Ads have pushed me away from the 360. Advertisements are literally among my most loathed concepts.
What, you think just because you spent several hundred dollars on hardware, and continue to pay a subscription fee to access online content, you shouldn't be bombarded with advertisements every time you turn the thing on? How else are they supposed to make money???
if this kid wants to be successful he needs to go to Wall St. everything else is for chumps.
As a child prodigy, it is presumable that by an early age he's already figured out what you have, in all your years, failed to - that the endless pursuit of little green pieces of paper is, ultimately, an idiotic endeavor.
The problem with gun nuts is they're fearful people. They're afraid of imaginary dangers that are unlikely to happen. Then they get drunk and angry and shoot a friend or family member.
Actually, that's an idiot problem. Doesn't matter if we're talking firearm enthusiasts or regular Joe's, it's an undeniable fact that booze + guns = stupid.
FWIW: I legally own a handgun, which I acquired as an adult after growing not being around guns. My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand are worthwhile investments for hunting, and fighting in the civil war against the Fascist Republicans.
Sounds like you're the dangerous one. Think about it: many "gun nuts" such as myself grew up around firearms, and thus have a lifetime of training in their proper and safe operation, storage, etc. You claim to own a handgun (which you purchased after a lifetime of no firearm experience or training whatsoever) while simultaneously expressing disdain for the weapon, meaning that you are probably far more likely to lack the proper respect for it, in which case it is a greater danger to you and your loved one's than to a potential attacker.
I have to ask, if you hate handguns so much why do you own one? I'm guessing the purchase was due to a fearful reaction to a possibly violent event (attempted robbery/rape/etc)... which, if that is the case, makes you the last person who should ever own a firearm.
I'm not sure if you didn't RTFA or are just a really, really angry person.
Neither, just fed up with bad parent's expectation that society do their child-rearing for them. The way I see it, if I wanted to be responsible for children I would have some of my own.
As far as I can tell this actually IS about parents wanting to "take responsibility for [their] own" by turning on a filter to limit what their kids can see.
Negatory - 'taking responsibility' implies doing the filtering yourself, not whining to the Powers-That-Be that other people aren't doing it for you. Big difference.
FYI, most if not all modern ISPs and network equipment manufacturers include parental controls in their products and services, so there's really no excuse for not doing your own filtering other than laziness... and I guess malice, since there's probably at least 1 or 2 people out there who intentionally allow their kids to be exposed to things like pron, thus giving themselves a justification for demanding censorship.
You seem, based on this and your other comment on this story, to be upset that the filter is on Wikipedia's end instead of the person's PC, but why in the world that matters is beyond me.
I am "upset" at the concept that such a filter would be mandatory for site owners to include; put simply, because your kids (or anyone else's for that matter) are not Wikipedia's responsibility. Granted, if they want to voluntarily include such a filter, that's up to Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be a forced action..
It's akin to demanding GM put ignition interlocks on every vehicle that prevent starting until all seatbelts are fastened, because your own offspring won't wear theirs.
Or maybe you didn't take the time to notice that it would be opt-in and not turned on by default, therefore having absolutely zero effect on you.
Doesn't matter, still wrong regardless of what effect it has on me (although this sentence does provide a sterling example of what's wrong with society these days - the idea that injustice/evil/hate/malice/etc is acceptable, so long as it "doesn't affect me")
It's interesting that you quote Twain's definition of censorship in another one of your posts:
Ignoring, as is immaterial to this particular discussion (also, as it turns out, not actually a Twain quote... whoops).
My point is, if Wikipedia or anyone else wants to voluntarily include a self-censorship option on their site to calm the manufactured FUD of the piss-poor-parenting crowd, that's their prerogative. I take issue with the idea of making such a system mandatory for site operators to include, which tends to happen when shitty parents fail to take responsibility for what they allow their offspring to be exposed to.
The US had military support by France which was one of the largest military powers in the world at the time. Same thing happened in Vietnam where they had the support of the Soviet Union.
Exactly why the concept that rebellious forces will only be equipped with "cheap pistols" is just plain ridiculous; Apparently AC who posted that never heard of a little place called Libya.
For every nation that suppresses the rights of it's people, there is another nation willing to arm those people to fight the suppression.
One of the consequences of the law of large numbers is that the sample result is independent of the population size if the population is large compared to the sample size.
