No, they would just run and cry to their obese parents, who would in turn tattle to the principal, who would have the teacher brought up on sexual harassment charges for the suggestive way she brushed the dirt off that phallic foodstuff.
And yet, it is truly disgusting that so many turn a blind (or ignorant) eye as to the real cause of this exact situation. If we wouldn't allow such nonsense into a courtroom in the first place, then we wouldn't have the joke of a litigation system we have today.
I don't know about that; even without the plethora of frivolous, typically malicious lawsuits jamming our court system, we would still have to deal with the much bigger issue of money equating to justice, and the lack thereof equaling the lack thereof.
I occasionally fantasize about a legal system in which judges are replaced with computers, so all legal decisions are based on fact and logic, and all judgments are made fairly across the board, regardless of the plaintiff or defendant's socioeconomic status.
So, A UK citizen is cleared of breaking any UK laws, yet he still 'faces extradition' to another country, one he's not a citizen of and has probably never even been to, who claims he broke their laws? How the fuck does that even get considered? If I, an American citizen, set up a website that was perfectly legal in my country but criminal in, say, Swaziland, would the US government honor an extradition request for my ass? I highly doubt it.
That's the definition of ri-goddamn-diculous.
Don't take this shit, UK - tell my government (and, by extension, the MAFIAA) to piss up a fucking rope. You are a sovereign nation, act like one.
No, they would just run and cry to their obese parents, who would in turn tattle to the principal, who would have the teacher brought up on sexual harassment charges for the suggestive way she brushed the dirt off that phallic foodstuff.
it's only a matter of time before your position on the map starts identifying you as visiting the local gay bar (if straight, strip club if gay) during work hours.
Huh... I was going to suggest a blanket party, but yea, that's a good one too!
Not to mention, no need to gather tube socks and bars of soap...
Russia is not the only antagonist ever realized by Europe: Hitler abandoned plans to invade Switzerland years before nuclear weapons were even invented.
How did arming Swiss people stop Hitler from staring a nuclear conflagration if Hitler had no nukes?
Maybe because that wasn't the damn point.
The statement was that arming the Swiss people was how they defended themselves, and cpu6502 started by talking in a nuclear holocaust context.
Had I responded to cpu6502, you would have a good point.
I did not, therefore you do not.
I was pretty clear in saying that arming them could be a reason that conventional forces from their neighbors (e.g., Hitler and Germany) hadn't overrun them.
And I was pretty clear in asserting that possession of offensive nuclear capabilities is not necessary for national defense.
Read all the way to the end of what you reply to, please.
That street runs both ways, mon frere. Had you read and understood my original post, and the post to which it was a direct response, you probably wouldn't be wasting time trying to argue a point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You don't need nukes for that; just look at Switzerland.
Bollocks. Not worth invading. Not on the easiest route between anywhere that's worth invading and anywhere likely to be capable of invading anywhere that's worth invading.
There's a reason the Schlieffen plan was designed as a right hook, and it wasn't a bunch of bankers, chocolate-makers and horologists armed with pop-guns.
Non sequitur.
My point was, and still is, a nation does not need nuclear weapons to be secure. Switzerland is merely the example I used.
Russia is not the only antagonist ever realized by Europe: Hitler abandoned plans to invade Switzerland years before nuclear weapons were even invented.
So no, potential nuclear fallout has nothing (or at best, very little) to do with Switzerland's record of not being fucked with. I suppose it could be posited that Switzerland remains untouched because that's were the world's elite keep their wealth, but I would wager such a statement is putting the cart before the horse.
I mean, just look at Achmed. He's scary (but not as scary as Walter).
Tell me about it - I've got a Walter bobblehead staring me down as we speak... man, that dude is always pissed...
Now, that's not to say that arming the civilians en-masse isn't a good thing, but it's not why Switzerland hasn't been nuked.
I never said anything about why the Swiss have never been nuked (for the record, neither has anyone else save the Japanese, so that's kind of a moot point). I was merely pointing out that having nuclear weapons does not equate to national security, and provided the non-nuclear state of Switzerland as my example.
I guess the Maryland Democrats who run this city experienced catharsis after viewing the destruction of a nuclear holocaust, and decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business.
Hmm, so the cure to war is to make sure that your side won't win if one happens?
I've always preferred the "If thou would have peace, prepare then for war" POV....
You don't need nukes for that; just look at Switzerland.
Apparently arming the shit out of your populace (with automatic rifles) is a far greater deterrent to being attacked than stockpiling nuclear weapons.
Every time we think we have something figured out, nature throws a wrench in our theories.
