I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
A girl sent me a 950KB picture yesterday that took my phone 18 minutes to download. The Sprint network in Phoenix blows. I'm not sure how to find the article now, but I seem to remember a survey from a couple years ago which claimed that Verizon had the best network in Phoenix. That may have changed though. All I know is that Sprint can't be bothered to put 4G service here, even though I have a 4G Sprint phone that's 2 and a half years old.
As has already been pointed out, there are plenty of things that, if we teach our children, the state will intervene, remove our children, and charge us with abuse, which they should.
...which has absolutely nothing to do with the law we're discussing.
Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us.
You can say that again. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence for evolution, not to mention basic common sense about how the world works. It's definitely a mystery why so many people simply refuse to look at the evidence and accept the conclusions. It really shouldn't require all of this preaching, but for some reason it does. I wonder if society was this fragmented 150 years after the heliocentric model of the solar system was demonstrated.
Parents can teach their children whatever they want to teach them. Nobody is disputing that or making any laws contrary to it. Hell, even schools can teach their students whatever they want. But a school that receives public money is held to a higher set of standards. That's what is going on here. If the school wants public money, then they need to be responsible in what they teach. That includes teaching facts as facts.
The real question should be... what games do you want now, and in the future.
That's exactly right, my answer was going to be "the new ones". This month, it's X-COM: Enemy Unknown. In 2 months, who the hell knows? There are plenty of classic games I still play, sure, but I'm not going to move to Linux because I can play classic games.
I can't say it has never happened but I've certainly never heard anyone use GIF as a verb and I'm old enough to remember when GIF images were a new thing. Never even occurred to me that anyone would use it as a verb.
I would suggest that the people using GIF as a verb were not around when GIFs were new.
the issue is that people would thing do verb that noun in the first place
err, what was that?
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.
Motives? What do motives have to do with anything? When you call the president a "fucking nigger", then you're a fucking racist, I don't care what your fucking motive is. You're telling me that it's just peachy to call black people "fucking niggers", depending on what your motive is? That this somehow requires an extra sense to detect? Are you really that politically correct that you won't call a turd a turd without tasting it first?
So we need to get rid of ALL proprietary extensions
What? Who's "we"? What are you going to do, pass a law stating that browser vendors are not allowed to implement anything that is not in some standard somewhere?
You mean if a white guy got elected and a bunch of black racists started posting a bunch of racist messages on Twitter and Facebook, would I react the same way? Yeah, I would.
Do you really imagine every time utters the "n" word, they actually believe in the superiority of the white race?
If they use it in a derogatory sense, like the people responding to Obama's election, then yes I do. If they use it in a joke context then they're still racist as fuck but I have no clue what's going in their tiny confused brain with regard to superiority. But yeah, I think all the racists out there bitching about the election do in fact resent that they are essentially being led by someone who is not white. I think that they think that they are "better" than that, that they "deserve" a white leader instead of the "inferior" one they have.
There doesn't seem to be any allowance here for reality. I mean, every time we say anything, it's true, accurate and balanced?
Not necessarily, but someone who isn't racist wouldn't make a racist remark. It wouldn't even occur to them to do so. I didn't vote for Obama either, but my first reaction to his victory wasn't to bitch about the color of his skin. To me Obama's identity isn't the color of his skin, it's his job. He's not "some black guy" or "some nigger", he's "the President", regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies or actions.
Being stupid and socially rude is one thing, and perhaps something to scoff at. But labelling someone as a full-fledged racist because of an online comment beggars belief.
What do you suggest, should we enroll both them and ourselves in sensitivity training classes until we all end up in a drum circle singing? How about calling out their racist bullshit for what it is, and letting them know that we don't respect or agree with it? That's called self-correction by society. They made the remark, they have to stand by their words. If that's not what they believed then they shouldn't have said it. Responding to them in a negative manner should hopefully get the point across that we don't accept their behavior. If they truly didn't mean it then it will be a wake up call that maybe they shouldn't casually be so racist as fuck.
I feel like you're saying "just because someone fondles one kid, do we really want to brand them as a pedophile?" Yeah, we do. They deserve it. "But they're really nice! They were just drunk!", you protest. Yes, well, if they weren't a pedophile then they wouldn't have had the idea to fondle the kid, would they?
