hehe, I've never had anybody make those observations about me, but they probably realize I wouldn't have been likely to keep slaves, or if I had I would've educated 'em. Nothing like a man who's got confidence to do a good job for you.
Yeah I know it feels right viscerally but it's the wrong method, hence my quandry. Who do we take out? Who are the ones who aren't current corporate stooges?
Additionally, as I understand it, most of the fed isn't run by Congress, they just have oversight and authorization. Most of the function of the country is run by civil servants, like the guys in the Congressional Budget Office (to pick one that's deliberately tied into Congress). They don't swap out every two or four or six years.
So all I'm talking about is replace the people making decisions that govern our day to day with the average man, and get everyone to want to participate, if only because they know they will have to at some point. I don't wanna stop the actual business of government.
Also, if we EDUCATE the masses (who don't want to be educated, I get it, vicious cycle) then any man (*) can go work in Congress.
But you're reading my mind on "if nobody knows how to work the machinery, they go back to the vendor who will sell them [eg, headlight fluid]". <sarcasm>That would be a great way to run the country, no? </sarcasm>
* or woman - not being sexist, just generalist, just hate to get jumped over some BS that detracts from the argument
I know voting against the incumbents is easy, and I pointed out some of that was purely emotional, some logical. Personally I don't care if we shuffle through new ones EVERY two years. If we do so, then I say "Great"; it means that they know they're coming home as soon as their two years are up, so they know they're RESPONSIBLE for the laws they passed. If that means stalemate everywhere, awesome, it also means we learn to live with a new paradigm. The no-laws-getting-passed-because-everyone-is-afraid-to-make-a-move stalemate will get broken within a few months, I have no doubt. Because people will know that they have to do something before going home.
Please, by all means, help me find the flaws in my arguments. I've been refining this for years having people pointing these things out to me, and I've read the same authors as the founding fathers, as well as articles from contemporary sources. I've talked to political professors, lawyers, man-on-the-street's, little old ladies and veterans who are set in their ways. I wanna figure out what I'm missing, and I think the truth is I'm not missing anything, the problem is that people don't want change. Plainly and simply.
Not to be totally contrary here, but can we agree on a number slightly higher than 50%? I'm all for 2/3s majority or 60% or something. It's just that the whole 50% concept doesn't really sway me.
But yeah, that's what I mean too. So how do we amend the constitution to allow the people to void laws by issuance's from the states? Reckon there's a procedure for that?;)
So it boils back down to can the American people wake up to the injustices being done around them daily or are they just so sluggish and happy with the status quo that they will ignore it?
Wait, I said I'm against it, and you asked me if I know there's nothing against it in the Constitution? Sounds like you're trolling buddy. Of course I know there's nothing there. But that doesn't change how they instituted the policies at the time. The Founding Fathers by and large all had slaves and their women were happy to not vote (supposedly).
So exactly what was your point? You wanted to agree with me? Thanks, I think.
Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it, or do I need to figure out how to get to the head of DOW or something and then try to effect change? (yeah right, like that would ever happen)
No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy. And I voted against pretty much every incumbent in the race (sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes due to political views)... As an American who's sick of the system the way it is, I vote and encourage people to vote to remove all 535 from office and to replace them by rounds every 2 years. I realize we need party leadership and we need people who understand the system, but guess what, when every citizen CAN hold office, nobody needs to be shown HOW to hold office.
A handful of men realized this 250 years ago, when they started a new country, and they figured that everyone who had any education could hold office. (granted, I'm not saying all their practices were right: I'm just as against slavery and the oppression of women as anyone else ~ I'm just saying the political concepts were much better suited for citizen self-governance).
However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.
tl;dr: Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?
My gmail is a random mess of clutter as well. So is my twitterfeed. That would be the social aspect. It's like a/. chorus of posts, some days it seems to be overwhelming and way OT, some days, it's fine.
Actually that's a great question, and I'm curious about that too, except I think that the answer is if we consider voltage states. Technically there's three states that a signal could be in, which are {off, on, neither} where the third state is easier to illustrate if I can use voltages instead. Let's say that instead of off and on we consider nearly zero (demonstrated as 0) volts for off (makes sense, right?), five volts for on and then a third state where we're neither at 5V or 0V, say 2.5V.
Surely it's reasonable that there might exist a 2.5V in this pattern, right? For instance, if we're traveling from 0V to 5V, we must pass through 2.5V. I forget now the cases where a digital circuit can easily have 2.5V when it seems like it must have only either 0 or 5, but I recall it's quite normal. I think it has something to do with not having a direct ground always attached, the floating ground moves into 2.5V range.
So because of this, it's possible for a gate to exist in any of three states. That's the blank slot indicated on the tape. Think of it as a Heisenberg spot.
