Could have sworn I also said she was a carpetbagger. You don't even know what that means do you?
If you want to gloat about your vocabulary, you might want to pick a bigger word to be proud of. And you can feel free to use it to support your case that she's a bad person. It's pretty solid. The other part is where we have a problem.
And yes, I have no doubt she stayed with him for political gain
You should put your mind-reading abilities to work for something more useful than armchair politics. Go hang out with some Congressmen, get some proof of corruption, and Fed-Ex it to the press.
Either way, we've had enough Clintons in the white house, just as we've had enough Bush's. I wouldn't vote for either one with all the scandals they've created.
Nor would I, until they produce another individual worth voting for, which they haven't yet.
She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain.
Really? You know that for sure? There's no chance she just still loves the guy she was married to for most of her life, and forgave him? Or maybe she just thought it would be worse, personally, to go off on her own at that point? Has no girl ever been cheated on by someone with no political clout and stayed married?
Hell, maybe they're just open-minded and she had been sleeping with Giuliani since 1985, and she just had to pretend to be mad about Monica.
I don't know, maybe she did stay for politics. I don't particularly like her, but if you also don't, it should be for a reason that isn't just speculation about why she stayed married. I'm sure you have plenty of political disagreements with her. Pick one of those.
"Ethanol's neat," Clinton says to corn growers.
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society
Uh-huh. Tell me what she says at the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks, and then we'll decide if she gets points for this.
Okay, I'm reading too much into this now; just bear in mind that Google's uber-friendly, everything-you-want-here campuses and the like have the advantage of keeping their employees happy, productive and within the Google sphere of influence. Sinister or not?
Man, those guys just can't win. Be a jerk to your employees, and you're a jerk. Try to make your employees happy, and you're sinisterly keeping them under your influence. I guess the optimum, then, is to give employees free soda and plenty of vacation time, but have the guy at the front desk smack them in the face and call them a bitch when they first walk in the door in the morning.
what happens if the crazy terrorist (er.. freedom fighter) decides to make a trigger which works off of radio waves (or whatever particular radio wave) said name future machine may use?
Given the availability of both clocks and button, it seems unlikely to come up often.
What's the big concern about cameras in public places anyway? Are you doing something in public you don't want video taped?
Sometimes.
About 40% of the opposition to video cameras comes from people that have been standing in a store, realized their zipper was down, turned away from the other people in the store, zipped up, and then looked up to find themselves staring into one of those black dome cameras, which then giggled at them.
40% is people that don't want a permanent record made of their every move when they cheat on their wife or go out to buy porn.
I think the old mantra works just as well now as it does for putting information on the internet "If what you're doing isn't something you'd like for your Grandmother to find out about, don't do it".
It's not putting information on the internet. It's going outside. They're different.
And the other 20% is not people that expect privacy in public, it's that if you're going to be watched, you want to be able to see the person that's watching you. Anything else is fricking creepy.
Though the weight of any of those arguments against a presumably effective crime-fighting tool is questionable. I, myself, will reserve judgement on the issue.
The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD.
I assume he's talking about this:
The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
So, really? The temperature going up 2 degrees over a few decades is "hail and fire, mixed with blood?" Really? Dude, this apocalypse of yours doesn't really seem all that bad now.
Neat, a way for me to tell passers-by, "Bob Johnson sucks ****," without the hassle of finding a bathroom stall and a marker. Heck, now I can let people know right as they're passing Bob's house. He'll be so happy.
Seriously? There's someone that has a problem stopping after just 2 slices of Wonder Bread? Who gorges themselves on bread? That's crazy. There's pizza and beer to be had.
If that last thing was directed at me, no, I'm not a bodybuilder, just a former fat guy. Not any part of which was due to bread. But maybe that's just me.
Absolutely. Unless you're trying to stop the "bloated, lazy crap"-ness mentioned. Unless that was literal bloating and non-fatness-related laziness. Since it was country-wide in scope and water-retention is hardly a national epidemic, I assume the OP meant, "it makes you fat." In which case, 99% of the time, the only number you need to worry about is calories.
