How would you start a business, even a small one, with out using money? Do you max out your credit cards and hope your business is successful enough to payoff your credit cards?
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Got bad news for ya, Chief - that's no fantasy.
But hey, don't take my word for it, go ahead and kick in your neighbor's door and find out for yourself.
Yea, how dare those bastards make clean air and water for everyone priorities over profits for the select few!
Because our pure-hearted regulators only ever do what's best for everyone, and never use their authority to line their own pockets, or stifle their friends' competitors.
Don't forget that investors look at more than just the product and the market. The look at the regulatory environment too because that can derail an otherwise profitable venture.
Yea, how dare those bastards make clean air and water for everyone priorities over profits for the select few!
I wonder how long it takes them to compile/load all those apps? Would be interesting to break it down and see just how much per hour these guys are charging.
No, it was in the response to the question from right after what you quoted.
Right:
And what goes into that?
There's 1...
For instance, I see you’ve got a different wireless card on here, can you talk in detail about what’s the wireless that you’ve got attached to the back there?
ooo. willfilly disregarding and ignoring the point in order to be pedantic and make almost the same point as the person you're replying to. C'mon dude. The only one playing these games is you.
There was a point? Seems to me that you're just arguing semantics.
I'm not saying there isn't value to the expression...
Then you shouldn't have used the term 'platitude.'
It's a moral observation that it would be better if we played nicely, but in the end, it's a sound bite -- which pretty much makes it a platitude. It's a nice sentiment, I just see no evidence for it in actual human behavior in general.
Go visit a prison. I'm certain you'll meet all sorts of people who wronged someone who wronged them, and are thus suffering the punishment, no matter how right they thought they were at the time.
Then there's the whole thorny issue of who gets to decide 'right' and 'wrong' -- the Amish, or the Pastafarians?
Shouldn't be all that thorny; the concept of Mores and Folkways is pretty well established in human culture.
It basically boils down to one simple question: Would you like it if someone did that to you? If the answer is 'no,' perhaps you should reconsider your actions.
i.e., would you like it if someone murdered you? No? Me either; therefore, we can establish that murder is wrong, because nobody in their right mind wants to be murdered.
It is my opinion that those who attempt to make 'thorny issues' out of obvious moral duties are merely snakes attempting to justify their own desires. So far, I've yet to be proven wrong.
The examples I cited are meant to be glaring examples of how, collectively, people have decided that "two wrongs don't make a right" depends on who is deciding it -- because humans clearly do the opposite all the time.
The fact that those issues - the death penalty, Iraq War, and religious zealotry - are highly debated, proves your assertion as incorrect.
So, by virtue of being something which is a good idea, not a natural law, and rarely applied in human society... I'll stick with platitude
Then you're insisting on being incorrect - it is not, by definition, a platitude.
I'll stick with platitude. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or wrong, but so much of human society is based on the exact opposite principles that to pretend it's some enduring tenet of human behavior is a little naive.
Again, I never said or implied that it is "some enduring tenet of human behavior," I merely stated it as the fact that it is - doing something wrong, in response to something wrong that someone else did, is never, ever, the right thing to do.
Tim: Now is this an outgrowth of the Pwnie Plug? The earlier product, the plug that was here last year? And that is still available?
Oliver: Yes. That is correct.
Tim: So what does this cost? And what goes into that? For instance, I see you’ve got a different wireless card on here, can you talk in detail about what’s the wireless that you’ve got attached to the back there?
Oliver: Yeah, so this is a TP-link adapter. This is a unique card in that it supports a packet injection, monitor mode and wireless promiscuous mode, which lets you do sidejacking.
Word of advice: try letting the interviewee answer the current fucking question before you ask another one.
I, personally, would like to know what the cost will be, but thanks to Timmy's piss-poor interviewing skills, I'll have to seek the information elsewhere.
Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.
Never said they didn't, but the post I was responding to didn't specify any of the other Presidents, so thus it would have been pointless and off topic for me to discuss any of them.
I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama?
The first time.
Learned my lesson, that's for sure. Actually, I've been trying to start a trend of referring to him as "Bush the Third," but so far hasn't gained a lot of traction.
I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does.
Hence one major reason why The Daily Show is America's most trusted news program.
one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.
With ya on that, too.
I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for.
I would argue that "the problem" isn't necessarily that people are voting for bad candidates, but that, thanks to the rampant fiscal elitism that controls modern political campaigning, it is nigh impossible for a good candidate to get on the ballot, let alone be elected.