This is why I refuse to accept when people speak in absolutes. We'll never know as much as we like to think we do, partially because some of us think we know more than we do. Try to keep this in mind the next time you're tempted to call someone 'tin-foil hat crazy' when espousing a theory you don't necessarily agree with, but lack the evidence to disprove.
the term "dialect" refers to spoken language, not written.
When it comes to the written word, it doesn't really matter how a person *thinks* it should look - there is a right way and many, many wrong ways. Defending the incorrect methods of writing serves only to further denigrate the art.
I do have a higher level of forgiveness for poor English skills when it comes to people who don't write professionally, but I can't stand when folks defend the indefensible. You may think it's fine to not capitalize proper nouns, but your audience will think you're an idiot who doesn't know any better. Knowing the right way to write lends credibility to your words, not knowing diminishes said credibility. So, I suppose, if the writer doesn't care that their audience is going to see them as a moron who doesn't even know their own native tongue, that's on them.
For the record, I live in a region in which the immigration philosophy of "Lern English er go home" is rather common, especially amongst the unlearned, so I take particular offense to people arguing with me about it.
1 - The Pern series by Anne McCaffrey. Excellent mix of both fantasy and sci-fi (though perhaps a bit gruesome for an 8 year old...)
2 - the Animorphs book series; I read them when I was a kid and really got into the story. What 8-year-old hasn't dreamed of being able to transform into an animal?
Dyslexia is a valid excuse for poor spelling and phonological processing troubles, not poor grammar and usage (i.e., not capitalizing proper nouns, using "do" instead of "does," nigh-unparsable sentence structure, etc).
That you would invoke it in defense of your poor grasp of English is an insult to actual dyslexics (like my brother) the world over.
You could have been the bigger person and owned your mistakes, but instead you tried to cop out by blaming it on some disease you obviously do not suffer from. Childish doesn't even begin to describe your response.
DoesApple ban redistribution of source code? No. VLC for iPhone's source code was available for download, before VLC was pulled on request of one of the authors. DoesApple ban redistribution of the binary? Any iPhone is free to copy your iPhone backups, and send them to whoever wants them.... not that the recipient would be able to do much with them! DoesApple ban the use of other people'ssource code in your own project? Of course not.
FMOTGFY (Fixed Most Of That Grammar For You)
Safe to assume English is not your primary language? Please let that be a yes...
What Apple does is prevent installation of anything that doesn't come from the Appstore. This is the so called "walled garden!" To be honest, I don't mind a walled garden, as I would rather not have a device that can be infected with Adware/Trojans/Viruses!.
Aww, there's still someone out there who thinks Apple products are immune to malware! How quaint!
In my opinion, if someone is welfare recipient and still has microwave, TV, cable, cell phone and car, then it is a sign of wasted welfare money. But feel free to file your compliant about poverty line definition with OECD.
The TV and cable I can agree with, but unless you want people to stay on welfare forever (which kind of defeats the purpose), a phone, transportation, and anything else essential to getting and keeping a job is not what I would consider superfluous.
Also... microwaves can be had for >$30, whereas an actual kitchen stove, even a cheap used one, runs $100 and up. Unless you think welfare recipients don't deserve hot meals?
Contrary to popular portrayal in the media, most welfare recipients are not baby machines living high on the hog.
You are not intended to live on minimum wage. Anybody who shows up on time and sober will be making above minimum in three months.
The Voice of Experience calls bullshit on that one. Some jobs don't offer more than minimum wage, period, regardless of how long a person works there or how well they do their job.
The problem isn't that minimum wage is too low - the problem is that there are too many jobs that should but don't pay more than the minimum wage, because they have no legal (or, apparently, moral) obligation to do so.
Also, not enough hours; sure, $7.25/hr is a (barely) livable wage @ 40 hours a week, but I doubt you know anyone who makes minimum wage and gets more than 20-25 hours a week.
Personally, I don't think people should voice an opinion on topics they have fuck-all experience with; unless they've lived on minimum wage, they're really just talking out of their asses.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they would just run and cry to their obese parents, who would in turn tattle to the principal, who would have the teacher brought up on sexual harassment charges for the suggestive way she brushed the dirt off that phallic foodstuff.
And yet, it is truly disgusting that so many turn a blind (or ignorant) eye as to the real cause of this exact situation. If we wouldn't allow such nonsense into a courtroom in the first place, then we wouldn't have the joke of a litigation system we have today.
I don't know about that; even without the plethora of frivolous, typically malicious lawsuits jamming our court system, we would still have to deal with the much bigger issue of money equating to justice, and the lack thereof equaling the lack thereof.