Hey if it takes that many penis extensions for you to feel normal, that's cool man. We promise not to hold it against you. Obviously that isn't your real dick, cos you aint man enough to jump out there with a nick and pic. It'll be ok, the therapy group promises not to laugh as much tonight.
Oh, and your momma said not to be so mean to you tonight. I'll think about it!
What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?
"Less than free". If they don't have to pay extra for peering then they can continue the LtF business model and can disrupt whole sectors of markets. This works out in our benefit more often than it hurts us. I for one prefer to see innovation over the same ole same ole.
If the bill is zero, they're not making much either. It's a money game sure enough, but if they were making money, then the article would be about their profit from peering youtube's backbone to other providers. With the introduction of the new cisco switches/routers, and if the dark fiber is in appropriate places to do so, it's entirely possible an infrastructure upgrade would permit them to do this. However, that's doubtful. Google will almost always run at a break even, I should think, opting to send more data rather than transmit data across their networks.
Granted, I'm not a major ops center manager for a Tier1, so I really can't say for sure. Making money is always nicer than losing it, I hear.
well, I've not RTFA but if they can get double the performance of a Tesla system using much cheaper (as I recall it's expensive, which isn't saying much ~ I refuse to google if I won't RTFA) video cards isn't that something to talk about?
BAH, now you've got me bothered to RTFA... guess I should go do work instead?
Yeah but opening it as a file doesn't let you position things where you want, hence I was commenting on the usefulness of the underlying mechanics of a filesystem.
But I agree, if you're mostly using a write once style system, open it like a file and just write...
I think that this really is a troll on slashdot, twould be nice if the submitter would come back into the discussion at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
and suck my bawlz
~ probably need more text to pass the lameness filter huh?
hehe, I've never had anybody make those observations about me, but they probably realize I wouldn't have been likely to keep slaves, or if I had I would've educated 'em. Nothing like a man who's got confidence to do a good job for you.
I tend to tell people I'm a Jeffersonian and I love what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy
And the commentary on this page (under Jeffersonian Economics) is awesome and frightfully truthful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_political_philosophy
Not that it really matters (since all those little guys got a collected ~1% of the vote IIRC), but I voted Libertarian.
Yeah I know it feels right viscerally but it's the wrong method, hence my quandry. Who do we take out? Who are the ones who aren't current corporate stooges?
Additionally, as I understand it, most of the fed isn't run by Congress, they just have oversight and authorization. Most of the function of the country is run by civil servants, like the guys in the Congressional Budget Office (to pick one that's deliberately tied into Congress). They don't swap out every two or four or six years.
So all I'm talking about is replace the people making decisions that govern our day to day with the average man, and get everyone to want to participate, if only because they know they will have to at some point. I don't wanna stop the actual business of government.
Also, if we EDUCATE the masses (who don't want to be educated, I get it, vicious cycle) then any man (*) can go work in Congress.
But you're reading my mind on "if nobody knows how to work the machinery, they go back to the vendor who will sell them [eg, headlight fluid]". <sarcasm>That would be a great way to run the country, no? </sarcasm>
* or woman - not being sexist, just generalist, just hate to get jumped over some BS that detracts from the argument
I know voting against the incumbents is easy, and I pointed out some of that was purely emotional, some logical. Personally I don't care if we shuffle through new ones EVERY two years. If we do so, then I say "Great"; it means that they know they're coming home as soon as their two years are up, so they know they're RESPONSIBLE for the laws they passed. If that means stalemate everywhere, awesome, it also means we learn to live with a new paradigm. The no-laws-getting-passed-because-everyone-is-afraid-to-make-a-move stalemate will get broken within a few months, I have no doubt. Because people will know that they have to do something before going home.
Please, by all means, help me find the flaws in my arguments. I've been refining this for years having people pointing these things out to me, and I've read the same authors as the founding fathers, as well as articles from contemporary sources. I've talked to political professors, lawyers, man-on-the-street's, little old ladies and veterans who are set in their ways. I wanna figure out what I'm missing, and I think the truth is I'm not missing anything, the problem is that people don't want change. Plainly and simply.
Not to be totally contrary here, but can we agree on a number slightly higher than 50%? I'm all for 2/3s majority or 60% or something. It's just that the whole 50% concept doesn't really sway me.
But yeah, that's what I mean too. So how do we amend the constitution to allow the people to void laws by issuance's from the states? Reckon there's a procedure for that? ;)
So it boils back down to can the American people wake up to the injustices being done around them daily or are they just so sluggish and happy with the status quo that they will ignore it?
Wait, I said I'm against it, and you asked me if I know there's nothing against it in the Constitution? Sounds like you're trolling buddy. Of course I know there's nothing there. But that doesn't change how they instituted the policies at the time. The Founding Fathers by and large all had slaves and their women were happy to not vote (supposedly).
