Well stay in the kiddie pool then. If you don't want to be competetive, don't play counterstrike.
Don't be ridiculous, you're responding like a die hard K&M fanboy with their panties in a twist
"Ohhh, look at the stupid controller users floundering around in their kiddie pool while us real men use keyboards and mice at the SAME TIME in unthinkable feats of AGILITY and SKILL which we find impossible reconcile with our concurrent claims that keyboards with mice make things easier and indisputably more accurate."
I realize keyboards and mice are more accurate, just as I realize a a Hobie Cat (catamaran) is going to be faster than a mono hull Laser. That doesn't mean I'm going to force the two fleets together in races and tell all the lasers they just shouldn't sail if they want to be competitive. Hopefully this is close enough to a car analogy to be understood. I'm saying controller users shouldn't be forced to play against keyboard&mice users.
Haven't set any such rules for myself or my renters. There's an end table in the common room that we use for food sometimes but it's kinda low. not a big deal to lean over to cut some food once in awhile while you watch TV or a movie but I wouldn't want to use it for a keyboard or mouse and be that hunched over for an hour or more. Plus I want to be sitting much closer to the TV for a FPS then the couch where the big end table is. Like I said, I don't want to have to deal with another piece of furniture and moving keyboards and mice in and out of storage just to game. It just seems like an additional hassle that is antithetical to the purpose of a console system.
Without victimless activities being illegal you don't need secret police.
How do you figure sports-fan? Are gun runners committing victim-less crimes? Gangs? Triads? terrorist organizations? Right wing religious fanatics? Crazy militias? Do you suppose without drugs all the MS-13 and other gangs will just give up their territory and protection/extortion schemes and go home?
Prepare to see the superiority of mouse and keyboard controls demonstrated definitively.
I'm not sure I want to. I have no doubt they are, but I don't want to have to set up a table with a keyboard and mouse, and get extra ones for my friends, anytime I want to play a FPS console game in the future and not get destroyed by people using better input controls. Is the controller a perfect input control? Not at all. But it's comfortable, compact, easy to use and doesn't require furniture. I don't want to have to make the choice to either sacrifice all that or get get constantly pwned by people who have in an unfair fight.
However, they do not do delivery which is, uh, about 80% of the cost that I was talking about.
Delivery of a baby is considered an emergency condition and therefore no hospital in the country is allowed to turn such a patient away due to inability to pay under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). I mean really, how do you think poor people and immigrants have babies in this country? You think they're all doing home births or something?
As someone who managed to get seats that included an open bar I can say this is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. Wait, we are considering heckling the umpire and players as part of the game right?
Out of curiosity can you describe in what way you got involved that required the administration to move in and shut you down? I generally thought get involved means parents taking an interest in their kids school work, making sure they do their homework, helping them with concepts/ideas, giving them further reading, discussing ideas, quizzing them to help them study, ect. How would the administration even accomplish moving to shut stuff like that down?
According to which Christian doctrine? People talk about Christianity like it's a unified front. It's like saying Conservatives but instead of a specific country you mean "conservatives" the world over. But that's a debate for another time. Any doctrine that would hold that it's "better" to simply kill a child would have to hold that life itself here is meaningless rather then a gift and there's no point, known or unknown, for any of us to be here. Basically, the exact opposite to what everyone claims religions provide.
Or the mother could assess the health, quality of life and financial implications of the parasite growing within her and seek appropriate medical resolution of this unwanted illness.
I'm sorry, is it a parasite or an illness? are there wanted illnesses? Please, share your biological wisdom with us, I was under the mistaken impression that pregnancy was humans evolved method for reproduction.
Next from kevinNCSU: Why doctors are immoral God haters that should be put to death for daring to prevent His plans for shortened lives for the unfortunate. Sorry, for the evil sinners.
Why stop there? If your going to make shit up with no basis whatsoever you might as well go the whole nine yards and throw in nazi racist tea party paid-microsoft-shill apple-fanboy republican
Right, because there's absolutely no organizations or resources for people who can't afford prenatal care. I mean, you'd have to like, type that term into Google and everything to find those, that's way too inconvenient.
