The PC is merely a succedaneum for satisfying the nympholepsy of nullifidians. The haecceity of the enchiridion of arcane and recdonite elements of the Mac gestalt appeals to the oniomaina of an eximious Gemeinschaft whose legerity and sophrosyne, whose Sprachgefühl and orexis find more than fugacious fullment in its felicific experience.
(Written on a 2x2.0 G5. But you knew that already, I'm sure.)
Errrrrm, actually, no. They can "randomly" decide to audit you every year and make your life completely fucking miserable for multiple months on end, every year. I've seen this happen, to my parents to be exact, and it's not pretty.
A better plan is to figure out what the averages for your industry are on things like meal expenses, travel expenses, etc. etc. and claim just slightly above average, no matter what your actual accounts show. That way you're much less likely to trigger an audit at all, and if you do end up getting audited, getting the discrepancies to result in just a reassessment instead of massive fines is going to be far more likely, assuming you have the basic skill for dealing with government of being able to lie with a straight face about the dog eating your receipts and so forth.
No, there's this one I've been hanging out with for three years now, she's definitely not fundamentally different in thinking or wanting than I am, and I'm not brainwashed. (No, seriously, keep reading.)
Now, there is the important note here that before she got onto her current diet of prescription antidepressants, she was exactly as you describe.
Whether the same remedy would work for other chickies as well is it did to make her a non-chickie female, I dunno...
For many that's reproduction, for others it's...... ensuring that only those for which it IS reproduction will contribute to the propagation of the species.
Not that there's anything wrong with being evolutionarily maladaptive, of course, but don't kid yourself that you're anything else.
Actually, avoidance of choice is essential to mental health for normal humans in all areas, nothing special about desktop OSes in that regard. This is a major part of the explanation of the growth in depression and unhappiness over the last century while possible lifestyle choices and physical living standards have increased incredibly, most especially for women who have more freedom and choices than in any society ever.
See the book "The Progress Paradox : How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse" for in-depth treatment of this phenonemon. But, very briefly, the psychological problem that makes people unhappy directly because of choices is that if you have many choices, you can never be sure that you have made the best choice. Second order effects like brand partisanship, to validate your choice as the best, follow from that.
In any case, it's a fascinating book, go check it out.
Adding a long line here so the @(#&$!!! error message "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.4)" will go away, preferably to taunt whoever the goof is that thought annoying us with that message was a good idea andnowwerejustdegradingintoacompletelymeaninglessb igrunonwordandwhatonearthareyoureadingthisfordonty ouhaveanythingbettertodoforcryingoutloud.
Re:"Chips May Physically Reconfigure Themselves"
on
A History of PowerPC
·
· Score: 4, Informative
P.S. Does anyone know why Windows has never been adapted to run under PPC?
1) Locate a dairy farm that uses electric fences to restrain cattle. You can tell it's an electric fence because it's one thin strand of wire at waist height strung through plastic insulators on the fence posts, and the cows are giving it a rather wide berth. 2) Walk up to the electric fence. 3) Whip out your dick. 4) Piss on the electric fence.
This, I posit, will remove *all* further desire on your part to play with high voltage electricity. For that matter, it will take a fair while afterwards for you to regain ANY "desire" to "play", if you know what I mean and I think you do.
And there's at least one attractive woman out there who will love you for who you are, not how much you earn.
... as long as you redefine "attractive" sufficiently low enough.
If your standards are high enough to hold out for SERIOUS talent, you're gonna be out of luck without the big bucks, dude. Four billion years of evolution is working against any other decision on the hottie's part.
You know, I see this a lot from the leftie types, but none of them ever seems to have the knowledge to be able to put an explicit percentage on exactly what "fair" is to their little minds, or exactly what "rich" is for that matter. Let us take the IRS data for 1999, the newest date Google finds in its top ten links:
A) Do you think "rich" is "the highest 1%"? Well, they earned 19.5% of income, but paid 36.2% of income taxes. What would you think "fair" for that 19.5% is, if different than 36.2%?