I occasionally fantasize about a legal system in which judges are replaced with computers, so all legal decisions are based on fact and logic, and all judgments are made fairly across the board, regardless of the plaintiff or defendant's socioeconomic status.
Would probably make a half-decent short story...
So, A UK citizen is cleared of breaking any UK laws, yet he still 'faces extradition' to another country, one he's not a citizen of and has probably never even been to, who claims he broke their laws? How the fuck does that even get considered? If I, an American citizen, set up a website that was perfectly legal in my country but criminal in, say, Swaziland, would the US government honor an extradition request for my ass? I highly doubt it.
That's the definition of ri-goddamn-diculous.
Don't take this shit, UK - tell my government (and, by extension, the MAFIAA) to piss up a fucking rope. You are a sovereign nation, act like one.
No, they would just run and cry to their obese parents,
Running means exercise, which is healthy. US wins another round. Your move, Switzerland.
'Run' in the figurative sense.
From what I've seen of kids these days, any actual running is out, as they would have to put down their electronic devices for more than 2 seconds.
Are the trees in Texas really that dangerous?
When they're made of gigantic, wild boars, yea, yea they are.
Cant you just tranquilise them?
It's harder to get a tranq gun than an actual firearm in this country, namely because the tranquilizer itself is considered a controlled substance.
No, they would just run and cry to their obese parents, who would in turn tattle to the principal, who would have the teacher brought up on sexual harassment charges for the suggestive way she brushed the dirt off that phallic foodstuff.
Strap it to a squirrel.
Or a Cessna.
Got access to a submersible?
Oh, the places you'll go...
it's only a matter of time before your position on the map starts identifying you as visiting the local gay bar (if straight, strip club if gay) during work hours.
Huh... I was going to suggest a blanket party, but yea, that's a good one too!
Not to mention, no need to gather tube socks and bars of soap...
No, live tracking the CEO of Google because Google is pushing live tracking of employees.
Right.
It's called turnabout, and by all accounts is considered fair play.
Tracking your bathroom habits..
"Looks like Peon # 547382 is a wadder, not a folder... recommend T.P. rationing."
Bonus points if you can figure out what that's a reference from... 'cause I sure as hell can't remember.
Russia is not the only antagonist ever realized by Europe: Hitler abandoned plans to invade Switzerland years before nuclear weapons were even invented.
How did arming Swiss people stop Hitler from staring a nuclear conflagration if Hitler had no nukes?
Maybe because that wasn't the damn point.
The statement was that arming the Swiss people was how they defended themselves, and cpu6502 started by talking in a nuclear holocaust context.
Had I responded to cpu6502, you would have a good point.
I did not, therefore you do not.
I was pretty clear in saying that arming them could be a reason that conventional forces from their neighbors (e.g., Hitler and Germany) hadn't overrun them.
And I was pretty clear in asserting that possession of offensive nuclear capabilities is not necessary for national defense.
Read all the way to the end of what you reply to, please.
That street runs both ways, mon frere. Had you read and understood my original post, and the post to which it was a direct response, you probably wouldn't be wasting time trying to argue a point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Bollocks. Not worth invading. Not on the easiest route between anywhere that's worth invading and anywhere likely to be capable of invading anywhere that's worth invading.
There's a reason the Schlieffen plan was designed as a right hook, and it wasn't a bunch of bankers, chocolate-makers and horologists armed with pop-guns.
Non sequitur.
My point was, and still is, a nation does not need nuclear weapons to be secure. Switzerland is merely the example I used.
Your post only serves to further prove my words.
So no, potential nuclear fallout has nothing (or at best, very little) to do with Switzerland's record of not being fucked with. I suppose it could be posited that Switzerland remains untouched because that's were the world's elite keep their wealth, but I would wager such a statement is putting the cart before the horse.
I mean, just look at Achmed. He's scary (but not as scary as Walter).
Tell me about it - I've got a Walter bobblehead staring me down as we speak... man, that dude is always pissed...
Now, that's not to say that arming the civilians en-masse isn't a good thing, but it's not why Switzerland hasn't been nuked.
I never said anything about why the Swiss have never been nuked (for the record, neither has anyone else save the Japanese, so that's kind of a moot point). I was merely pointing out that having nuclear weapons does not equate to national security, and provided the non-nuclear state of Switzerland as my example.
Regardless of the technical problems, the root cause is pretty much ALWAYS management......
FTFY.
Hmm, so the cure to war is to make sure that your side won't win if one happens?
I've always preferred the "If thou would have peace, prepare then for war" POV....
You don't need nukes for that; just look at Switzerland.