If you're not prepared to take care of a child there's always adoption, you killing the child or "putting it through hell" is a false dichotomy. You could also always, you know, suck it up and be the best parent you can be given the situation. As long as your kid isn't starving and has a parent that loves them they've got a pretty good start. Furthermore, by your insane argument, you might as well grab a glock and go around shooting sick and poor children in order to "save" them from a "lifetime of hell" since you've somehow decided you're the arbiter of whether someone elses life is worth living.
The fact that you think a kid refusing to leave a classroom is an unlikely hypothetical displays your ignorance of the current situation in schools. During my time in High School I saw this happen SEVERAL times. Sometimes it was because the kids was literally cussing out the teacher and threatening them. Several more times I saw students steal a cell phone, or TV remote to just be a dick, or any number of things from a classroom, refuse to give it up, refuse to leave because they "didn't do anything" and of course they could not be searched by the teacher. Perhaps kids are different then they used to be, perhaps the cities are rougher now, I don't know what's changed because I've only experienced my version of it, but in my experience people don't change that much, regulations do. And right now teachers don't have the authority to do jack shit and the kids know this, and take advantage of it.
I agree, we shouldn't have to call the cops to deal with a student that's being a prick. We should be able to have a teacher or administrator take them by the arm, and remove them from the classroom. But our society has gotten to the point where it's not politically or legally feasible to let teachers do that, so they have to resort to having a sheriff in the school which. In my experience, the sheriff rarely brought any charges against the kids, they were usually just there to defuse the situation and bring the possibility of consequences back into the equation so the kids would shut up and leave. But that requires an officer trained for those situations, with that daily expectation. You decide not to have that officer there and instead call in Johnny OnPatrol your more likely to have the student in handcuffs in the back of a squad car then escorted to the principal's office because Johnny OnPatrol sure as shit doesn't want to keep responding to the school and doesn't have to work with the kids daily so doesn't really care.
Anyways, I'm not arguing having sheriffs in the schools is what we want, I'm arguing that it's better then not having them given the crappy state of authority we've given our teachers. It'd be much better to allow the teachers more freedom and authority then to have police in the schools.
"Expel the little jerk's ass" is a long ways from dealing with the situation as it's happening. How do you even envision that solving the immediate problem of the student refusing to leave and stop disrupting the class?
Also:
call the cops if he tries to come back to the property.
That's a very, very long way away from posting cops at the school...
I agree, probably about 30 minutes worth of response time away, but that would be the only difference between your two proposals.
that's bull. We've removed their ability to paddle them. That's pretty much it. They can still suspend, expel, detain, and in many other ways punish the troublemakers.
Say a student is being disruptive in a classroom, cussing at the teacher. The teacher tells them to go to the principals office, they refuse. Now what? Teachers can't lay hands on the child, and the kids know it. They can't physically force him from the classroom. The student will claim the teacher attacked them in anger because they had a disagreement or were angry about such and such and their parents will back them and they'll have all sorts of problems on their hands. So what do they do?
They call the schools public safety officer or school sheriff, who has the authority to lay hands on a child and drag them to the office if they refuse to follow him there. They might not respect the teacher, and heck, they might not even respect the sheriff, but everyone respects the gun. I've seen this happen, some kids really just don't give a shit until the cop shows up, then suddenly cussing at and threatening the teacher doesn't seem so bad ass any more now that consequences can happen.
Before the Republicans allied themselves with bible-thumpers? You mean the extremely religious abolitionist movement that allied with republicans with the agenda of ending slavery? That's really what your going to go with as the downfall of the Republican party? Sure you don't want some more time to mull that one over and come back to us with a better time-span that doesn't make you sound like an idiot or racist?
Have you noticed that every time you respond to the original poster you make up new arguments you pretend he made and then knock them down? For example, OP says he doesn't believe passing religious laws is a good idea for such a secular nation and you somehow infer that he wants to pass and amendment banning gay marriage. You're projecting every fallacy, flaw and hypocrisy found throughout the entire world of people claiming to be religious upon a single person willing to talk to you and then raking him over the coals for it.
You support wars and forget that Jesus told you to turn the other cheek. You rally against your enemies and forget that Jesus told you to love them. You cry that you are oppressed (when you have so much power and cause so much oppression) and then forget that Jesus told you being oppressed is a BLESSING for you.
You're putting viewpoints into his mouth he's never spoke and blaming him for wars he never started. Setting up arguments and contradictions of your own making and then knocking them down.