That's an awfully simplistic view. The first step is asking employees to take a pay cut, huh? How about the first step is "the business is sinking, we need a way to keep it afloat". Then the next step could be management proposing layoffs and closings, then of course the unions would reject that (because god forbid that a single fucking worker loses their job in a sinking company). That type of thing would continue until the unions suggest that everything stays like it is, even though the company is going under.
But yeah, management is always evil, unions are always heroes, I get it. They get to be heroes right up until the end, when the company closes, sells everything off, and everyone loses their jobs. Good thing they had the unions to protect their jobs.
But, if it is a case of ignorance of the listener ("niggardly" [etymonline.com] is not a racist term [jacobsen.no]), or someone helpfully trying to "decode" a "keyword" [dailykos.com] for us, or assuming because one party to some event was white and the other black that the event must have been racially motivated (e.g., the white cop who made a black congressman who had just broken into his own house show ID), there's a lot wrong with trying to permanently stain someone with the accusation. This would include the case of someone who, nine and a half years previously, while working with a Hollywood script writer to create dialog for a cop show, suggested that the bad cop being portrayed might use 'the N word'.
And how does that apply to someone posting something to Twitter or Facebook along the lines of "Fucking nigger won again"? That's a racist person, right? So what's wrong with calling that person a racist, even if that earns them a "permanent stigma"? Reminds me of the old joke.
Now, I haven't seen the tumblr stuff so I don't know if the person who was doing this limited himself to clear-cut unambiguous things, but I'm responding to your simple question "what's wrong with".
My simple question was in context. I wasn't talking about a Hollywood script writer, or some random cop, or an Oregon school principal. That should have been obvious. My simple question "what's wrong with calling a racist a racist" implies that the person is actually a racist.
Of course, there's always the off chance that the person claiming that could be wrong, or lying
If someone is claiming it about themselves, then I don't see an issue. You make a racist comment, then you're a racist. Just like if you screw a child, you're a pedophile.
People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.
That's right, and people have damn well avoided Hostess products. Maybe they will damn well avoid McDonald's at some point in the future and then McDonald's will damn well close, and possibly be replaced by a business that will damn well serve healthier food.
I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway. If you can't figure out "Hm... people want healthy food, maybe I should make healthy food" or deal with competition in a mostly capitalistic environment, then you probably shouldn't be in business.
If they were less profitable than in the past then there would have been changes they could have made, like laying off a percent of their workforce or closing several factories or bakeries. It sounds like the unions didn't want them to do that, though. So they went back and proposed an 8% wage cut for the workers that would gradually scale back up, and the bakers union went on strike. So now they don't get anything. The people running the business will turn out fine though, they will sell the various brands to someone else and give themselves a nice going-away present, while the unions probably won't get anything (which I'm actually fine with).
It matters because we have to deliver content to several hundred sites via Web/Intranet, and we can't dictate the end user's infrastructure.
Thank you. Even though most of our customers don't put requirements on us to support their own infrastructure, having a fast, capable IE 10 means that we get fewer support calls relating to slow performance or other bugs with IE. You don't have to be an IE user to get a benefit from a good version of IE being released. It's finally gotten to the point where we are starting to tell our customers that their IE6- and IE7-specific issues are not going to be addressed (it feels so good to say that). It's nice to also tell that to a customer and have them basically respond with "oh... ok" instead of throwing some massive shit fit. The IE team has done good work with the last couple versions, I hope they keep it up and, even more, I hope existing IE users all move to new versions if they're going to stay with IE.
Their advertising for IE, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. I'm sure people have seen the commercials for IE, which completely miss the mark. They are advertising IE like their target audience is people who don't have a web browser. They're talking about how fast it is, how it supports so much of the web, etc, like there are people sitting there with Netscape 4 hoping they can upgrade. The problem is that the audience they should be targeting is the group of users who have left IE for another browser. Their advertising needs to give people reasons to try it out again, not just a list of the features that people appreciate in all modern browsers. I don't care that IE is fast, the browser I use now is fast, convince me that I should use it over Opera or Chrome or something else.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
A girl sent me a 950KB picture yesterday that took my phone 18 minutes to download. The Sprint network in Phoenix blows. I'm not sure how to find the article now, but I seem to remember a survey from a couple years ago which claimed that Verizon had the best network in Phoenix. That may have changed though. All I know is that Sprint can't be bothered to put 4G service here, even though I have a 4G Sprint phone that's 2 and a half years old.