I take that to mean the theorum assumes that the questions asked are worded in a neutral manner, correct? Or does the Law of Large Numbers take into account the fact that modern day pollsters use weasel words to lead survey participants into giving the answers that would lead to a validation of the pollster's agenda?
Speaking of which... when exactly did you stop beating your wife?
Don't want your kids accessing porn on teh internetz? Set up the parental controls that your ISP, router, and probably operating system have built in, and STFU.
Don't know how to set that stuff up? Find someone who does, and STFU.
Unless, of course, the only people you know who can set those filters up are your kids... in that case you probably don't have too much to worry about, as they're obviously smarter than you.
Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.
[citation needed]
How are kids fucked up by porn? Please explain with references (if it comes from a church or is based on religious reasons, please try again).
Also, how does this compare with how they are fucked up by violent images?
Btw, if you disagree with anything I say, you might just be Josef Stalin.
This.
I recall seeing porn and violent imagery in my youth, and I turned out fairly well adjusted... of course, I'm not the offspring of lazy, irresponsible people.
If you believe any parent has control over their kids 24/7 you're crazy. They could do things like make sure they never go to friend's houses, etc. but that's also crazy.
Or, and I know this is a stretch, you could be a half-decent fucking parent and teach them to not be so easily influenced.
The more I see opinions like this, i.e. 'I'm a lazy, worthless fuck who would rather force adults to be treated like children, then to actually take responsibility for my own,' the more I think society should have a serious discussion regarding mandatory sterilization...
There's nobody for me to attack in this matter even with soft and gentle ridicule--and I shouldn't ever think of using a grown up weapon in this kind of a nursery. Above all, I couldn't venture to attack the clergymen whom you mention, for I have their habits and live in the same glass house which they are occupying. I am always reading immoral books on the sly, and then selfishly trying to prevent other people from having the same wicked good time.
- Letter to Denver Post dated Aug. 14, 1902; also published in NY Tribune Aug. 22, 1902 (regarding banning of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the Denver Library.)
But the truth is, that when a Library expels a book of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying around where unprotected youth and age can get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of it delights me and doesn't anger me.
- Letter to Mrs. F. G. Whitmore, 7 February 1907
Censorship is telling a man he can't have steak, because a baby can't chew it.
.but the word to substitute in is 'Negro' or 'colored', not 'slave'. 'Nigger' isn't about Jim's state of enslavement, it's about his skin-color.
Actually, in the context of the literary masterpiece we are currently discussing, the adjective is technically part of the character's name.
It's not that he's 'a nigger named Jim,' but rather that the character's name is "Nigger Jim." Don't take my word for it, read or re-read the book (worth it anyway, Clemens was a brilliant author), it's fairly obvious that this is the case.
I don't know how Mark Twain would feel about his text being altered
I studied Twain a bit in my youth, as he was a gifted author and pundit whom I happen to share a geographic origin with; from my understanding he would be royally pissed, especially considering that the censoring of his work has nothing to do with social enlightenment, and everything to do with shady-ass politicians trying to coerce the populace through emotional manipulation and bullshit token gestures; in his own words,
“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other”
And LaPierre's statistics about the millions upon millions of people claiming they deterred a criminal attack by brandishing a firearm can't POSSIBLY be inflated by the NRA.... because we know gun owners don't exaggerate. ever.
A) No citation = I call bullshit.
B) So, because one asshole makes up some BS "statistic," it's OK for everyone else to do so? Yea, good call, let's have everyone poison the well, there's no way that could turn out badly...
C) Speaking on behalf of myself and many other responsible gun owners, the NRA is a necessary evil - necessary because, without their lying asses acting as advocates, the lying asses in the anti-self-protection lobby would have disarmed the populace years ago.
Maybe if the anti-gun nuts (AKA 'pussies') wouldn't make shit up in an attempt to demonize gun owners, we wouldn't need the NRA morons to counter them.
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
The necessary goal is to make current tyrants cheer from their graves.
The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers.
To wit:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is why police, senators and muggers favor disarmament.
The only difference I see is that muggers tend to give warning before they rob your ass...
The Fucking Imbeciles are those who have no clue as to the implications of the Law of Large Numbers which was mathematically proven by Jacob Bernoulli some 400 years ago.