Take Ron Paul for example - love him or hate him, you can't deny that the media deliberately did everything they could to avoid so much as mentioning his name during the primaries; I recall one instance in particular, where MSM talking heads listed the first, second, and fourth place candidates in the Republican primary. Who the fuck does that??? The answer, obviously, is someone who has a vested interest in the third place candidate not receiving any attention.
You are correct - Bush never actually said those words, in that order.
You are never correct - Bush actually said those words, in that order.
Somehow I think a statement that someone didn't use a certain set of words "in that order" is an admission that the claim that the words are being quoted is a lie.
You think wrong.
I'm certain Bush has, at some point in his life, uttered the words "Constitution," "Goddamn," "piece," and "paper." However, I know that, in the context of the urban legend, he never actually said those words, in that order. He very well could have said, "Goddamn! That piece of paper is the Constitution?" but that's not what this discussion is about.
Anyway, the important part of my post is the part you didn't quote:
actions speak louder than words, and the intent of his actions are quite clear, IMO.
That, I stand behind.
Now, please, enough with the pedantry, it detracts from the conversation.
I see what you did there. You cut a quote so that instead of a statement about what action out of a list doesn't need to be proven, you turned it into a statement that nothing needs to be proven at all.
Very good. Point, set, match. Goes very well with your admission that Bush didn't actually say something using words "in that order" but that's still proof of his meaning what you wanted him to say.
?
You're reading entirely too much into this, dude.
I merely saw an opportunity to rip on federal prosecutors, and I took it.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Zing!
" by not attempting to do it yourself."
Booooooo. I would rather try learn and fail.
Well said; also notable, if you don't try, you will always fail.
Dr. Seuss had a similar feeling, and it's only appropriate that I quote him on today, the day before his 109th birthday:
“It is better to know how to learn than to know.”
Don't see why not; heck, they can probably use scripts to automate the whole process, I know I would.
How would you start a business, even a small one, with out using money? Do you max out your credit cards and hope your business is successful enough to payoff your credit cards?
Hey, it worked for Kevin Smith!
Have heard that in the past, but have yet to find any evidence to substantiate the claim.
Still, doesn't seem beyond reason for such a thing to have occurred.
Capitalism cannot last if it depends on infringement and "borrowing" of others ideas as you refer to it.
100% correct - it is a wholly unsustainable model.
Think about that for a bit.
If it can been seen from any place, it is public.
My backyard has a 16 foot privacy fence; it cannot be seen from "any" place.
I suppose you think I should have to go pay for and install a privacy roof for my yard as well?
We ask Google and Apple to disable maps apps in Texas, since you have the option to view the satellite imagery and street view data.
... replaced with a static image of Yosemite Sam mooning the viewer.
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Got bad news for ya, Chief - that's no fantasy.
But hey, don't take my word for it, go ahead and kick in your neighbor's door and find out for yourself.
Yea, how dare those bastards make clean air and water for everyone priorities over profits for the select few!
Because our pure-hearted regulators only ever do what's best for everyone, and never use their authority to line their own pockets, or stifle their friends' competitors.
Yea, you've got me there.
Don't forget that investors look at more than just the product and the market. The look at the regulatory environment too because that can derail an otherwise profitable venture.
Yea, how dare those bastards make clean air and water for everyone priorities over profits for the select few!
Just switch your focus to manufacturing things that either can't be made in/sold to/bought from other countries (like cryptography software).
Or maybe guns. Americans love American made guns.
You're pretty much dead on with your numbers:
32GB Nexus 7 w/ AT&T 3G - $300
TP-Link TL-WN722N (atheros usb wifi) - $20
Sena UD100 (Bluetooth USB) - $40
USB Ethernet adapter - ~$30 (really? Damn!)
OTG cable (host mode) - $2
I wonder how long it takes them to compile/load all those apps? Would be interesting to break it down and see just how much per hour these guys are charging.
Agree to disagree, not worth my time to argue.
No, it was in the response to the question from right after what you quoted.
Right:
And what goes into that?
There's 1...
For instance, I see you’ve got a different wireless card on here, can you talk in detail about what’s the wireless that you’ve got attached to the back there?
#2...
And how is it attached to the device?
aaaand 3.
Yea, sorry, better things to do with my day than waste it arguing semantics with a childish, pedantic troll.
Have a good one.
Oh, grow a sense of humor, Philistine.
And the price point on it is $800 for the whole kit,
Straight from the transcript...
Yea, I see that now; 3, 4 questions further down.
Timmy should have given him an opportunity to answer before moving to a new line of questioning; Journalism 101.
ooo. willfilly disregarding and ignoring the point in order to be pedantic and make almost the same point as the person you're replying to.