As has already been pointed out, there are plenty of things that, if we teach our children, the state will intervene, remove our children, and charge us with abuse, which they should.
...which has absolutely nothing to do with the law we're discussing.
I will admit I am not smart enough to see how a single-cell organism can ever become a fish.
1. Divide
2. ??? (repeat for hundreds of millions of years)
3. Fish!
Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us.
You can say that again. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence for evolution, not to mention basic common sense about how the world works. It's definitely a mystery why so many people simply refuse to look at the evidence and accept the conclusions. It really shouldn't require all of this preaching, but for some reason it does. I wonder if society was this fragmented 150 years after the heliocentric model of the solar system was demonstrated.
Parents can teach their children whatever they want to teach them. Nobody is disputing that or making any laws contrary to it. Hell, even schools can teach their students whatever they want. But a school that receives public money is held to a higher set of standards. That's what is going on here. If the school wants public money, then they need to be responsible in what they teach. That includes teaching facts as facts.
Why do you preface that with "to be honest"? Are you trying to imply that the rest of the time you're lying?
The real question should be... what games do you want now, and in the future.
That's exactly right, my answer was going to be "the new ones". This month, it's X-COM: Enemy Unknown. In 2 months, who the hell knows? There are plenty of classic games I still play, sure, but I'm not going to move to Linux because I can play classic games.
I can't say it has never happened but I've certainly never heard anyone use GIF as a verb and I'm old enough to remember when GIF images were a new thing. Never even occurred to me that anyone would use it as a verb.
I would suggest that the people using GIF as a verb were not around when GIFs were new.
the issue is that people would thing do verb that noun in the first place
err, what was that?
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.
- Peter Ellis
I tend to use the same sound as the word that the letter abbreviates, in this case "graphic".
Motives? What do motives have to do with anything? When you call the president a "fucking nigger", then you're a fucking racist, I don't care what your fucking motive is. You're telling me that it's just peachy to call black people "fucking niggers", depending on what your motive is? That this somehow requires an extra sense to detect? Are you really that politically correct that you won't call a turd a turd without tasting it first?
You have a very appropriate username.
Man, some AC just got schooled in social etiquette by a 19 year old station wagon.
So we need to get rid of ALL proprietary extensions
What? Who's "we"? What are you going to do, pass a law stating that browser vendors are not allowed to implement anything that is not in some standard somewhere?
You mean if a white guy got elected and a bunch of black racists started posting a bunch of racist messages on Twitter and Facebook, would I react the same way? Yeah, I would.
But go ahead, keep defending racism.
what ring-tone best fits my personality...
Listed here for your convenience.
Do you really imagine every time utters the "n" word, they actually believe in the superiority of the white race?
If they use it in a derogatory sense, like the people responding to Obama's election, then yes I do. If they use it in a joke context then they're still racist as fuck but I have no clue what's going in their tiny confused brain with regard to superiority. But yeah, I think all the racists out there bitching about the election do in fact resent that they are essentially being led by someone who is not white. I think that they think that they are "better" than that, that they "deserve" a white leader instead of the "inferior" one they have.
There doesn't seem to be any allowance here for reality. I mean, every time we say anything, it's true, accurate and balanced?
Not necessarily, but someone who isn't racist wouldn't make a racist remark. It wouldn't even occur to them to do so. I didn't vote for Obama either, but my first reaction to his victory wasn't to bitch about the color of his skin. To me Obama's identity isn't the color of his skin, it's his job. He's not "some black guy" or "some nigger", he's "the President", regardless of whether or not I agree with his policies or actions.
Being stupid and socially rude is one thing, and perhaps something to scoff at. But labelling someone as a full-fledged racist because of an online comment beggars belief.
What do you suggest, should we enroll both them and ourselves in sensitivity training classes until we all end up in a drum circle singing? How about calling out their racist bullshit for what it is, and letting them know that we don't respect or agree with it? That's called self-correction by society. They made the remark, they have to stand by their words. If that's not what they believed then they shouldn't have said it. Responding to them in a negative manner should hopefully get the point across that we don't accept their behavior. If they truly didn't mean it then it will be a wake up call that maybe they shouldn't casually be so racist as fuck.
I feel like you're saying "just because someone fondles one kid, do we really want to brand them as a pedophile?" Yeah, we do. They deserve it. "But they're really nice! They were just drunk!", you protest. Yes, well, if they weren't a pedophile then they wouldn't have had the idea to fondle the kid, would they?
