard sized car. Think of the blaze if the hindenburg had been filled with gasoline (that's a lot of volume there).
Specifically, the bit about the fire not being consitant with a hydrogen fire/explosion.
Re:Another warning against Linux certification
on
Linuxgruven Deorbits
·
· Score: 2
Being in the real world, unfortunetly.
I'm not happy about it, but it is common to have non-computer-literate bosses hiring IT/other tech folks (IT is what I know, so I'll talk mostly about it, but I don't doubt that similar issues happen throughout all of techdom)
Sometimes this is because someone got promoted to their level of incompetance, but sometimes it's just because you've got a small business that needs IT (not just tech businesses, these days) but the person who runs it is a business person, *not* a tech. The company does need people with business heads, and they aren't yet big enough to have more than one tech, hence technically-unclued (yet well meaning and otherwise intelligent) folks end up having to hire techs (or a tech, at least).
First, remember that I live in CA, and therefore pay about $2/gallon (I also drive a vehical that gets 110mi/gal, but that's a different story)
If gas were $5/gal, all people would be forced to consider different transportation obtions, but at $2/gal it's only the working class that has trouble affording it. Big shocker.
I'm inclined to agree that taxing gas intelligently could help discourage the waste of resources -- the point I was trying to make is that petroleum products are well subsidized (not just directly to oil companies, but military expenses due to conflicts we woudln't be in if not for our dependance on foreign oil, allowing drilling on federally owned land, subsidies to companies that support the oil industries (from refineries on down). And as I pointed out, oil isn't the only thing that's treated this way. Most people coudn't afford to eat the amount of meat they do if they had to pay the real market price for it.
The source of the paper about the 'problems with sea-level predictions' is written and endorsed by a groups called Greening Earth Society who purports, on their front page to promote the scientific view that carbon dioxide is beneficial for human kind and all of nature. While CO2 is certainly part of our ecosystem, the GES seems to think that if a little is a good thing, a lot is going to be better. I think it's also relavant that their front page has a link (the only off-site link on their front page) to http://www.fossilfuels.org/ a site that claims that fossil fuels are one of "The Creator's greatest gifts to humankind".
Pardon me if I'm mildly skeptical. These sites don't seem to be very unbiased.
Given the sheer amount of tax money spent on corporate welfare for the oil and related industries, it's a political choice. Gas, like meat, would not be affordable to the average consumer (at least not at the levels currently consumed) without government subsidies.
Hey, they spend our money on it, then tax us to the hilt when we buy it -- am I the only person feeling like they're getting us both coming and going?
Perhaps, and if the original poster had merely said "I think that many young people need to get their heads out of their asses and into the real world" I probably would have just let it go. It was the "I won't interview anyone under 25" that set me off. It's one thing to complain about crappy attitudes (heck, wasn't that what I was doing?), it's a completely different thing to completely write off a whole subset of people on a totally non-related factor -- like age.
And an awful lot of people could give any group a bad name. The idea is not to let them. Really.
You know, it's people like you that keep me from putting my birthdate (or my graduation date) on my resume. Yes, I'm under twenty-five. I also work for a bit under market for my skill set, and, guess what, I have no kids, no family, I'm still young enough and healthy enough that I can work a few 80 hour weeks (okay, not the whole year of 80 hour weeks I worked two years ago, but I still do pretty good). You're sick of whiny 20 somethings? I'm sick of being told that I'm 'too young' for a job I do as well as most others, and better than some. I'm sick of adults who raised the current generation to be the way they are, including the minority of slackers, and then bitch and whine and complain about them now -- and act as if no one under the age of 30 has a lick of responsibility. I'm sick of finding that some of the people who will hire me will get pissed because I won't go out with their sons, or are shocked that I"m offended when they tell me that I'm the 'wrong color' to live in a particular neighborhood. Or think I'm overreacting because I don't like it when my boss calls me 'dear' and pats me on the ass. Not all people over 30 are like this, just like not all people under 25 are slackers who want respect and money without responsibility. But people like you give older adults a bad name.
there are cypherpunks meetings in/near DC...I seem to recall hearing of them as recently as january 2001 -- try subscribing to the cypherpunks list (use a remailer other than toad.com, though. trust me) and lurking for a bit.