Is this actually a leak or even a big deal? I thought the S&P was threatening and warning about the downgrade for like weeks beforehand? How do we know this isn't just an adviser pointing out that the blindly obvious is going to happen?
While I agree it was poor sentence structure I think the point is put forth rather clearly in the first 6 words:
The group is highly politically motivated...
Beyond that I'm trying to dispel the claim that Anonymous has no "direction" because of it's definition as a bunch of individuals with no central control. Clearly based on the majority of the targets selected, and the reasons for those selections, one can see a trend of political motivation that can be applied to the group as a whole.
Perhaps you should re-exam the axioms you cling to when dealing with Anonymous. The group is highly politically motivated and while you can spurt a bunch of ideological crap about legions and everybody acting separately in different directions according to their own interest, when you look at the group as a whole the actions line up pretty well in one direction and while not the only factor, political motivation seems to be an incredibly strong driving force for the selection of targets in the majority of cases.
Think through what your asking. You want to know if the government will protect you in your 'right' to cause violent crime against the government in order to force change. It's like asking your neighbor to tie his own hands so you can punch him in the face better. When you cross the line to violent or criminal behavior in order to cause change you forfeit any protection from the state and simply make it a matter of your strength versus the states. The American Colonial Revolutionaries knew and understood this when they signed the Deceleration of Independence, that they would all hang if they didn't succeed. They didn't publish rhetoric calling their brothers to throw off tyranny and fight and then ask that same British government to protect them.
After looking at the pictures of scanners in this ( Consumerist Security Briefing from Gawker) I don't think I could tell even if someone put 4 ATM machines in front of me and told me one of them had a skimmer, pick it out. These things fit so perfectly over the card reader it seems near impossible to tell without pulling out a knife and seeing if you can get anything to pop off, and I don't think that'd make most places happy.
Are you sure a government that allows it's citizens to be beaten, stabbed and stolen from with impunity for two days by the fringe element of society and only then comes in to enact new laws when your good and begging for their help is being "considerate of your rights"?
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be lobbying against lobbying, therefore by your argument you are corrupt. If you were a robot this is where you'd explode.
Well stay in the kiddie pool then. If you don't want to be competetive, don't play counterstrike.
Don't be ridiculous, you're responding like a die hard K&M fanboy with their panties in a twist
"Ohhh, look at the stupid controller users floundering around in their kiddie pool while us real men use keyboards and mice at the SAME TIME in unthinkable feats of AGILITY and SKILL which we find impossible reconcile with our concurrent claims that keyboards with mice make things easier and indisputably more accurate."
I realize keyboards and mice are more accurate, just as I realize a a Hobie Cat (catamaran) is going to be faster than a mono hull Laser. That doesn't mean I'm going to force the two fleets together in races and tell all the lasers they just shouldn't sail if they want to be competitive. Hopefully this is close enough to a car analogy to be understood. I'm saying controller users shouldn't be forced to play against keyboard&mice users.
Haven't set any such rules for myself or my renters. There's an end table in the common room that we use for food sometimes but it's kinda low. not a big deal to lean over to cut some food once in awhile while you watch TV or a movie but I wouldn't want to use it for a keyboard or mouse and be that hunched over for an hour or more. Plus I want to be sitting much closer to the TV for a FPS then the couch where the big end table is. Like I said, I don't want to have to deal with another piece of furniture and moving keyboards and mice in and out of storage just to game. It just seems like an additional hassle that is antithetical to the purpose of a console system.
Without victimless activities being illegal you don't need secret police.
How do you figure sports-fan? Are gun runners committing victim-less crimes? Gangs? Triads? terrorist organizations? Right wing religious fanatics? Crazy militias? Do you suppose without drugs all the MS-13 and other gangs will just give up their territory and protection/extortion schemes and go home?
Prepare to see the superiority of mouse and keyboard controls demonstrated definitively.
I'm not sure I want to. I have no doubt they are, but I don't want to have to set up a table with a keyboard and mouse, and get extra ones for my friends, anytime I want to play a FPS console game in the future and not get destroyed by people using better input controls. Is the controller a perfect input control? Not at all. But it's comfortable, compact, easy to use and doesn't require furniture. I don't want to have to make the choice to either sacrifice all that or get get constantly pwned by people who have in an unfair fight.