I have a feeling I'm missing a reference to something, but in case I'm not, Wonder Bread isn't that bad. It's 60 calories a slice. 70 is about average for white bread. Most whole wheat breads are around 90. The best you can buy around here is 35, and it tastes like recycled toilet paper that came out too moist and delicious so they ran a hairdryer over it for a week. If you're trying to be less of one of those bloated lazy crap sacks, switching to Wonder Bread isn't a bad place to start.
Along the same lines, once there are 50 million of them that can function at an 18-year-old's level (might take a while, but we've essentially got infinite monkeys with infinite IDEs), I propose that the penalty for suggesting robots get the right to vote be death.
You know some dumbass group of future-hippies, kicking around their anti-gravity hackysacks, is going to demand it, and they're going to get it because the robots were programmed to pout really cute, with no politician realizing they're all running Windows Vista SP2 Beta on whatever-company-replaces-Diebold-in-2124 hardware*.
I'm sure the November 1st "critical update" the year they get to vote is going to contain the string "Bill Gates XVIII, Space-Republican" somewhere in it.
*I made a "Windows releases are far apart" joke. I'm ashamed of myself.
Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead.
One of the 2 accidents I've witnessed was exactly that. Car stopped in the road, jackass SUV driver floors it to get into the other lane without slowing down just before he would hit it, tiny car behind him doesn't know there's something stopped in the road until the SUV ducks out of the way. If he had the two seconds, he'd have been able to stop. He didn't. So in my experience, 50% of accidents are what you described.
You're right about the annoying tech explanations, but McKay's the only joke vehicle on the show. Maybe he could just get a head injury and go retarded. Then he can be joke-fuel and not be the ridiculous tech-God device anymore.
5) The balls this company has to push the industry.net as a "Business Solution" as if we are all just stupid and don't recognize it for what it is: A bloated Framework designed to sell more Microsoft servers and software and a feeble attempt to kill java. NOT a software framework to solve your business problems.
I'm sure its intent was to kill Java and sell MS servers. Doesn't change the fact that many of us who have written plenty of Java and plenty of C# still like C# a lot better. If it went away, I'd be pretty pissed, and in general (not always, but usually), when I have a choice between the two, for business or otherwise, I tend to go with C#.
7) DICTATING to everyone that Windows 2000 is no longer supported, we refuse to fix bugs in our software unless you upgrade. If you don't we do not care if 2000 meets your business needs, our shareholders demand you buy licenses for all your stuff AGAIN.
It sucks, but it's understandable. They made the thing 7 years ago. When you buy a product for a finite amount of money, you can't really expect endless labor to be put into maintaining it. Yes, I realize it was broken when you got it, but so is every piece of software ever built. Eternal indentured bugfixing for every bit of software created is a little unrealistic.
That would be more effective, but that's not what they're going for. These people want their dissatisfied voice heard and to be registered as people who would vote if they liked an option, but they don't want to put in any more effort than anyone expressing satisfaction.
Of course, I probably can't actually speak for them. I'm not one of them.
Why go through all of that trouble just to not vote?
The point is that politicians cater to voters: mostly old people and nutcases on either end of the spectrum. People that don't vote are completely ignored. If there's a "both of you can go to hell" option, people who wouldn't vote can vote; they become people that would vote for you if you said something they liked, and someone, in theory, might start paying attention to them. This assumes significant numbers of people would do that. I'm not convinced they would.
Now Diebold can helpfully offer to build these obviously-necessary devices for a mere 120% of the cost of their paperless brethren. Or upgrade their many, many useless old ones, but that's going to be pricey, since they weren't designed that way. It'll cost you at least 30% of a new one.
Slashdot Mirror
Could have sworn I also said she was a carpetbagger. You don't even know what that means do you?
If you want to gloat about your vocabulary, you might want to pick a bigger word to be proud of. And you can feel free to use it to support your case that she's a bad person. It's pretty solid. The other part is where we have a problem.
And yes, I have no doubt she stayed with him for political gain
You should put your mind-reading abilities to work for something more useful than armchair politics. Go hang out with some Congressmen, get some proof of corruption, and Fed-Ex it to the press.
Either way, we've had enough Clintons in the white house, just as we've had enough Bush's. I wouldn't vote for either one with all the scandals they've created.
Nor would I, until they produce another individual worth voting for, which they haven't yet.
