I vaguely remember using last.fm a long time ago. IIRC, it had some issues, but that was years ago. I'll give last.fm another shot. I hear you on Pandora; I'm not in the states frequently.
Everyone over 30 has a family lawyer.. otherwise you're just a smuck.
Number 37 on the list of indicators that your society is heading for, or is already located in the vicinity of, the shitter.
I get the joke, and somewhat agree with it, but he is somewhat correct. If you're accumulating wealth instead of debt, you will probably want both a lawyer and an accountant or financial adviser to help you properly protect your assets and ensure things like wills and trusts are squared away.
...the only conclusion I can extract is that I hope you never breed, we need less people on this earth that act like you just did.
I agree. That is exactly what the spam king was trying to do. Any woman who would stick with a man while he's stealing and defrauding from millions of people is a piece of trash. He realized his mistake of breeding, so he escaped from jail to end his bloodline and punish his wife for allowing him to do what he did, preventing her from finding and breeding with another guy like him. He then took his own life to benefit society.
Disclaimer: I don't really think the child and kid deserved to die, but the irony is just too thick tonight.
The whole POINT of democratic government is some consensus of a larger group "stuffed down everyone's throat". The majority rules.
No, the majority does not rule. The whole point of the American constitution is that the majority does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of the minority.
...but it doesn't and can't prevent religious majorities from imposing their moral/philosophical ideals upon the minority.
Yes it can and yes, it does. Have you not noticed the frequent overturning of religiously-inspired laws? Or do you think those are the "evil activist judges" who are out to destroy religion?
They could for instance make illegal abortion, murder, divorce and adultery, drugs and alcohol, fornication, euthanasia, stem-cell research...
Abortion? Not without a constitutional amendment.
Murder? That was illegal in most societies long before Judaism emerged.
Divorce and adultery? Debatable on divorce. Adultery is illegal in many areas because it's seen as a violation of a legally binding contract with a spouse.
Drugs? We'll see how much longer that lasts.
Alcohol? They needed a constitutional amendment last time, and they'd need one again.
Fornication? No, they couldn't make that illegal. Not without scrapping the entire constitution.
Euthanasia? See murder, but this is subject to change.
Stem cell research? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Religious nutjobs are winning this one, and it's costing lives every day.
These laws could be passed by people whose motives stem primarily from their religious beliefs, and that is ok. Religion is part of who they are, and guides their world-view.
Most of these laws can't be passed, or rather wouldn't be upheld in court. The laws they pass are indeed partially inspired by religious views, but I have hope that they'll recover soon.
The beauty of this country is that you or anyone else has the right to disagree and voice your disagreement.
...until some religious majority gets enough political power to silence and jail those who would question their religious beliefs. But thanks for trumpeting the rights we have courtesy of a secular society which created a secular government which you now wish to dismantle and turn into an oppressive Christian Hate Machine.
Amusingly enough, no I don't. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about - just that I always keep a lean military except when it's needed.
Eh, I felt it was analogous considering its effects are untested in any large-scale wars, but you know just from looking at the math what it's capable of doing to people.
Someone who spends $400 on an HD-DVD player is probably going to be ok when Blu-Ray wins and their player is a paperweight. But what of those who spend $12,000 converting their home to solar because they can't keep up with their electric bill increases? What are they to do when it's found out 5 years down the road that the materials used in their panels wear out prematurely and rapidly drop in efficiency? What are they to do when the untested support equipment needs maintenance all the time?
I can't speak for anyone else, but our solar panels have a 20 year warranty on them and both the manufacturer and installer have been doing extremely well for the last few years. I'd bet good money that they won't be bankrupt... in fact, we have.
My problem is when early adoption is marketed as a way to save money. 90% of the time, early adoption is a death sentence for spare cash. You take big risks picking up high-cost emerging technologies, and if you can't afford to see it all go down in flames, then it really sucks to be you 90% of the time.
Can we be honest and change those 90% figures to (unknown)%?