If there was such a thing as "secure" software what would be the purpose of a security company?
However, they do not do delivery which is, uh, about 80% of the cost that I was talking about.
Delivery of a baby is considered an emergency condition and therefore no hospital in the country is allowed to turn such a patient away due to inability to pay under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). I mean really, how do you think poor people and immigrants have babies in this country? You think they're all doing home births or something?
As someone who managed to get seats that included an open bar I can say this is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. Wait, we are considering heckling the umpire and players as part of the game right?
Out of curiosity can you describe in what way you got involved that required the administration to move in and shut you down? I generally thought get involved means parents taking an interest in their kids school work, making sure they do their homework, helping them with concepts/ideas, giving them further reading, discussing ideas, quizzing them to help them study, ect. How would the administration even accomplish moving to shut stuff like that down?
According to which Christian doctrine? People talk about Christianity like it's a unified front. It's like saying Conservatives but instead of a specific country you mean "conservatives" the world over. But that's a debate for another time. Any doctrine that would hold that it's "better" to simply kill a child would have to hold that life itself here is meaningless rather then a gift and there's no point, known or unknown, for any of us to be here. Basically, the exact opposite to what everyone claims religions provide.
Or the mother could assess the health, quality of life and financial implications of the parasite growing within her and seek appropriate medical resolution of this unwanted illness.
I'm sorry, is it a parasite or an illness? are there wanted illnesses? Please, share your biological wisdom with us, I was under the mistaken impression that pregnancy was humans evolved method for reproduction.
Next from kevinNCSU: Why doctors are immoral God haters that should be put to death for daring to prevent His plans for shortened lives for the unfortunate. Sorry, for the evil sinners.
Why stop there? If your going to make shit up with no basis whatsoever you might as well go the whole nine yards and throw in nazi racist tea party paid-microsoft-shill apple-fanboy republican
Right, because there's absolutely no organizations or resources for people who can't afford prenatal care. I mean, you'd have to like, type that term into Google and everything to find those, that's way too inconvenient.
If you're not prepared to take care of a child there's always adoption, you killing the child or "putting it through hell" is a false dichotomy. You could also always, you know, suck it up and be the best parent you can be given the situation. As long as your kid isn't starving and has a parent that loves them they've got a pretty good start. Furthermore, by your insane argument, you might as well grab a glock and go around shooting sick and poor children in order to "save" them from a "lifetime of hell" since you've somehow decided you're the arbiter of whether someone elses life is worth living.
The fact that you think a kid refusing to leave a classroom is an unlikely hypothetical displays your ignorance of the current situation in schools. During my time in High School I saw this happen SEVERAL times. Sometimes it was because the kids was literally cussing out the teacher and threatening them. Several more times I saw students steal a cell phone, or TV remote to just be a dick, or any number of things from a classroom, refuse to give it up, refuse to leave because they "didn't do anything" and of course they could not be searched by the teacher. Perhaps kids are different then they used to be, perhaps the cities are rougher now, I don't know what's changed because I've only experienced my version of it, but in my experience people don't change that much, regulations do. And right now teachers don't have the authority to do jack shit and the kids know this, and take advantage of it.
I agree, we shouldn't have to call the cops to deal with a student that's being a prick. We should be able to have a teacher or administrator take them by the arm, and remove them from the classroom. But our society has gotten to the point where it's not politically or legally feasible to let teachers do that, so they have to resort to having a sheriff in the school which. In my experience, the sheriff rarely brought any charges against the kids, they were usually just there to defuse the situation and bring the possibility of consequences back into the equation so the kids would shut up and leave. But that requires an officer trained for those situations, with that daily expectation. You decide not to have that officer there and instead call in Johnny OnPatrol your more likely to have the student in handcuffs in the back of a squad car then escorted to the principal's office because Johnny OnPatrol sure as shit doesn't want to keep responding to the school and doesn't have to work with the kids daily so doesn't really care.
Anyways, I'm not arguing having sheriffs in the schools is what we want, I'm arguing that it's better then not having them given the crappy state of authority we've given our teachers. It'd be much better to allow the teachers more freedom and authority then to have police in the schools.