That's an awfully simplistic view. The first step is asking employees to take a pay cut, huh? How about the first step is "the business is sinking, we need a way to keep it afloat". Then the next step could be management proposing layoffs and closings, then of course the unions would reject that (because god forbid that a single fucking worker loses their job in a sinking company). That type of thing would continue until the unions suggest that everything stays like it is, even though the company is going under.
But yeah, management is always evil, unions are always heroes, I get it. They get to be heroes right up until the end, when the company closes, sells everything off, and everyone loses their jobs. Good thing they had the unions to protect their jobs.
But, if it is a case of ignorance of the listener ("niggardly" [etymonline.com] is not a racist term [jacobsen.no]), or someone helpfully trying to "decode" a "keyword" [dailykos.com] for us, or assuming because one party to some event was white and the other black that the event must have been racially motivated (e.g., the white cop who made a black congressman who had just broken into his own house show ID), there's a lot wrong with trying to permanently stain someone with the accusation. This would include the case of someone who, nine and a half years previously, while working with a Hollywood script writer to create dialog for a cop show, suggested that the bad cop being portrayed might use 'the N word'.
And how does that apply to someone posting something to Twitter or Facebook along the lines of "Fucking nigger won again"? That's a racist person, right? So what's wrong with calling that person a racist, even if that earns them a "permanent stigma"? Reminds me of the old joke.
Now, I haven't seen the tumblr stuff so I don't know if the person who was doing this limited himself to clear-cut unambiguous things, but I'm responding to your simple question "what's wrong with".
My simple question was in context. I wasn't talking about a Hollywood script writer, or some random cop, or an Oregon school principal. That should have been obvious. My simple question "what's wrong with calling a racist a racist" implies that the person is actually a racist.
Of course, there's always the off chance that the person claiming that could be wrong, or lying
If someone is claiming it about themselves, then I don't see an issue. You make a racist comment, then you're a racist. Just like if you screw a child, you're a pedophile.
People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.
That's right, and people have damn well avoided Hostess products. Maybe they will damn well avoid McDonald's at some point in the future and then McDonald's will damn well close, and possibly be replaced by a business that will damn well serve healthier food.
I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway. If you can't figure out "Hm... people want healthy food, maybe I should make healthy food" or deal with competition in a mostly capitalistic environment, then you probably shouldn't be in business.
If they were less profitable than in the past then there would have been changes they could have made, like laying off a percent of their workforce or closing several factories or bakeries. It sounds like the unions didn't want them to do that, though. So they went back and proposed an 8% wage cut for the workers that would gradually scale back up, and the bakers union went on strike. So now they don't get anything. The people running the business will turn out fine though, they will sell the various brands to someone else and give themselves a nice going-away present, while the unions probably won't get anything (which I'm actually fine with).
salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists.
What exactly is the problem with calling a racist a racist?
It matters because we have to deliver content to several hundred sites via Web/Intranet, and we can't dictate the end user's infrastructure.
Thank you. Even though most of our customers don't put requirements on us to support their own infrastructure, having a fast, capable IE 10 means that we get fewer support calls relating to slow performance or other bugs with IE. You don't have to be an IE user to get a benefit from a good version of IE being released. It's finally gotten to the point where we are starting to tell our customers that their IE6- and IE7-specific issues are not going to be addressed (it feels so good to say that). It's nice to also tell that to a customer and have them basically respond with "oh... ok" instead of throwing some massive shit fit. The IE team has done good work with the last couple versions, I hope they keep it up and, even more, I hope existing IE users all move to new versions if they're going to stay with IE.
Their advertising for IE, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. I'm sure people have seen the commercials for IE, which completely miss the mark. They are advertising IE like their target audience is people who don't have a web browser. They're talking about how fast it is, how it supports so much of the web, etc, like there are people sitting there with Netscape 4 hoping they can upgrade. The problem is that the audience they should be targeting is the group of users who have left IE for another browser. Their advertising needs to give people reasons to try it out again, not just a list of the features that people appreciate in all modern browsers. I don't care that IE is fast, the browser I use now is fast, convince me that I should use it over Opera or Chrome or something else.
Are they going to call these artificial wombs Axlotyl Tanks?
Is that a serious question? Why would they do that?