I no problem with those who understand the risks and who can afford to take the hit choosing to become early adopters. Those people are needed to hammer out bugs in real-world environments so that second, third, and successive generations of products can be refined, improved, and standardized for mass adoption.
Hey, who can't agree with that?
But it really pisses me off to see early adoption marketed to those who really can't afford it and are too stupid to recognize that as some kind of money-saving opportunity. Solar, geo-thermal, wind, hydrogen cars, cars that run on water/garbage/childrens' dreams, etc are expensive, non-standardized, experimental, subject to rapid development/redevelopment, and less reliable/maintainable than existing, proven technologies.
And here's where the house of cards falls... Solar Electricity has been around since the 1950s. "Early adoption" was done in the 60's, and it became fairly widespread in the '70's. I don't know how else to convince you that it's not a new, untested technology, but please note that the first generation solar panels were built well before we put anyone on the moon. Wind power, however, has been around longer than the catholic church. First generation wind-powered generators came out in 1979. The turbines installed during the 1980s are now obsolete, implying we are also beyond the first generation of wind turbines. In addition, I'm betting you've never seen schematics for a wind turbine. They're incredibly simple mechanically.
Let the millionaires play with these toys until their hearts' content, but stop trying to prod the average Joe to dump his last dime (and a bunch of dimes he had to borrow with interest) into experimental crap that's being radically altered all the time by convincing his stupid self that it's a guaranteed money-saver. You'll know when he's ready for it because it'll be down to refinements - not radical underlying technological alterations - and cheap enough that he can really afford to buy it and to keep it.
Is solar ready for widescale adoption in Alaska? No. Is solar ready to fill the needs of someone living in the desert in southern California? Yes. Solar is economically
Simple fix, trade kwh for kwh until net zero is reached and then sell excess for wholesale. Of course you would do this on an estimated annual usage basis just like the 'budget' billing most power consumers have to prevent huge spikes in their bills during certain hot or cold months.
I couldn't find it here and I don't have enough time to find it tonight, but last I heard that legislation was either pending/expected to pass or it already passed.
Keeping in mind that 90% of the people who invest vast sums as early adopters "rake in" nothing but overpriced experimental toys, I again thank you. If you find a way to make money off of it, more power to you, but recognize that almost everyone who invests early on in emerging tech (especially when competing versions or routes to the same end are available) gets nothing but the fun of trying out something earlier than other people.
Be it CD burners, DVD burners, VCRs, LCD monitors, televisions, or any other tech you like, ask most of the people who bought the first-gen if what they got matched the cost:benefit ratio of the fourth, fifth, or tenth generation.
All joking aside, if it wasn't for the abysmal access to broadband network access in rural, much less remote areas of the United States, I'd be all for self sufficiency.
I've lived on 8 acres, not huge, but nice hobby farm type in the rural midwest, and the cost to bring reliable high speed access to that property was several hundred a month for a 256k frame connection into my network, so naturally no transit fees. This was in 1995, and 13 years later it is still the same there, and most other rural locations I would bet.
My parents are in a similar situation and use wild blue. I believe they have the 12GB 30-day download limit/FAP. They're pretty happy with it because it beats dial up, and we [children] are happy with it because we can VNC in whenever we want and keep their computers running smoothly.
The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.
Yes, they take ORDERS from the President, but they take BUDGETS from Congress... it's that whole "checks and balances" thing. Every penny that the military spent is authorized in a congressional appropriations bill or supplement or something similar. Congress absolutely does have the authority to say what taxpayer money can or can't be used for.
37" TV/Monitor is barely large enough to for general map work by three-four people. Try finding a 37" flatscreen monitor/tv WITHOUT speakers today.
Full length mirror? Many of these officers rub elbows with foreign military and other dignitaries. Many of whom are very status/appearance conscious.
My personal objection isn't so much for the capsules, but the sheer expense wasted on them. We could of had a couple small VIP planes for that price.