About HR: anecdotally HR apparently has shown about as much legal clue as anyone else outside of lawyers -- close to none. In fact, yesterday we had a consultant come in to discuss 401k plans (something HR has even more reason to fully understand than IP law) and we discovered that every person in the room, including me, had been mislead by at least one, and possibly more, HR people about various legal aspects of 401K plans in our lives. And there's more reason to believe that the reason was ignorance, not malice, in most cases. (Incidently, my current employer does not have an HR department, and therefore we get a lot of outside specialists instead, which has increased my knowledge of various legal aspects of my employment immensely) My point here is simply that getting a lawyer is imperative, not optional, and don't beleive anything HR says either. If they're clued, great, but don't count on it!
In my experience reporters flock to the idiots. I'm not sure why. I think perhaps it's the standard 'idiots talk louder' though there's a kind of sense of 'the reporters choose the idiots to make all protesters look bad' meme going around, that I'm not completely willing to ignore, either.
Just needed to point out that not all activists are idiots, as too many (including my gf) have felt it necessary to tell me in the last few weeks.
> Funny, I prefer to use an accurate term, whether
> I like them or not. The names people make up for
> themselves are usually misleading.
following this one:
>Just because one subculture adopts a word doesn't
> mean that they gain a monopoly on it.
??
If I say I'm a hacktivist genderqueer boidyke with an oxford cloth fetish, how the heck are you supposed to argue that that doesn't accurately describe what I am, if no one has a monopoly on the meanings of those words?
About McDonalds I'm inclined to agree with you, though not for definitions of sucess that involve monentary gain. Which is fine, monentary gain is not the most important thing in the world, by any stretch.
However, I (and I'm sure others) would like to see a stable, reliable, reasonably secure (none of this email virus crap) OS that we could slap on our non-geek friend's computers. I am an activist and a computer geek, my world is about making human society and technology work. My mother is a nurse, her world is about helping people get better, or die with dignity, a more important job, if you ask me. If she wants something that she can write email to my little sister on and write the occasional letter on, then fine. I'm not going to deny her that just to keep the 'purity' of one distro of linux.
In terms of market share -- we live in a capitalist society, whether or not we would like to, and the greater the market share of linux, the less the market share of MS (and a few others, but MS really is the big nasty) and therefore the less money, and the less power (as money actually is power in a capitalist society) MS has.
Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. At some point *someone* will get it together, put out a luser proof distro and make quite a bit of money off it. And yay for them, I have much bigger fish to fry.
I like the idea, however, I'm not happy about the particular implementation. First, because where I live, 'Fag' would probably not be an insult, second, because if it is, that's probably a bad thing.
However, I'm thinking 'asshole' might work. Or maybe 'yuppie'...yuppie is a pretty good insult around here.
actually, this is really on-topic. at the wto protests (not in the middle of any riots, though) I witnessed four cops pin a guy down and shoot non-lethal bullets at his crotch from about ten feet away (the shooter, not the guys pinning, obviously). He was pinned before he was shot, and was not being violent in any way (though he was laying in the middle of the street). So speaking of abuses...
Slashdot Mirror
look at how they got the numbers -- I don't know about this particular study, but an anonymous poll that goes
1. do you or have you ever enjoyed an adult internet site?
_Y _N
2. Did you, have you, or will you ever tell anyone about this?
_Y _N
many people will say things anonymously who won't say them when they can be traced back to them. Anonymous cowards on slashdot are a clear example of this. Sometimes they even say accurate, useful, interesting things.
Ah, but they die to be reborn into the kingdom of god/heaven/etc.
I'm not a xtian, I don't play one on TV..I just felt it necessary to point this out -- it *isn't* a bad thing (they way they wrote it)
Vitamin D is added to help calcium absorbtion
and http://www.notmilk.com
Though personally I don't give a crap what you drink, I wish that the dairy board weren't so powerful as to get my tax money so that milk drinkers pay less for an animal product (which is more expensive per calorie to produce) while those of us who can't or choose not to (I'm one of the former) drink milk must pay more for substitutes.