"Expel the little jerk's ass" is a long ways from dealing with the situation as it's happening. How do you even envision that solving the immediate problem of the student refusing to leave and stop disrupting the class?
Also:
call the cops if he tries to come back to the property.
That's a very, very long way away from posting cops at the school...
I agree, probably about 30 minutes worth of response time away, but that would be the only difference between your two proposals.
that's bull. We've removed their ability to paddle them. That's pretty much it. They can still suspend, expel, detain, and in many other ways punish the troublemakers.
Say a student is being disruptive in a classroom, cussing at the teacher. The teacher tells them to go to the principals office, they refuse. Now what? Teachers can't lay hands on the child, and the kids know it. They can't physically force him from the classroom. The student will claim the teacher attacked them in anger because they had a disagreement or were angry about such and such and their parents will back them and they'll have all sorts of problems on their hands. So what do they do?
They call the schools public safety officer or school sheriff, who has the authority to lay hands on a child and drag them to the office if they refuse to follow him there. They might not respect the teacher, and heck, they might not even respect the sheriff, but everyone respects the gun. I've seen this happen, some kids really just don't give a shit until the cop shows up, then suddenly cussing at and threatening the teacher doesn't seem so bad ass any more now that consequences can happen.
Before the Republicans allied themselves with bible-thumpers? You mean the extremely religious abolitionist movement that allied with republicans with the agenda of ending slavery? That's really what your going to go with as the downfall of the Republican party? Sure you don't want some more time to mull that one over and come back to us with a better time-span that doesn't make you sound like an idiot or racist?
Have you noticed that every time you respond to the original poster you make up new arguments you pretend he made and then knock them down? For example, OP says he doesn't believe passing religious laws is a good idea for such a secular nation and you somehow infer that he wants to pass and amendment banning gay marriage. You're projecting every fallacy, flaw and hypocrisy found throughout the entire world of people claiming to be religious upon a single person willing to talk to you and then raking him over the coals for it.
You support wars and forget that Jesus told you to turn the other cheek. You rally against your enemies and forget that Jesus told you to love them. You cry that you are oppressed (when you have so much power and cause so much oppression) and then forget that Jesus told you being oppressed is a BLESSING for you.
You're putting viewpoints into his mouth he's never spoke and blaming him for wars he never started. Setting up arguments and contradictions of your own making and then knocking them down.
Is this actually a leak or even a big deal? I thought the S&P was threatening and warning about the downgrade for like weeks beforehand? How do we know this isn't just an adviser pointing out that the blindly obvious is going to happen?
The group is highly politically motivated...
Beyond that I'm trying to dispel the claim that Anonymous has no "direction" because of it's definition as a bunch of individuals with no central control. Clearly based on the majority of the targets selected, and the reasons for those selections, one can see a trend of political motivation that can be applied to the group as a whole.
Perhaps you should re-exam the axioms you cling to when dealing with Anonymous. The group is highly politically motivated and while you can spurt a bunch of ideological crap about legions and everybody acting separately in different directions according to their own interest, when you look at the group as a whole the actions line up pretty well in one direction and while not the only factor, political motivation seems to be an incredibly strong driving force for the selection of targets in the majority of cases.
What were the military applications of being able to build ships, stock and command them appropriately and send them to the New World?
Think through what your asking. You want to know if the government will protect you in your 'right' to cause violent crime against the government in order to force change. It's like asking your neighbor to tie his own hands so you can punch him in the face better. When you cross the line to violent or criminal behavior in order to cause change you forfeit any protection from the state and simply make it a matter of your strength versus the states. The American Colonial Revolutionaries knew and understood this when they signed the Deceleration of Independence, that they would all hang if they didn't succeed. They didn't publish rhetoric calling their brothers to throw off tyranny and fight and then ask that same British government to protect them.
After looking at the pictures of scanners in this ( Consumerist Security Briefing from Gawker) I don't think I could tell even if someone put 4 ATM machines in front of me and told me one of them had a skimmer, pick it out. These things fit so perfectly over the card reader it seems near impossible to tell without pulling out a knife and seeing if you can get anything to pop off, and I don't think that'd make most places happy.
Are you sure a government that allows it's citizens to be beaten, stabbed and stolen from with impunity for two days by the fringe element of society and only then comes in to enact new laws when your good and begging for their help is being "considerate of your rights"?