B) Do you think "rich" is "the highest 10%"? Well, they earned 44.9% of income, but paid 66.5% of income taxes. What would you think "fair" for that 44.9% is, if different than 66.5%?
C) On the other hand, the bottom 50% of taxpayers earned 13.2% of income, but paid only 4% of income taxes.
Now, precisely what in this profile do you find unfair? What target percentages would satisfy you as being satisfactorily "fair" then?
But I got the better deal price/performance-wise, one that every real computer expert would agree on the utility and wisdom of.
...I'm apparently NOT cool.
"Apparently" is perhaps not quite the perfect adjective to use in this context. "Obviously", or perhaps "markedly" or "conspicuously" or even "incontrovertibly", would fit your expressed sentiments and values far better.
Hmmmm... come to think of it, is there any context, anywhere, any time, that "utility and wisdom" has ever been even remotely equatable with "cool"?
I see SUVs as a vehicle whose sole purpose is showing off or being a prick on the road.
That's because you don't do anything fun with your vehicle. Let us consider for instance paragliding, where generally we'll be shuttling five-seven people up to launch, each with 50-75 pounds of gear between wing, harness, etc.
Minivan? No minivan will make it up to launch without leaving a trail of parts carved out from underneath behind it. And very few have the horsepower to get that load past steeper sections without people getting out and walking, anyway.
Pickup? Not enough seating room, and your gear will get pretty damn dusty in the back, which damages the UV coating on a paraglider right quick, which makes it porous, which makes you a lot more likely to die.
Jeep? Not enough space. Three people with gear, tops, and that's pushing it.
HumVee? Too big for mountain trails with sharp switchbacks, H1 and H2 both.
Midsize SUV, like for instance my Isuzu Trooper... damn near perfect.
"Jihad" (technically here, the lesser jihad) is to impose Muslim doctrine upon the House of War, i.e. all non-Muslim people and nations. This is an aggressive and unprovoked doctrine.
"Crusade" is to DEFEND territory and people that were historically Christian (well, Byzantine, to be exact) from the depredations of their Muslim conquerors. This is precisely the OPPOSITE of jihad.
Heh. Here's a nice piece of serendipity for you: Just after posting the above, I stumbled across this which puts some actual numbers on my observation:
And so far, all the evidence we have points not to desertification or other changes to less hospitable climates as a result of global warming. Instead, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere seems to have led to a six percent increase in the amount of vegetation on the earth. The Amazon rain forests accounted for 42 percent of the growth.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html Now, as far as I'm aware, this is the only actual FACTUAL observation that can be plausibly linked to the planet's increase in C02 thus far... and, you know, I find it hard to see any downside to it.
Oh, I'm not claiming that the effect scales up enough to a planetary size system to completely eliminate any human agency. I'm just pointing out that when the models that the doomsday predictions are derived from don't account for this very obvious consequence which you don't need any training whatsoever to observe for yourself, the veracity of their conclusions is at best questionable.
Where I said "proof" I intended that the reader would grasp I meant "making testable predictions which can be proven to be correct". You are, of course, correct, if perhaps a bit overly technical, in pointing out that proving a prediction is not proof of the underlying theory.
Considering the UK has temperature records dating back a couple of centuries I think this is fairly good empirical evidence,
Oh, you have older records than that. Specifically, the Doomsday Book of William the Conqueror records that there were 28 producing vineyards in Norman England. This is at the end of the 11th Century? Back when the Norsemen were colonizing Greenland and so forth, because it WAS green at the time? Before the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, which we're still recovering from?
When it's this easy to show that today's temperatures are not unprecedented -- low, in fact -- on a mere 1000 year cycle, and completely explicable and expectable given preindustrial history, one suspects that 'fairly good empirical evidence' is perhaps not a completely accurate characterization, hmmm?