Sorry that we're all not math nerds. Mind expounding on that, instead of being a dick about it?
particular demographic dependent on the intended outcome of the pollster
You don't need malice to explain the suspected discrepancy in this case. You've got a random sample of 1000 people, but it's not random. It's 1000 people who have landline phones. Who are home during the day. Who aren't on the no call list. Who don't have caller ID and/or are eager to answer opinion polls. That is a narrow group becoming narrower every day.
FTFA:
Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
So, not quite as stupid a methodology as only calling stay-at-home moms, but stupid nonetheless.
They're multiplying like fucking rabbits, and they're "homeschooling" to ensure that they don't learn any of this blasphemy we call science.
What's worse, they go so far as to insist their influence be forced upon children attending schools they themselves refuse to send their own offspring to.
One such evil fuck, "Professor" Wesley Scroggins, was recently successful in getting a local high school (which, to reiterate, his children do not attend) to remove the American classic Slaughterhouse V from the shelves, citing his belief that the timeless story was pornographic.
The fact that they ignored his demand that evolution stop being taught in science class gives me hope that there may indeed be a God, and He thinks guys like Scroggins are douchebags, too.
No, it is NOT dead on accurate.
Or maybe you think the founding fathers didn't know what the constitution meant when they where in congress and passing bills the explicitly show that is an incorrect out of context interpretation?
Well, sirrah, you are welcome to either prove me wrong, or STFU.
Clearly your interpretation handed to you by your republican masters is correct and the founding fathers were wrong.
Yes, my final statement in that post regarding my hopes that the SCOTUS will refuse to force-feed corporatism upon the populace is indeed an obvious indicator that I am ruled by "republican masters."
Or you're just being a partisan, sensationalist jackass who has chosen to reject the reality of my statement, and substitute your own. If I were a betting man, my money would go down upon the latter.
Go find someone else to troll, you are not adequately armed for this particular battle of wits.
Slashdot Mirror
Ads have pushed me away from the 360. Advertisements are literally among my most loathed concepts.
What, you think just because you spent several hundred dollars on hardware, and continue to pay a subscription fee to access online content, you shouldn't be bombarded with advertisements every time you turn the thing on? How else are they supposed to make money???
I swear, the selfishness of today's consumer...
.../sarc
if this kid wants to be successful he needs to go to Wall St. everything else is for chumps.
As a child prodigy, it is presumable that by an early age he's already figured out what you have, in all your years, failed to - that the endless pursuit of little green pieces of paper is, ultimately, an idiotic endeavor.
The problem with gun nuts is they're fearful people. They're afraid of imaginary dangers that are unlikely to happen. Then they get drunk and angry and shoot a friend or family member.
Actually, that's an idiot problem. Doesn't matter if we're talking firearm enthusiasts or regular Joe's, it's an undeniable fact that booze + guns = stupid.
FWIW: I legally own a handgun, which I acquired as an adult after growing not being around guns. My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful. Rifles and shotguns on the other hand are worthwhile investments for hunting, and fighting in the civil war against the Fascist Republicans.
Sounds like you're the dangerous one. Think about it: many "gun nuts" such as myself grew up around firearms, and thus have a lifetime of training in their proper and safe operation, storage, etc. You claim to own a handgun (which you purchased after a lifetime of no firearm experience or training whatsoever) while simultaneously expressing disdain for the weapon, meaning that you are probably far more likely to lack the proper respect for it, in which case it is a greater danger to you and your loved one's than to a potential attacker.
I have to ask, if you hate handguns so much why do you own one? I'm guessing the purchase was due to a fearful reaction to a possibly violent event (attempted robbery/rape/etc)... which, if that is the case, makes you the last person who should ever own a firearm.
Such a rational and nuanced response! Where are YOUR stats, asshole?
I'm sorry, I don't recall jiggling my zipper, so why are you opening your mouth?
Troll much?
Methinks thou hath replied to the wrong post, yo...
I'm not sure if you didn't RTFA or are just a really, really angry person.
Neither, just fed up with bad parent's expectation that society do their child-rearing for them. The way I see it, if I wanted to be responsible for children I would have some of my own.
As far as I can tell this actually IS about parents wanting to "take responsibility for [their] own" by turning on a filter to limit what their kids can see.
Negatory - 'taking responsibility' implies doing the filtering yourself, not whining to the Powers-That-Be that other people aren't doing it for you. Big difference.