C'mon dude. The only one playing these games is you.
There was a point? Seems to me that you're just arguing semantics.
I'm not saying there isn't value to the expression ...
Then you shouldn't have used the term 'platitude.'
It's a moral observation that it would be better if we played nicely, but in the end, it's a sound bite -- which pretty much makes it a platitude. It's a nice sentiment, I just see no evidence for it in actual human behavior in general.
Go visit a prison. I'm certain you'll meet all sorts of people who wronged someone who wronged them, and are thus suffering the punishment, no matter how right they thought they were at the time.
Then there's the whole thorny issue of who gets to decide 'right' and 'wrong' -- the Amish, or the Pastafarians?
Shouldn't be all that thorny; the concept of Mores and Folkways is pretty well established in human culture.
It basically boils down to one simple question: Would you like it if someone did that to you? If the answer is 'no,' perhaps you should reconsider your actions.
i.e., would you like it if someone murdered you? No? Me either; therefore, we can establish that murder is wrong, because nobody in their right mind wants to be murdered.
It is my opinion that those who attempt to make 'thorny issues' out of obvious moral duties are merely snakes attempting to justify their own desires. So far, I've yet to be proven wrong.
The examples I cited are meant to be glaring examples of how, collectively, people have decided that "two wrongs don't make a right" depends on who is deciding it -- because humans clearly do the opposite all the time.
The fact that those issues - the death penalty, Iraq War, and religious zealotry - are highly debated, proves your assertion as incorrect.
So, by virtue of being something which is a good idea, not a natural law, and rarely applied in human society ... I'll stick with platitude
Then you're insisting on being incorrect - it is not, by definition, a platitude.
I'll stick with platitude. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or wrong, but so much of human society is based on the exact opposite principles that to pretend it's some enduring tenet of human behavior is a little naive.
Again, I never said or implied that it is "some enduring tenet of human behavior," I merely stated it as the fact that it is - doing something wrong, in response to something wrong that someone else did, is never, ever, the right thing to do.
Word of advice: try letting the interviewee answer the current fucking question before you ask another one.
I, personally, would like to know what the cost will be, but thanks to Timmy's piss-poor interviewing skills, I'll have to seek the information elsewhere.
Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.
Never said they didn't, but the post I was responding to didn't specify any of the other Presidents, so thus it would have been pointless and off topic for me to discuss any of them.
I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama?
The first time.
Learned my lesson, that's for sure. Actually, I've been trying to start a trend of referring to him as "Bush the Third," but so far hasn't gained a lot of traction.
I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does.
Hence one major reason why The Daily Show is America's most trusted news program.
one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.
With ya on that, too.
I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for.
I would argue that "the problem" isn't necessarily that people are voting for bad candidates, but that, thanks to the rampant fiscal elitism that controls modern political campaigning, it is nigh impossible for a good candidate to get on the ballot, let alone be elected.
Take Ron Paul for example - love him or hate him, you can't deny that the media deliberately did everything they could to avoid so much as mentioning his name during the primaries; I recall one instance in particular, where MSM talking heads listed the first, second, and fourth place candidates in the Republican primary. Who the fuck does that??? The answer, obviously, is someone who has a vested interest in the third place candidate not receiving any attention.
You expect a major general to do grunt work?
You think there aren't any ranks between Private and Major General?
C'mon, dude. Don't play these games.
You are correct - Bush never actually said those words, in that order.
You are never correct - Bush actually said those words, in that order.
Somehow I think a statement that someone didn't use a certain set of words "in that order" is an admission that the claim that the words are being quoted is a lie.
You think wrong.
I'm certain Bush has, at some point in his life, uttered the words "Constitution," "Goddamn," "piece," and "paper." However, I know that, in the context of the urban legend, he never actually said those words, in that order. He very well could have said, "Goddamn! That piece of paper is the Constitution?" but that's not what this discussion is about.
Anyway, the important part of my post is the part you didn't quote:
actions speak louder than words, and the intent of his actions are quite clear, IMO.
That, I stand behind.
Now, please, enough with the pedantry, it detracts from the conversation.
I see what you did there. You cut a quote so that instead of a statement about what action out of a list doesn't need to be proven, you turned it into a statement that nothing needs to be proven at all.
Very good. Point, set, match. Goes very well with your admission that Bush didn't actually say something using words "in that order" but that's still proof of his meaning what you wanted him to say.
?
You're reading entirely too much into this, dude.
I merely saw an opportunity to rip on federal prosecutors, and I took it.