So exactly what was your point? You wanted to agree with me? Thanks, I think.
Maybe.
Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it, or do I need to figure out how to get to the head of DOW or something and then try to effect change? (yeah right, like that would ever happen)
No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy. And I voted against pretty much every incumbent in the race (sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes due to political views) ... As an American who's sick of the system the way it is, I vote and encourage people to vote to remove all 535 from office and to replace them by rounds every 2 years. I realize we need party leadership and we need people who understand the system, but guess what, when every citizen CAN hold office, nobody needs to be shown HOW to hold office.
A handful of men realized this 250 years ago, when they started a new country, and they figured that everyone who had any education could hold office. (granted, I'm not saying all their practices were right: I'm just as against slavery and the oppression of women as anyone else ~ I'm just saying the political concepts were much better suited for citizen self-governance).
However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.
tl;dr: Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?
My gmail is a random mess of clutter as well. So is my twitterfeed. That would be the social aspect. It's like a /. chorus of posts, some days it seems to be overwhelming and way OT, some days, it's fine.
Thank you! I don't know why people don't know about this. I haven't had any of that sort of spam in months (years even)
No, the way this would work is that they monitor ALL your usage and so you get screwed when you're not at work and are griping.
Nothing to do with being at work and using the services.
It's news, it's just not a tech story.
Aw crap, am I feeding the trolls again?
Actually that's a great question, and I'm curious about that too, except I think that the answer is if we consider voltage states. Technically there's three states that a signal could be in, which are {off, on, neither} where the third state is easier to illustrate if I can use voltages instead. Let's say that instead of off and on we consider nearly zero (demonstrated as 0) volts for off (makes sense, right?), five volts for on and then a third state where we're neither at 5V or 0V, say 2.5V.
Surely it's reasonable that there might exist a 2.5V in this pattern, right? For instance, if we're traveling from 0V to 5V, we must pass through 2.5V. I forget now the cases where a digital circuit can easily have 2.5V when it seems like it must have only either 0 or 5, but I recall it's quite normal. I think it has something to do with not having a direct ground always attached, the floating ground moves into 2.5V range.
So because of this, it's possible for a gate to exist in any of three states. That's the blank slot indicated on the tape. Think of it as a Heisenberg spot.
Now, who can tell me what I got wrong here?
offtopic? seriously? well I knew that, but ... not funny in the least?
Ok, not like my karma is going to take a hit or anything...
Hey if it takes that many penis extensions for you to feel normal, that's cool man. We promise not to hold it against you. Obviously that isn't your real dick, cos you aint man enough to jump out there with a nick and pic. It'll be ok, the therapy group promises not to laugh as much tonight.
Oh, and your momma said not to be so mean to you tonight. I'll think about it!
I just wanna know if it had the phone number to Obama's Blackberry synced and if those were in the screenshots...
Thanks for spoiling that one, I was thinking the PP made a compelling point, now you've gone and ruined it...
Guess I could still recommend it to my brother and laugh everytime I visit huh?
What do I care that Google's bandwidth costs are zero when I'm stuck with my pathetic broadband connection?
"Less than free". If they don't have to pay extra for peering then they can continue the LtF business model and can disrupt whole sectors of markets. This works out in our benefit more often than it hurts us. I for one prefer to see innovation over the same ole same ole.
If the bill is zero, they're not making much either. It's a money game sure enough, but if they were making money, then the article would be about their profit from peering youtube's backbone to other providers. With the introduction of the new cisco switches/routers, and if the dark fiber is in appropriate places to do so, it's entirely possible an infrastructure upgrade would permit them to do this. However, that's doubtful. Google will almost always run at a break even, I should think, opting to send more data rather than transmit data across their networks.
Granted, I'm not a major ops center manager for a Tier1, so I really can't say for sure. Making money is always nicer than losing it, I hear.
well, I've not RTFA but if they can get double the performance of a Tesla system using much cheaper (as I recall it's expensive, which isn't saying much ~ I refuse to google if I won't RTFA) video cards isn't that something to talk about?
BAH, now you've got me bothered to RTFA... guess I should go do work instead?
Can we just restrict this meme to idle posts?
But in other news, /. lurkers find new ways to recap summary in one sentence, stay tuned for more info!
Thanks, I almost sprayed Monster all over my screen...
Too true in this day and age, no?
Yeah but opening it as a file doesn't let you position things where you want, hence I was commenting on the usefulness of the underlying mechanics of a filesystem.
But I agree, if you're mostly using a write once style system, open it like a file and just write...
I think that this really is a troll on slashdot, twould be nice if the submitter would come back into the discussion at some point.
I suppose if you can read what you wrote...