Tell us please, where do al the CO2 we produce (that was not there to start with) go?
Exercise: Take any small scale closed system, like the Biosphere project a few years back.
Pump in lots and lots of C02, as indeed did happen in Biosphere since they underestimated just how much the humans would respirate within.
Result: Bigger greener faster reproducing plants, and pretty much stable C02 levels. As, if you know any plant biology, really oughn't to be a terrible shock.
Contributory evidence that this observable effect does indeed scale up to the larger closed system we generally refer to as "Earth" comes from the demonstrated halts and reversals in desertification over the last four decades, for instance. (Helps to be old enough to remember the '70s when desertification was the EcoDisaster Du Jour for the bunny-hugging crowd, here.) Meanwhile, the Chicken Little global warming models that everybody gets their panties in a bunch over completely ignore this, even though it's the most obvious first-order effect that shows up in an actual experiment.
If you have to rely on voting patterns, you're not talking about science, you're talking about politics.
If you're talking about science, then you necessarily must have a falsifiable prediction to discuss, the truth of which can be objectively determined. "Majorities" are not part of the scientific method. Proof is.
I do the OS X version of the client and the Linux/BSD sides of the X-Tunnels, X-Cipher, and X-Vox products. Basically "the all non-Windows OS code person".
Your resume looks interesting, but I don't see any mention of XTen.
That's because the resume only gets updated when I'm actively looking for work, which hasn't been since I started here.
Slashdot Mirror
The PC is merely a succedaneum for satisfying the nympholepsy of nullifidians. The haecceity of the enchiridion of arcane and recdonite elements of the Mac gestalt appeals to the oniomaina of an eximious Gemeinschaft whose legerity and sophrosyne, whose Sprachgefühl and orexis find more than fugacious fullment in its felicific experience.
(Written on a 2x2.0 G5. But you knew that already, I'm sure.)
My Mac free-as-in-beer port of X-Lite includes Speex as a codec option, so you could grab that.
It's the early afternoon just after lunch that gets me. Food in my stomach,
Cut back on the carbs there, big guy.
That, or have a decent breakfast.
Or, more likely, both.
Errrrrm, actually, no. They can "randomly" decide to audit you every year and make your life completely fucking miserable for multiple months on end, every year. I've seen this happen, to my parents to be exact, and it's not pretty.
A better plan is to figure out what the averages for your industry are on things like meal expenses, travel expenses, etc. etc. and claim just slightly above average, no matter what your actual accounts show. That way you're much less likely to trigger an audit at all, and if you do end up getting audited, getting the discrepancies to result in just a reassessment instead of massive fines is going to be far more likely, assuming you have the basic skill for dealing with government of being able to lie with a straight face about the dog eating your receipts and so forth.
No, there's this one I've been hanging out with for three years now, she's definitely not fundamentally different in thinking or wanting than I am, and I'm not brainwashed. (No, seriously, keep reading.)
Now, there is the important note here that before she got onto her current diet of prescription antidepressants, she was exactly as you describe.
Whether the same remedy would work for other chickies as well is it did to make her a non-chickie female, I dunno...
For many that's reproduction, for others it's... ... ensuring that only those for which it IS reproduction will contribute to the propagation of the species.
Not that there's anything wrong with being evolutionarily maladaptive, of course, but don't kid yourself that you're anything else.
Actually, avoidance of choice is essential to mental health for normal humans in all areas, nothing special about desktop OSes in that regard. This is a major part of the explanation of the growth in depression and unhappiness over the last century while possible lifestyle choices and physical living standards have increased incredibly, most especially for women who have more freedom and choices than in any society ever.
See the book "The Progress Paradox : How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse" for in-depth treatment of this phenonemon. But, very briefly, the psychological problem that makes people unhappy directly because of choices is that if you have many choices, you can never be sure that you have made the best choice. Second order effects like brand partisanship, to validate your choice as the best, follow from that.