She's a carpetbagger who stayed with her cheating husband for political gain.
Really? You know that for sure? There's no chance she just still loves the guy she was married to for most of her life, and forgave him? Or maybe she just thought it would be worse, personally, to go off on her own at that point? Has no girl ever been cheated on by someone with no political clout and stayed married?
Hell, maybe they're just open-minded and she had been sleeping with Giuliani since 1985, and she just had to pretend to be mad about Monica.
I don't know, maybe she did stay for politics. I don't particularly like her, but if you also don't, it should be for a reason that isn't just speculation about why she stayed married. I'm sure you have plenty of political disagreements with her. Pick one of those.
Clinton gave a speech last June to the American Constitution Society
Uh-huh. Tell me what she says at the Society for People Unreasonably Afraid That Their Children Are Going To Die in Terrorist Attacks, and then we'll decide if she gets points for this.
There's another article on this somewhere that says caffeine isn't soluble and tastes bad, and the work went into encapsulating it.
Okay, I'm reading too much into this now; just bear in mind that Google's uber-friendly, everything-you-want-here campuses and the like have the advantage of keeping their employees happy, productive and within the Google sphere of influence. Sinister or not?
Man, those guys just can't win. Be a jerk to your employees, and you're a jerk. Try to make your employees happy, and you're sinisterly keeping them under your influence. I guess the optimum, then, is to give employees free soda and plenty of vacation time, but have the guy at the front desk smack them in the face and call them a bitch when they first walk in the door in the morning.
what happens if the crazy terrorist (er.. freedom fighter) decides to make a trigger which works off of radio waves (or whatever particular radio wave) said name future machine may use?
Given the availability of both clocks and button, it seems unlikely to come up often.
What's the big concern about cameras in public places anyway? Are you doing something in public you don't want video taped?
Sometimes.
About 40% of the opposition to video cameras comes from people that have been standing in a store, realized their zipper was down, turned away from the other people in the store, zipped up, and then looked up to find themselves staring into one of those black dome cameras, which then giggled at them.
40% is people that don't want a permanent record made of their every move when they cheat on their wife or go out to buy porn.
I think the old mantra works just as well now as it does for putting information on the internet "If what you're doing isn't something you'd like for your Grandmother to find out about, don't do it".
It's not putting information on the internet. It's going outside. They're different.
And the other 20% is not people that expect privacy in public, it's that if you're going to be watched, you want to be able to see the person that's watching you. Anything else is fricking creepy.
Though the weight of any of those arguments against a presumably effective crime-fighting tool is questionable. I, myself, will reserve judgement on the issue.
The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD.
I assume he's talking about this:
The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
So, really? The temperature going up 2 degrees over a few decades is "hail and fire, mixed with blood?" Really? Dude, this apocalypse of yours doesn't really seem all that bad now.
Neat, a way for me to tell passers-by, "Bob Johnson sucks ****," without the hassle of finding a bathroom stall and a marker. Heck, now I can let people know right as they're passing Bob's house. He'll be so happy.
Seriously? There's someone that has a problem stopping after just 2 slices of Wonder Bread? Who gorges themselves on bread? That's crazy. There's pizza and beer to be had.
If that last thing was directed at me, no, I'm not a bodybuilder, just a former fat guy. Not any part of which was due to bread. But maybe that's just me.
Absolutely. Unless you're trying to stop the "bloated, lazy crap"-ness mentioned. Unless that was literal bloating and non-fatness-related laziness. Since it was country-wide in scope and water-retention is hardly a national epidemic, I assume the OP meant, "it makes you fat." In which case, 99% of the time, the only number you need to worry about is calories.
I have a feeling I'm missing a reference to something, but in case I'm not, Wonder Bread isn't that bad. It's 60 calories a slice. 70 is about average for white bread. Most whole wheat breads are around 90. The best you can buy around here is 35, and it tastes like recycled toilet paper that came out too moist and delicious so they ran a hairdryer over it for a week. If you're trying to be less of one of those bloated lazy crap sacks, switching to Wonder Bread isn't a bad place to start.
Along the same lines, once there are 50 million of them that can function at an 18-year-old's level (might take a while, but we've essentially got infinite monkeys with infinite IDEs), I propose that the penalty for suggesting robots get the right to vote be death.