Apparently arming the shit out of your populace (with automatic rifles) is a far greater deterrent to being attacked than stockpiling nuclear weapons.
Every time we think we have something figured out, nature throws a wrench in our theories.
This is why I refuse to accept when people speak in absolutes. We'll never know as much as we like to think we do, partially because some of us think we know more than we do. Try to keep this in mind the next time you're tempted to call someone 'tin-foil hat crazy' when espousing a theory you don't necessarily agree with, but lack the evidence to disprove.
http://www.stonecountypolicebrutality.com/
I think we've just eliminated fingerprints as a viable identification method.
Contrary to popular opinion, fingerprints never were a viable method, thanks to confirmation bias.
Proof here
the term "dialect" refers to spoken language, not written.
When it comes to the written word, it doesn't really matter how a person *thinks* it should look - there is a right way and many, many wrong ways. Defending the incorrect methods of writing serves only to further denigrate the art.
I do have a higher level of forgiveness for poor English skills when it comes to people who don't write professionally, but I can't stand when folks defend the indefensible. You may think it's fine to not capitalize proper nouns, but your audience will think you're an idiot who doesn't know any better. Knowing the right way to write lends credibility to your words, not knowing diminishes said credibility. So, I suppose, if the writer doesn't care that their audience is going to see them as a moron who doesn't even know their own native tongue, that's on them.
For the record, I live in a region in which the immigration philosophy of "Lern English er go home" is rather common, especially amongst the unlearned, so I take particular offense to people arguing with me about it.
1 - The Pern series by Anne McCaffrey. Excellent mix of both fantasy and sci-fi (though perhaps a bit gruesome for an 8 year old...)
2 - the Animorphs book series; I read them when I was a kid and really got into the story. What 8-year-old hasn't dreamed of being able to transform into an animal?
Im dyslexic, you insensitive clod!
No you're not.
Dyslexia is a valid excuse for poor spelling and phonological processing troubles, not poor grammar and usage (i.e., not capitalizing proper nouns, using "do" instead of "does," nigh-unparsable sentence structure, etc).
That you would invoke it in defense of your poor grasp of English is an insult to actual dyslexics (like my brother) the world over.
You could have been the bigger person and owned your mistakes, but instead you tried to cop out by blaming it on some disease you obviously do not suffer from. Childish doesn't even begin to describe your response.
+1 informative.
Does Apple ban redistribution of source code? No. VLC for iPhone's source code was available for download, before VLC was pulled on request of one of the authors.
Does Apple ban redistribution of the binary? Any iPhone is free to copy your iPhone backups, and send them to whoever wants them.... not that the recipient would be able to do much with them!
Does Apple ban the use of other people's source code in your own project? Of course not.
FMOTGFY (Fixed Most Of That Grammar For You)
Safe to assume English is not your primary language? Please let that be a yes...
What Apple does is prevent installation of anything that doesn't come from the Appstore. This is the so called "walled garden!" To be honest, I don't mind a walled garden, as I would rather not have a device that can be infected with Adware/Trojans/Viruses!.
Aww, there's still someone out there who thinks Apple products are immune to malware! How quaint!
In my opinion, if someone is welfare recipient and still has microwave, TV, cable, cell phone and car, then it is a sign of wasted welfare money. But feel free to file your compliant about poverty line definition with OECD.
The TV and cable I can agree with, but unless you want people to stay on welfare forever (which kind of defeats the purpose), a phone, transportation, and anything else essential to getting and keeping a job is not what I would consider superfluous.
Also... microwaves can be had for >$30, whereas an actual kitchen stove, even a cheap used one, runs $100 and up. Unless you think welfare recipients don't deserve hot meals?
Contrary to popular portrayal in the media, most welfare recipients are not baby machines living high on the hog.
And how is "sorting easier" when it's flying into a "central collection point" (read: steadily growing pile) at 60 mph?
I think you just answered your own question, Cap'n.
"tuition assistance" != loans, jackass.
You are not intended to live on minimum wage. Anybody who shows up on time and sober will be making above minimum in three months.
The Voice of Experience calls bullshit on that one. Some jobs don't offer more than minimum wage, period, regardless of how long a person works there or how well they do their job.
The problem isn't that minimum wage is too low - the problem is that there are too many jobs that should but don't pay more than the minimum wage, because they have no legal (or, apparently, moral) obligation to do so.
Also, not enough hours; sure, $7.25/hr is a (barely) livable wage @ 40 hours a week, but I doubt you know anyone who makes minimum wage and gets more than 20-25 hours a week.
Personally, I don't think people should voice an opinion on topics they have fuck-all experience with; unless they've lived on minimum wage, they're really just talking out of their asses.