FYI, most if not all modern ISPs and network equipment manufacturers include parental controls in their products and services, so there's really no excuse for not doing your own filtering other than laziness... and I guess malice, since there's probably at least 1 or 2 people out there who intentionally allow their kids to be exposed to things like pron, thus giving themselves a justification for demanding censorship.
You seem, based on this and your other comment on this story, to be upset that the filter is on Wikipedia's end instead of the person's PC, but why in the world that matters is beyond me.
I am "upset" at the concept that such a filter would be mandatory for site owners to include; put simply, because your kids (or anyone else's for that matter) are not Wikipedia's responsibility. Granted, if they want to voluntarily include such a filter, that's up to Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be a forced action..
It's akin to demanding GM put ignition interlocks on every vehicle that prevent starting until all seatbelts are fastened, because your own offspring won't wear theirs.
Or maybe you didn't take the time to notice that it would be opt-in and not turned on by default, therefore having absolutely zero effect on you.
Doesn't matter, still wrong regardless of what effect it has on me (although this sentence does provide a sterling example of what's wrong with society these days - the idea that injustice/evil/hate/malice/etc is acceptable, so long as it "doesn't affect me")
It's interesting that you quote Twain's definition of censorship in another one of your posts:
Ignoring, as is immaterial to this particular discussion (also, as it turns out, not actually a Twain quote... whoops).
My point is, if Wikipedia or anyone else wants to voluntarily include a self-censorship option on their site to calm the manufactured FUD of the piss-poor-parenting crowd, that's their prerogative. I take issue with the idea of making such a system mandatory for site operators to include, which tends to happen when shitty parents fail to take responsibility for what they allow their offspring to be exposed to.
http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-black-hole.html
It's the only logical explanation - obviously the radiation was the direct result of an advanced race dropping out of FTL within the Sol system.
You guys and your wacky theories...
Where people making observations of the Sun in 775?
Considering that the Camera Obscura dates back to at least 400 BCE, I would say yes, yes there were.
The US had military support by France which was one of the largest military powers in the world at the time. Same thing happened in Vietnam where they had the support of the Soviet Union.
Exactly why the concept that rebellious forces will only be equipped with "cheap pistols" is just plain ridiculous; Apparently AC who posted that never heard of a little place called Libya.
For every nation that suppresses the rights of it's people, there is another nation willing to arm those people to fight the suppression.
Thus is the way of global politics.
One of the consequences of the law of large numbers is that the sample result is independent of the population size if the population is large compared to the sample size.
I take that to mean the theorum assumes that the questions asked are worded in a neutral manner, correct? Or does the Law of Large Numbers take into account the fact that modern day pollsters use weasel words to lead survey participants into giving the answers that would lead to a validation of the pollster's agenda?
Speaking of which... when exactly did you stop beating your wife?
Your offspring != my problem.
Don't want your kids accessing porn on teh internetz? Set up the parental controls that your ISP, router, and probably operating system have built in, and STFU.
Don't know how to set that stuff up? Find someone who does, and STFU.
Unless, of course, the only people you know who can set those filters up are your kids... in that case you probably don't have too much to worry about, as they're obviously smarter than you.
Kids are easily f*cked up. If your response to that is "So?", then you might be a sociopath.
[citation needed]
How are kids fucked up by porn? Please explain with references (if it comes from a church or is based on religious reasons, please try again).
Also, how does this compare with how they are fucked up by violent images?
Btw, if you disagree with anything I say, you might just be Josef Stalin.
This.
I recall seeing porn and violent imagery in my youth, and I turned out fairly well adjusted... of course, I'm not the offspring of lazy, irresponsible people.
If you believe any parent has control over their kids 24/7 you're crazy. They could do things like make sure they never go to friend's houses, etc. but that's also crazy.
Or, and I know this is a stretch, you could be a half-decent fucking parent and teach them to not be so easily influenced.
The more I see opinions like this, i.e. 'I'm a lazy, worthless fuck who would rather force adults to be treated like children, then to actually take responsibility for my own,' the more I think society should have a serious discussion regarding mandatory sterilization...
.but the word to substitute in is 'Negro' or 'colored', not 'slave'. 'Nigger' isn't about Jim's state of enslavement, it's about his skin-color.
Actually, in the context of the literary masterpiece we are currently discussing, the adjective is technically part of the character's name.