And I wish that 'non-dairy' didn't involve caesin (as I'm violently allergic to it, but it can be added to all sorts of things, including lox, without being mentioned. why? because the dairy board sucks and told the FDA that it was better that way)
They don't mention it in their faq (funny that) but as of last year, at least (the last time I needed western union) they did allow you to pick up money without an ID. The sender had to specifically allow this, and a question was asked with an answer (theoretically) only you should know for authentication.
To confirm this, go down to your local western union and read the 'to send money' form.
Serious suggestion: In your copious spare time (that was very toungue in cheek -- I'm a sysadmin, I don't know what spare time is ) something you could do to fight the higher ups, is:
make a list of all the costs involved with spam -- man hours tracking it down, downtime of mail servers swamped with it, getting yourself out of the RBL, business lost/cost to customers of being RBL'd -- make it as detailed as possible, be realistic, but remember that things like the amount they paid some sysadmin to come in at midnight to fix the mail server 'cos some spammer brought it down counts!
Split this into per-spammer chunks (i.e. maybe each spamming incident costs $250 or something, this is, btw, probably too low an estimate)
find out how much your lawyer costs
compare number-of-spammers times per-spammer-costs to lawyer-costs
if a is greater than b, tell the higher ups.
otherwise, file it and return to it occasionally -- increases in costs or spammers might make it useful eventually
The reason for not vaccinating is because then you can't tell if the animal has the disease (and is contagious) or merely has anti-bodies from the vaccine (and is not contagious)
Incidently, hoof/foot and mouth is often not fatal by itself, but causes animals to lose weight and generally become unsalable/unproductive. Also, in animals that have recovered, you have the same antibodies/contagion problem you have with vaccines. The virus is very very contagious -- a human can pass it on simply by walking through a field where an infected animal has been, and then walking through another field where a non-infected animal will be soon.
Some useful links:
The Gaurdian's Information on Foot and Mouth Disease
An Editorial, with information about when humans catch foot and mouth Foot and mouth disease: the human consequences (yes, it can happen, it's very rare and not really dangerous)
BTW, Foot and mouth is not yet found in the U.S.
Yet may be the key word here, however. If it gets here, it could not only affect domestic animals, but also deer and other hooved wild life.
No, but nature/god/what have you released far more dangerous things into the woods in which *I* played as a child. Cougars and rattle snakes are generally much more deadly than porn, spam or even bomb making instructions. And that doesn't even take into account the possibility that some pervert might have been hiding back there (a remote, but scary, possibility).
The world is not safe. It has never been safe (at least not since God cast Adam and Eve out ofthe garden, if you happen to believe that. I don't) The only time you'll be safe is when you're dead. The only time your children will be safe is when they are dead. It's your responsibility to raise your children, and protect them as you see fit. It is not my responsibility to do so, nor is it your responsibility to raise my children and protect them as you see fit.
This isn't to say that real dangers shouldn't be dealt with. I'm all for killing or confining cougars who have eaten humans, but I am against doing the same for cougars who have not. In a similar vein, I am all for killing or confining those who would rape or kill those of any age, but esspecially children, but I cannot condone the outlawing of porn (spam is a different matter -- defined as that which uses other peoples resources it is theft, not speech, which is the issue) even though I feel that it is used to spread societal memes of female subordination and male domination/violence. To do so would be to institute laws against thought. That's a much bigger crime against humanity than anything ever said.
Except that's not really marketing, except in the broadest sense. Yeah, sure, they mentioned the site, but it's pretty clear that it's not actually a site explaining what badgers really eat (at least not in depth, I have no clue whether badgers actually eat woodpeckers), it doesn't look like they're making gobs of money (yeah, there's some banner ads, but last time I checked no one was getting rich off banner ads) and the site itself isn't promoting anything, really.
Except maybe not feeding your badger slurpees.
I think you're missing the original point -- when your parents let you go out in the woods alone (I assume) they didn't ask the U.S. government to send a swat team in first to kill anything that might harm you and burn out all the poison ivy just for good measure.
*constant* supervision is bad, but expecting everyone to take care of your kids for you is worse.
No, batteries just have issues with
A. Amount of energy vs weight (yes, that energy can be replenished over and over, but one charging of 1 kilo [or choose your preferred measure of mass] of battery is less than 1 kilo of any reasonable fuel) You also have to carry dead weight around as the battery is drained -- 'dead' fuel is burned and is not carried by your vehical.