I think you're missing the point here. The Air Force already has planes... what they need is a quick way to convert a little part of a big cargo plane into a VIP kennel. They can throw a VIP and something worth transporting on the same plane. In other words, planes are already going in and out of these locations, and they're already there. These planes already have crews and defensive systems and everything else they need. Why buy two new VIP planes when you can buy 100 general kennels and use them on the planes you already have?
No one bothers people on cell phones. Probably due to pricing.
This depends on the area you live in and the pricing schemes there. In the US, the mobile user pays for the minutes whether they're the ones calling or receiving, but the person initiating the call is not charged any fees. In most other parts of the world, a person initiating a call to a mobile phone is charged for the call. In Japan, this is implemented with a numbering system that differentiates between land lines and cell phone numbers.
Did you just say that your definition of "wrong" is disagreeing with you? And fault him for being stubborn if he doesn't come around to your way of thinking?
I'd rather call them Persians. It's a little less ambiguous and isn't as loaded as a term. I've also noticed that very few Americans, when asked their ethnicity, will say "Iranian". It's always "Persian".
Of course I think both distinctions are laughable, but people like dividing into groups.
Thank you, well put. It's a shame so few people understand this. I'd also have to add in a repeat of what I said above, which is pretty much that nice guys bore women precisely because they don't play with their emotions.
People who describe themselves as a "nice guy" are usually covering for some other serious personality defects. Its not a normal way to think of one's self. Women see this and don't see "nice", they see "potential stalker". I'd say you'd need one hell of a study to back that claim up, but from my own experiences I think it's bogus. Being a "nice guy" generally means that the person enjoys being nice to other people. It makes me sad that someone would consider that to be abnormal.
Just look at all the weird/creepy stuff in this thread, and honestly these people don't seem so "nice". No, they sound like most people I've met do when you bring up dating: they've been burned too many times. You think most women don't have the same baggage as most of these guys do? Perhaps a slight detachment from others and lower emotional reaction is a self-defense mechanism that results in being more attractive to potential mates. Women aren't attracted to emotional baggage.
Also nerds tend to stereotype anyone more socially successful than them as "jerks", when in fact many of these people tend treat women very well. The first part is true. I'd agree that nerds are more likely to see people as arrogant or cocky, but many of these guys really are jerks to everyone but women. And chances are they understand the game better if they're more socially successful. This generally includes making fun of women a little bit and doing all those other little things that make her interested.
All of that said, I consider myself a "nice guy". Nice really is my default state. I see the good in most people and am usually happy to help a stranger. It's difficult for me to make fun of people, even jokingly. I don't see any of that as a personality flaw, but I did realize a long time ago that it doesn't attract women. So I started watching the people I saw as jerks, and I emulated them. Like it or not, girls don't want the nice guy, but as soon as I turn on my portrayal of a jerk, they're interested. I try not to go overboard with it, and I'll test them after I've caught their interest, but I'm almost never able to keep them by reverting to nice guy mode. It just bores them.
No you're not. Unless the collapsing thing was a design failure. I am having a hard time finding a case where collapsing would be considered a design feature, rather than a design failure. A bridge to RIAA headquarters?
I'll designate you as a foe. It appears you spend most of your time calling other people idiots, and very little time actually providing any sort of reasoned argument. In case nobody else noticed, here are some of shanen's previous comments:
You certainly don't need my help to represent yourself as an idiot.
However, I would be honored if you would designate me as a foe. I'd explain why, but the explanation is too complicated for an idiot above a certain caliber.
Seriously, it's sad to see that a majority of this so-called elite crowd thinks philosophic systems can be applied selectively. Any real philosophy must be generalizable. Or maybe the majority just can't understand the connection between law, right and wrong, and philosophy?
Gosh, I wish I could get you into a poker game. Oh wait. I'm sure it's too late and you're bankrupt. Do drop us a line when you find work, right?