You know some dumbass group of future-hippies, kicking around their anti-gravity hackysacks, is going to demand it, and they're going to get it because the robots were programmed to pout really cute, with no politician realizing they're all running Windows Vista SP2 Beta on whatever-company-replaces-Diebold-in-2124 hardware*.
I'm sure the November 1st "critical update" the year they get to vote is going to contain the string "Bill Gates XVIII, Space-Republican" somewhere in it.
*I made a "Windows releases are far apart" joke. I'm ashamed of myself.
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/peckerwood.asp
Though I was personally unoffended.
Think about this: the only way that would matter is if there is an immobile object two seconds ahead of you. You're driving along, then mysteriously, 315 feet in front of you, something is stopped dead.
One of the 2 accidents I've witnessed was exactly that. Car stopped in the road, jackass SUV driver floors it to get into the other lane without slowing down just before he would hit it, tiny car behind him doesn't know there's something stopped in the road until the SUV ducks out of the way. If he had the two seconds, he'd have been able to stop. He didn't. So in my experience, 50% of accidents are what you described.
So, Aunt Joy making custom stockings, please, go pick up a self help book and get your business setup properly.
I'm sure Aunt Joy would love to, as would I, but neither of us can absorb the $500 filing fee. Stockings just ain't that profitable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the FCC chair is appointed by the President.
Completely independent, I'm sure. Just like Congress has been completely independent for the last half decade.
You're right about the annoying tech explanations, but McKay's the only joke vehicle on the show. Maybe he could just get a head injury and go retarded. Then he can be joke-fuel and not be the ridiculous tech-God device anymore.
You're not watching Doctor Who then, obviously.
The show where the first bad guy (of this version) was a bunch of mannequins coming to life? That would be a no.
A lot of good points in general.
.net as a "Business Solution" as if we are all just stupid and don't recognize it for what it is: A bloated Framework designed to sell more Microsoft servers and software and a feeble attempt to kill java. NOT a software framework to solve your business problems.
5) The balls this company has to push the industry
I'm sure its intent was to kill Java and sell MS servers. Doesn't change the fact that many of us who have written plenty of Java and plenty of C# still like C# a lot better. If it went away, I'd be pretty pissed, and in general (not always, but usually), when I have a choice between the two, for business or otherwise, I tend to go with C#.
7) DICTATING to everyone that Windows 2000 is no longer supported, we refuse to fix bugs in our software unless you upgrade. If you don't we do not care if 2000 meets your business needs, our shareholders demand you buy licenses for all your stuff AGAIN.
It sucks, but it's understandable. They made the thing 7 years ago. When you buy a product for a finite amount of money, you can't really expect endless labor to be put into maintaining it. Yes, I realize it was broken when you got it, but so is every piece of software ever built. Eternal indentured bugfixing for every bit of software created is a little unrealistic.
The rest of your stuff, good points.
The shock wave, known as a Moreton wave, also destroyed or compressed two filaments of cool gas at opposite sides of the solar hemisphere.
It totally sucks. I mean that was some seriously awesome gas it destroyed. I'm so bummed right now.
I laughed the second through fifth times. It was a good gag.
Now we're up to the 703rd time. I think it's time for "truthiness" to make a graceful exit from the world.
That would be more effective, but that's not what they're going for. These people want their dissatisfied voice heard and to be registered as people who would vote if they liked an option, but they don't want to put in any more effort than anyone expressing satisfaction.
Of course, I probably can't actually speak for them. I'm not one of them.
Why go through all of that trouble just to not vote?
The point is that politicians cater to voters: mostly old people and nutcases on either end of the spectrum. People that don't vote are completely ignored. If there's a "both of you can go to hell" option, people who wouldn't vote can vote; they become people that would vote for you if you said something they liked, and someone, in theory, might start paying attention to them. This assumes significant numbers of people would do that. I'm not convinced they would.
Now Diebold can helpfully offer to build these obviously-necessary devices for a mere 120% of the cost of their paperless brethren. Or upgrade their many, many useless old ones, but that's going to be pricey, since they weren't designed that way. It'll cost you at least 30% of a new one.