In any case, it's a fascinating book, go check it out.
Some people call this imperialism.
Then those people are idiots, because it is actually mercantilism.
No, it's
b igrunonwordandwhatonearthareyoureadingthisfordonty ouhaveanythingbettertodoforcryingoutloud.
F^cker
Only
Runs
Downhill
or
Found
On
Road
Dead
Adding a long line here so the @(#&$!!! error message "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.4)" will go away, preferably to taunt whoever the goof is that thought annoying us with that message was a good idea andnowwerejustdegradingintoacompletelymeaningless
P.S. Does anyone know why Windows has never been adapted to run under PPC?
Errm, actually, it WAS. See for instance
http://home1.gte.net/res008nh/nt/ppc/default.htm
Here's an easy way to get the same effect.
1) Locate a dairy farm that uses electric fences to restrain cattle. You can tell it's an electric fence because it's one thin strand of wire at waist height strung through plastic insulators on the fence posts, and the cows are giving it a rather wide berth.
2) Walk up to the electric fence.
3) Whip out your dick.
4) Piss on the electric fence.
This, I posit, will remove *all* further desire on your part to play with high voltage electricity. For that matter, it will take a fair while afterwards for you to regain ANY "desire" to "play", if you know what I mean and I think you do.
And there's at least one attractive woman out there who will love you for who you are, not how much you earn.
... as long as you redefine "attractive" sufficiently low enough.
If your standards are high enough to hold out for SERIOUS talent, you're gonna be out of luck without the big bucks, dude. Four billion years of evolution is working against any other decision on the hottie's part.
Why not let polygamists get married, then?
What a great idea! We could call the enabling legislation the "Divorce Lawyers' Lifetime Employment Act'!
tax the rich their fair share
You know, I see this a lot from the leftie types, but none of them ever seems to have the knowledge to be able to put an explicit percentage on exactly what "fair" is to their little minds, or exactly what "rich" is for that matter. Let us take the IRS data for 1999, the newest date Google finds in its top ten links:
A) Do you think "rich" is "the highest 1%"? Well, they earned 19.5% of income, but paid 36.2% of income taxes. What would you think "fair" for that 19.5% is, if different than 36.2%?
B) Do you think "rich" is "the highest 10%"? Well, they earned 44.9% of income, but paid 66.5% of income taxes. What would you think "fair" for that 44.9% is, if different than 66.5%?
C) On the other hand, the bottom 50% of taxpayers earned 13.2% of income, but paid only 4% of income taxes.
Now, precisely what in this profile do you find unfair? What target percentages would satisfy you as being satisfactorily "fair" then?
But I got the better deal price/performance-wise, one that every real computer expert would agree on the utility and wisdom of.
...I'm apparently NOT cool.
... come to think of it, is there any context, anywhere, any time, that "utility and wisdom" has ever been even remotely equatable with "cool"?
"Apparently" is perhaps not quite the perfect adjective to use in this context. "Obviously", or perhaps "markedly" or "conspicuously" or even "incontrovertibly", would fit your expressed sentiments and values far better.
Hmmmm
I see SUVs as a vehicle whose sole purpose is showing off or being a prick on the road.
... damn near perfect.
That's because you don't do anything fun with your vehicle. Let us consider for instance paragliding, where generally we'll be shuttling five-seven people up to launch, each with 50-75 pounds of gear between wing, harness, etc.
Minivan? No minivan will make it up to launch without leaving a trail of parts carved out from underneath behind it. And very few have the horsepower to get that load past steeper sections without people getting out and walking, anyway.
Pickup? Not enough seating room, and your gear will get pretty damn dusty in the back, which damages the UV coating on a paraglider right quick, which makes it porous, which makes you a lot more likely to die.
Jeep? Not enough space. Three people with gear, tops, and that's pushing it.
HumVee? Too big for mountain trails with sharp switchbacks, H1 and H2 both.