It's not that he's 'a nigger named Jim,' but rather that the character's name is "Nigger Jim." Don't take my word for it, read or re-read the book (worth it anyway, Clemens was a brilliant author), it's fairly obvious that this is the case.
I don't know how Mark Twain would feel about his text being altered
I studied Twain a bit in my youth, as he was a gifted author and pundit whom I happen to share a geographic origin with; from my understanding he would be royally pissed, especially considering that the censoring of his work has nothing to do with social enlightenment, and everything to do with shady-ass politicians trying to coerce the populace through emotional manipulation and bullshit token gestures; in his own words,
And LaPierre's statistics about the millions upon millions of people claiming they deterred a criminal attack by brandishing a firearm can't POSSIBLY be inflated by the NRA.... because we know gun owners don't exaggerate. ever.
A) No citation = I call bullshit.
B) So, because one asshole makes up some BS "statistic," it's OK for everyone else to do so? Yea, good call, let's have everyone poison the well, there's no way that could turn out badly...
C) Speaking on behalf of myself and many other responsible gun owners, the NRA is a necessary evil - necessary because, without their lying asses acting as advocates, the lying asses in the anti-self-protection lobby would have disarmed the populace years ago.
Maybe if the anti-gun nuts (AKA 'pussies') wouldn't make shit up in an attempt to demonize gun owners, we wouldn't need the NRA morons to counter them.
Imposing laws on law breakers always works.
Well, if the goal is to create criminals out of law-abiding citizens, then yes, that does tend to work.
See: U.S. drug law (historical) for reference.
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
The necessary goal is to make current tyrants cheer from their graves.
The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers.
To wit:
This is why police, senators and muggers favor disarmament.
The only difference I see is that muggers tend to give warning before they rob your ass...
Right, because it's easy to defeat a modern army using only cheap pistols.
Yea, it's not like there's ever been a time in history when a smaller, poorly equipped group of volunteers fed a large military force their own asses, or anything...
Unless of course "people near the victim" includes the attacker ;-)
We're talking about sensationalized numbers dreamed up by anti-self-protection advocates.
Why wouldn't they?
...and by 'expounding,' I mean explain how the Law of Large Numbers applies to this particular circumstance.
IMO, when we're talking about a total population over 360 million, 1000 person sample isn't what I would consider a particularly large number.
The Fucking Imbeciles are those who have no clue as to the implications of the Law of Large Numbers which was mathematically proven by Jacob Bernoulli some 400 years ago.
Sorry that we're all not math nerds. Mind expounding on that, instead of being a dick about it?
particular demographic dependent on the intended outcome of the pollster
You don't need malice to explain the suspected discrepancy in this case. You've got a random sample of 1000 people, but it's not random. It's 1000 people who have landline phones. Who are home during the day. Who aren't on the no call list. Who don't have caller ID and/or are eager to answer opinion polls. That is a narrow group becoming narrower every day.
FTFA:
So, not quite as stupid a methodology as only calling stay-at-home moms, but stupid nonetheless.
They're multiplying like fucking rabbits, and they're "homeschooling" to ensure that they don't learn any of this blasphemy we call science.
What's worse, they go so far as to insist their influence be forced upon children attending schools they themselves refuse to send their own offspring to.
One such evil fuck, "Professor" Wesley Scroggins, was recently successful in getting a local high school (which, to reiterate, his children do not attend) to remove the American classic Slaughterhouse V from the shelves, citing his belief that the timeless story was pornographic.
The fact that they ignored his demand that evolution stop being taught in science class gives me hope that there may indeed be a God, and He thinks guys like Scroggins are douchebags, too.
No, it is NOT dead on accurate. Or maybe you think the founding fathers didn't know what the constitution meant when they where in congress and passing bills the explicitly show that is an incorrect out of context interpretation?
Well, sirrah, you are welcome to either prove me wrong, or STFU.
Clearly your interpretation handed to you by your republican masters is correct and the founding fathers were wrong.
Yes, my final statement in that post regarding my hopes that the SCOTUS will refuse to force-feed corporatism upon the populace is indeed an obvious indicator that I am ruled by "republican masters."
Or you're just being a partisan, sensationalist jackass who has chosen to reject the reality of my statement, and substitute your own. If I were a betting man, my money would go down upon the latter.
Go find someone else to troll, you are not adequately armed for this particular battle of wits.