What gets me: the current cost of the Iraq fiasco is, what, 3 trillion dollars?
We could have easily taken 1% of that, had a sit-down with Saddam Hussein and said, "look, you and your family and your core leadership take this money and transition quickly out of power and set up in a nice Caribbean resort for the rest of your life, and we won't wipe you out," then gradually shifted to a more representative government, and still had 2.7 trillion to throw around for little things like rebuilding after Katrina, widespread environmental projects, and lap dances for every adult male in America and Iraq put together. Sounds peachy, but the psychology would never work. They clearly enjoy power, and wanted more power over more people. They wouldn't trade power and control over lives for just more wealth.
A better plan, as I've advocated in other posts, would have involved a negotiated lift of sanctions. They cancel their contracts with Russia and others, we lift sanctions and start trading with them as long as they make a serious effort to comply... Saddam just might've done it, and America would've had a shot at enjoying lower gas prices instead.
I think that, if you look at Saddam's "possession" of WMDs as a (dangerous) ruse that he intentionally perpetuated, to gain power and respect in middle east and elsewhere, it will make a lot more sense. Many of his generals certainly did believe he had WMDs, and so did his neighbors. This gave him power, and a power that he really needed with both America and Iran as sworn enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
I vaguely remember using last.fm a long time ago. IIRC, it had some issues, but that was years ago. I'll give last.fm another shot. I hear you on Pandora; I'm not in the states frequently.
Try SomaFM internet radio. It's worked for me everywhere I've gone, and I love the music.
Number 37 on the list of indicators that your society is heading for, or is already located in the vicinity of, the shitter.
I get the joke, and somewhat agree with it, but he is somewhat correct. If you're accumulating wealth instead of debt, you will probably want both a lawyer and an accountant or financial adviser to help you properly protect your assets and ensure things like wills and trusts are squared away.
Maybe they finally clicked that you've already got a huge penis and legendary bedroom performance?
If so, could I have your number, southpaw? (A Female slashdotter)
Don't let yourself be fooled. She's a slashdotter, she wants to know how you stopped the spam.
I suggest you check out Predator Eulogy by Dos Gringos.
anytime someone is caught doing something shady we throw them out. Works quite well, actually.
Incredible! This actually works? How could we go about implementing a system like that?
...the only conclusion I can extract is that I hope you never breed, we need less people on this earth that act like you just did.
I agree. That is exactly what the spam king was trying to do. Any woman who would stick with a man while he's stealing and defrauding from millions of people is a piece of trash. He realized his mistake of breeding, so he escaped from jail to end his bloodline and punish his wife for allowing him to do what he did, preventing her from finding and breeding with another guy like him. He then took his own life to benefit society.
Disclaimer: I don't really think the child and kid deserved to die, but the irony is just too thick tonight.
The whole POINT of democratic government is some consensus of a larger group "stuffed down everyone's throat". The majority rules.
No, the majority does not rule. The whole point of the American constitution is that the majority does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of the minority.
...but it doesn't and can't prevent religious majorities from imposing their moral/philosophical ideals upon the minority.
Yes it can and yes, it does. Have you not noticed the frequent overturning of religiously-inspired laws? Or do you think those are the "evil activist judges" who are out to destroy religion?
They could for instance make illegal abortion, murder, divorce and adultery, drugs and alcohol, fornication, euthanasia, stem-cell research...
Abortion? Not without a constitutional amendment. Murder? That was illegal in most societies long before Judaism emerged. Divorce and adultery? Debatable on divorce. Adultery is illegal in many areas because it's seen as a violation of a legally binding contract with a spouse. Drugs? We'll see how much longer that lasts. Alcohol? They needed a constitutional amendment last time, and they'd need one again. Fornication? No, they couldn't make that illegal. Not without scrapping the entire constitution. Euthanasia? See murder, but this is subject to change. Stem cell research? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Religious nutjobs are winning this one, and it's costing lives every day.