Midsize SUV, like for instance my Isuzu Trooper
You display your ignorance, my friend.
"Jihad" (technically here, the lesser jihad) is to impose Muslim doctrine upon the House of War, i.e. all non-Muslim people and nations. This is an aggressive and unprovoked doctrine.
"Crusade" is to DEFEND territory and people that were historically Christian (well, Byzantine, to be exact) from the depredations of their Muslim conquerors. This is precisely the OPPOSITE of jihad.
...does voice over IP with hard encryption. I don't know of any other VoIP product that does that...
& smenu=xpro&ssmenu=xcipher
Michael, meet X-Cipher.
X-Cipher, meet Michael.
http://www.xten.com/proto/index.php?menu=products
Heh. Here's a nice piece of serendipity for you: Just after posting the above, I stumbled across this which puts some actual numbers on my observation:
... and, you know, I find it hard to see any downside to it.
And so far, all the evidence we have points not to desertification or other changes to less hospitable climates as a result of global warming. Instead, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere seems to have led to a six percent increase in the amount of vegetation on the earth. The Amazon rain forests accounted for 42 percent of the growth.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html
Now, as far as I'm aware, this is the only actual FACTUAL observation that can be plausibly linked to the planet's increase in C02 thus far
Oh, I'm not claiming that the effect scales up enough to a planetary size system to completely eliminate any human agency. I'm just pointing out that when the models that the doomsday predictions are derived from don't account for this very obvious consequence which you don't need any training whatsoever to observe for yourself, the veracity of their conclusions is at best questionable.
Where I said "proof" I intended that the reader would grasp I meant "making testable predictions which can be proven to be correct". You are, of course, correct, if perhaps a bit overly technical, in pointing out that proving a prediction is not proof of the underlying theory.
Considering the UK has temperature records dating back a couple of centuries I think this is fairly good empirical evidence,
Oh, you have older records than that. Specifically, the Doomsday Book of William the Conqueror records that there were 28 producing vineyards in Norman England. This is at the end of the 11th Century? Back when the Norsemen were colonizing Greenland and so forth, because it WAS green at the time? Before the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, which we're still recovering from?
When it's this easy to show that today's temperatures are not unprecedented -- low, in fact -- on a mere 1000 year cycle, and completely explicable and expectable given preindustrial history, one suspects that 'fairly good empirical evidence' is perhaps not a completely accurate characterization, hmmm?
Tell us please, where do al the CO2 we produce (that was not there to start with) go?
Exercise: Take any small scale closed system, like the Biosphere project a few years back.
Pump in lots and lots of C02, as indeed did happen in Biosphere since they underestimated just how much the humans would respirate within.
Result: Bigger greener faster reproducing plants, and pretty much stable C02 levels. As, if you know any plant biology, really oughn't to be a terrible shock.
Contributory evidence that this observable effect does indeed scale up to the larger closed system we generally refer to as "Earth" comes from the demonstrated halts and reversals in desertification over the last four decades, for instance. (Helps to be old enough to remember the '70s when desertification was the EcoDisaster Du Jour for the bunny-hugging crowd, here.) Meanwhile, the Chicken Little global warming models that everybody gets their panties in a bunch over completely ignore this, even though it's the most obvious first-order effect that shows up in an actual experiment.
The vast majority of scientists agree...
If you have to rely on voting patterns, you're not talking about science, you're talking about politics.
If you're talking about science, then you necessarily must have a falsifiable prediction to discuss, the truth of which can be objectively determined. "Majorities" are not part of the scientific method. Proof is.
Are you associated with Xten?
I do the OS X version of the client and the Linux/BSD sides of the X-Tunnels, X-Cipher, and X-Vox products. Basically "the all non-Windows OS code person".
Your resume looks interesting, but I don't see any mention of XTen.
That's because the resume only gets updated when I'm actively looking for work, which hasn't been since I started here.