B. Recharging -- granted, part of this is a social problem and can be dealt with (by having recharging stations) but even your corner recharging station isn't going to help the fact that it takes far longer to recharge a battery than to fill a fuel tank. And if you happen to be going somewhere without stations of the appropriate type, it's more efficient to carry containers of fuel than fuel + generator.
C. Hydrogen (in particular) is far less polluting than Lead Acid batteries -- in generation and in getting rid of it at the end of it's useful life. (Yes, recycling is good. however, I'm not seeing americans recycle -- in fact, I'm beginning to see backlash -- recycling is *not* cool -- I don't believe that, but my belief doesn't change the fact that many do believe that)
And leaking gasoline isn't half so dangerous as an exploding gas tank on your standard sized car. Think of the blaze if the hindenburg had been filled with gasoline (that's a lot of volume there).
Oh, and the original poster was at least sort of right...read
http://www.hindenburg.net/theories.htm
Specifically, the bit about the fire not being consitant with a hydrogen fire/explosion.
Being in the real world, unfortunetly.
I'm not happy about it, but it is common to have non-computer-literate bosses hiring IT/other tech folks (IT is what I know, so I'll talk mostly about it, but I don't doubt that similar issues happen throughout all of techdom)
Sometimes this is because someone got promoted to their level of incompetance, but sometimes it's just because you've got a small business that needs IT (not just tech businesses, these days) but the person who runs it is a business person, *not* a tech. The company does need people with business heads, and they aren't yet big enough to have more than one tech, hence technically-unclued (yet well meaning and otherwise intelligent) folks end up having to hire techs (or a tech, at least).
It's just life.
First, remember that I live in CA, and therefore pay about $2/gallon (I also drive a vehical that gets 110mi/gal, but that's a different story)
If gas were $5/gal, all people would be forced to consider different transportation obtions, but at $2/gal it's only the working class that has trouble affording it. Big shocker.
I'm inclined to agree that taxing gas intelligently could help discourage the waste of resources -- the point I was trying to make is that petroleum products are well subsidized (not just directly to oil companies, but military expenses due to conflicts we woudln't be in if not for our dependance on foreign oil, allowing drilling on federally owned land, subsidies to companies that support the oil industries (from refineries on down). And as I pointed out, oil isn't the only thing that's treated this way. Most people coudn't afford to eat the amount of meat they do if they had to pay the real market price for it.
The source of the paper about the 'problems with sea-level predictions' is written and endorsed by a groups called Greening Earth Society who purports, on their front page to promote the scientific view that carbon dioxide is beneficial for human kind and all of nature. While CO2 is certainly part of our ecosystem, the GES seems to think that if a little is a good thing, a lot is going to be better. I think it's also relavant that their front page has a link (the only off-site link on their front page) to http://www.fossilfuels.org/ a site that claims that fossil fuels are one of "The Creator's greatest gifts to humankind". Pardon me if I'm mildly skeptical. These sites don't seem to be very unbiased.
Given the sheer amount of tax money spent on corporate welfare for the oil and related industries, it's a political choice. Gas, like meat, would not be affordable to the average consumer (at least not at the levels currently consumed) without government subsidies.
Hey, they spend our money on it, then tax us to the hilt when we buy it -- am I the only person feeling like they're getting us both coming and going?
Perhaps, and if the original poster had merely said "I think that many young people need to get their heads out of their asses and into the real world" I probably would have just let it go. It was the "I won't interview anyone under 25" that set me off. It's one thing to complain about crappy attitudes (heck, wasn't that what I was doing?), it's a completely different thing to completely write off a whole subset of people on a totally non-related factor -- like age.
And an awful lot of people could give any group a bad name. The idea is not to let them. Really.
>If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running
> around in dark rooms, munching pills and
> listening to electronic music
You know, that makes my life make a lot more sense.