These laws could be passed by people whose motives stem primarily from their religious beliefs, and that is ok. Religion is part of who they are, and guides their world-view.
Most of these laws can't be passed, or rather wouldn't be upheld in court. The laws they pass are indeed partially inspired by religious views, but I have hope that they'll recover soon.
The beauty of this country is that you or anyone else has the right to disagree and voice your disagreement.
...until some religious majority gets enough political power to silence and jail those who would question their religious beliefs. But thanks for trumpeting the rights we have courtesy of a secular society which created a secular government which you now wish to dismantle and turn into an oppressive Christian Hate Machine.
Eh, I felt it was analogous considering its effects are untested in any large-scale wars, but you know just from looking at the math what it's capable of doing to people.
I can't speak for anyone else, but our solar panels have a 20 year warranty on them and both the manufacturer and installer have been doing extremely well for the last few years. I'd bet good money that they won't be bankrupt... in fact, we have.
Can we be honest and change those 90% figures to (unknown)%?
Hey, who can't agree with that?
And here's where the house of cards falls... Solar Electricity has been around since the 1950s. "Early adoption" was done in the 60's, and it became fairly widespread in the '70's. I don't know how else to convince you that it's not a new, untested technology, but please note that the first generation solar panels were built well before we put anyone on the moon. Wind power, however, has been around longer than the catholic church. First generation wind-powered generators came out in 1979. The turbines installed during the 1980s are now obsolete, implying we are also beyond the first generation of wind turbines. In addition, I'm betting you've never seen schematics for a wind turbine. They're incredibly simple mechanically.
Is solar ready for widescale adoption in Alaska? No. Is solar ready to fill the needs of someone living in the desert in southern California? Yes. Solar is economically
Simple fix, trade kwh for kwh until net zero is reached and then sell excess for wholesale. Of course you would do this on an estimated annual usage basis just like the 'budget' billing most power consumers have to prevent huge spikes in their bills during certain hot or cold months.
I couldn't find it here and I don't have enough time to find it tonight, but last I heard that legislation was either pending/expected to pass or it already passed.
Keeping in mind that 90% of the people who invest vast sums as early adopters "rake in" nothing but overpriced experimental toys, I again thank you. If you find a way to make money off of it, more power to you, but recognize that almost everyone who invests early on in emerging tech (especially when competing versions or routes to the same end are available) gets nothing but the fun of trying out something earlier than other people.
Be it CD burners, DVD burners, VCRs, LCD monitors, televisions, or any other tech you like, ask most of the people who bought the first-gen if what they got matched the cost:benefit ratio of the fourth, fifth, or tenth generation.
--- Join Cybernations and be a global power!
I suppose you don't have a navy in CN, then.
All joking aside, if it wasn't for the abysmal access to broadband network access in rural, much less remote areas of the United States, I'd be all for self sufficiency.
I've lived on 8 acres, not huge, but nice hobby farm type in the rural midwest, and the cost to bring reliable high speed access to that property was several hundred a month for a 256k frame connection into my network, so naturally no transit fees. This was in 1995, and 13 years later it is still the same there, and most other rural locations I would bet.
My parents are in a similar situation and use wild blue. I believe they have the 12GB 30-day download limit/FAP. They're pretty happy with it because it beats dial up, and we [children] are happy with it because we can VNC in whenever we want and keep their computers running smoothly.
Screw those stupid dolphins; always laughing at us humans. Just to spite them we should fill the ocean with Bud Light!
... and in 2008, Belgium became the wealthiest nation.
The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.
Yes, they take ORDERS from the President, but they take BUDGETS from Congress... it's that whole "checks and balances" thing. Every penny that the military spent is authorized in a congressional appropriations bill or supplement or something similar. Congress absolutely does have the authority to say what taxpayer money can or can't be used for.
37" TV/Monitor is barely large enough to for general map work by three-four people. Try finding a 37" flatscreen monitor/tv WITHOUT speakers today.
Full length mirror? Many of these officers rub elbows with foreign military and other dignitaries. Many of whom are very status/appearance conscious.
My personal objection isn't so much for the capsules, but the sheer expense wasted on them. We could of had a couple small VIP planes for that price.
I think you're missing the point here. The Air Force already has planes... what they need is a quick way to convert a little part of a big cargo plane into a VIP kennel. They can throw a VIP and something worth transporting on the same plane. In other words, planes are already going in and out of these locations, and they're already there. These planes already have crews and defensive systems and everything else they need. Why buy two new VIP planes when you can buy 100 general kennels and use them on the planes you already have?
Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield.
While I agree with most of the rest of your post, I think some soldiers may disagree with this part.
No one bothers people on cell phones. Probably due to pricing.
This depends on the area you live in and the pricing schemes there. In the US, the mobile user pays for the minutes whether they're the ones calling or receiving, but the person initiating the call is not charged any fees. In most other parts of the world, a person initiating a call to a mobile phone is charged for the call. In Japan, this is implemented with a numbering system that differentiates between land lines and cell phone numbers.
Did you just say that your definition of "wrong" is disagreeing with you? And fault him for being stubborn if he doesn't come around to your way of thinking?
Wow.
I'd rather call them Persians. It's a little less ambiguous and isn't as loaded as a term. I've also noticed that very few Americans, when asked their ethnicity, will say "Iranian". It's always "Persian".
Of course I think both distinctions are laughable, but people like dividing into groups.
Thank you, well put. It's a shame so few people understand this. I'd also have to add in a repeat of what I said above, which is pretty much that nice guys bore women precisely because they don't play with their emotions.
All of that said, I consider myself a "nice guy". Nice really is my default state. I see the good in most people and am usually happy to help a stranger. It's difficult for me to make fun of people, even jokingly. I don't see any of that as a personality flaw, but I did realize a long time ago that it doesn't attract women. So I started watching the people I saw as jerks, and I emulated them. Like it or not, girls don't want the nice guy, but as soon as I turn on my portrayal of a jerk, they're interested. I try not to go overboard with it, and I'll test them after I've caught their interest, but I'm almost never able to keep them by reverting to nice guy mode. It just bores them.
Not that I condone any of their actions, but who gives a damn about disbarment if they already have millions stashed away?
However, I would be honored if you would designate me as a foe. I'd explain why, but the explanation is too complicated for an idiot above a certain caliber. Seriously, it's sad to see that a majority of this so-called elite crowd thinks philosophic systems can be applied selectively. Any real philosophy must be generalizable. Or maybe the majority just can't understand the connection between law, right and wrong, and philosophy? Gosh, I wish I could get you into a poker game. Oh wait. I'm sure it's too late and you're bankrupt. Do drop us a line when you find work, right?
We could have easily taken 1% of that, had a sit-down with Saddam Hussein and said, "look, you and your family and your core leadership take this money and transition quickly out of power and set up in a nice Caribbean resort for the rest of your life, and we won't wipe you out," then gradually shifted to a more representative government, and still had 2.7 trillion to throw around for little things like rebuilding after Katrina, widespread environmental projects, and lap dances for every adult male in America and Iraq put together. Sounds peachy, but the psychology would never work. They clearly enjoy power, and wanted more power over more people. They wouldn't trade power and control over lives for just more wealth.
A better plan, as I've advocated in other posts, would have involved a negotiated lift of sanctions. They cancel their contracts with Russia and others, we lift sanctions and start trading with them as long as they make a serious effort to comply... Saddam just might've done it, and America would've had a shot at enjoying lower gas prices instead.
I think that, if you look at Saddam's "possession" of WMDs as a (dangerous) ruse that he intentionally perpetuated, to gain power and respect in middle east and elsewhere, it will make a lot more sense. Many of his generals certainly did believe he had WMDs, and so did his neighbors. This gave him power, and a power that he really needed with both America and Iran as sworn enemies.