You know, it's people like you that keep me from putting my birthdate (or my graduation date) on my resume. Yes, I'm under twenty-five. I also work for a bit under market for my skill set, and, guess what, I have no kids, no family, I'm still young enough and healthy enough that I can work a few 80 hour weeks (okay, not the whole year of 80 hour weeks I worked two years ago, but I still do pretty good). You're sick of whiny 20 somethings? I'm sick of being told that I'm 'too young' for a job I do as well as most others, and better than some. I'm sick of adults who raised the current generation to be the way they are, including the minority of slackers, and then bitch and whine and complain about them now -- and act as if no one under the age of 30 has a lick of responsibility. I'm sick of finding that some of the people who will hire me will get pissed because I won't go out with their sons, or are shocked that I"m offended when they tell me that I'm the 'wrong color' to live in a particular neighborhood. Or think I'm overreacting because I don't like it when my boss calls me 'dear' and pats me on the ass. Not all people over 30 are like this, just like not all people under 25 are slackers who want respect and money without responsibility. But people like you give older adults a bad name.
there are cypherpunks meetings in/near DC...I seem to recall hearing of them as recently as january 2001 -- try subscribing to the cypherpunks list (use a remailer other than toad.com, though. trust me) and lurking for a bit.
l
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/cypherpunks/Home.htm
About HR: anecdotally HR apparently has shown about as much legal clue as anyone else outside of lawyers -- close to none. In fact, yesterday we had a consultant come in to discuss 401k plans (something HR has even more reason to fully understand than IP law) and we discovered that every person in the room, including me, had been mislead by at least one, and possibly more, HR people about various legal aspects of 401K plans in our lives. And there's more reason to believe that the reason was ignorance, not malice, in most cases. (Incidently, my current employer does not have an HR department, and therefore we get a lot of outside specialists instead, which has increased my knowledge of various legal aspects of my employment immensely) My point here is simply that getting a lawyer is imperative, not optional, and don't beleive anything HR says either. If they're clued, great, but don't count on it!
In my experience reporters flock to the idiots. I'm not sure why. I think perhaps it's the standard 'idiots talk louder' though there's a kind of sense of 'the reporters choose the idiots to make all protesters look bad' meme going around, that I'm not completely willing to ignore, either.
Just needed to point out that not all activists are idiots, as too many (including my gf) have felt it necessary to tell me in the last few weeks.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement:
> Funny, I prefer to use an accurate term, whether
> I like them or not. The names people make up for
> themselves are usually misleading.
following this one:
>Just because one subculture adopts a word doesn't
> mean that they gain a monopoly on it.
??
If I say I'm a hacktivist genderqueer boidyke with an oxford cloth fetish, how the heck are you supposed to argue that that doesn't accurately describe what I am, if no one has a monopoly on the meanings of those words?
About McDonalds I'm inclined to agree with you, though not for definitions of sucess that involve monentary gain. Which is fine, monentary gain is not the most important thing in the world, by any stretch.
However, I (and I'm sure others) would like to see a stable, reliable, reasonably secure (none of this email virus crap) OS that we could slap on our non-geek friend's computers. I am an activist and a computer geek, my world is about making human society and technology work. My mother is a nurse, her world is about helping people get better, or die with dignity, a more important job, if you ask me. If she wants something that she can write email to my little sister on and write the occasional letter on, then fine. I'm not going to deny her that just to keep the 'purity' of one distro of linux.
In terms of market share -- we live in a capitalist society, whether or not we would like to, and the greater the market share of linux, the less the market share of MS (and a few others, but MS really is the big nasty) and therefore the less money, and the less power (as money actually is power in a capitalist society) MS has.
Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. At some point *someone* will get it together, put out a luser proof distro and make quite a bit of money off it. And yay for them, I have much bigger fish to fry.
Santa Cruz, CA
bad thing: lack o' housing
good things: just about everything else
I like the idea, however, I'm not happy about the particular implementation. First, because where I live, 'Fag' would probably not be an insult, second, because if it is, that's probably a bad thing.
However, I'm thinking 'asshole' might work. Or maybe 'yuppie'...yuppie is a pretty good insult around here.
actually, this is really on-topic. at the wto protests (not in the middle of any riots, though) I witnessed four cops pin a guy down and shoot non-lethal bullets at his crotch from about ten feet away (the shooter, not the guys pinning, obviously). He was pinned before he was shot, and was not being violent in any way (though he was laying in the middle of the street). So speaking of abuses...