"It was 25% at the beginning, but eBay now owns 28% of CL for a couple of years since then." You might be right. I just remember that eBay sued CL alleging 10% stock dilution. So I thought their share is less than 25% now.
"Witness the debacle of the TARP2 which passed even with 80% of people calling representatives and saying no. And Obamacare which had almost 70% of people calling and demanding "no". I'm not sure we're from the same planet.
I don't know that. Nor does anyone else. Nor do you apparently. eBay owns under 25% of CL.
PS. I don't have any problems using either. Moreover, I find both very easy to use. I must be doing something wrong. Alternatively, I might just have a functioning brain.
"What's keeping you from learning Spanish, or Portuguese?" Nothing. What's keeping them from learning English? If I emigrate to your country can I just keep speaking English and expect everyone to understand me? What if I'm from China? Can I keep speaking Mandarin?
"Americans are brutally chauvinistic and arrogant linguists." And you're a brutally stupid person. How do you like that?
" In most other first world countries, it's common for people to speak two or three languages fluently..." First, it depends on the country. Switzerland, Netherlands or the like? Sure. B/c those countries historically incorporate different ethnicities. France or Germany, etc.? Those countries are monocultural. They learn other languages just b/c they're useful. And they speak English to foreigners out of courtesy. I'm pretty sure if an immigrant from the US living in France speaks only English that's considered rude. The lesson? If you emigrate to a country - learn that country's official (de jure or de facto) language. The same applies to that country's traditions. Otherwise - stay where you are.
"Let's make speaking English and another language mandatory for graduation from high school, for EVERYONE." Where? The US? The world? Our planetary system?
"Becoming "members of society"? What's your criteria for that?" Judging from what the parent wrote I think I can deduce that he meant that the people who don't speak English limit themselves to personal or professional interaction with the people they can speak to, which hurts everyone. Was it that hard?
""How things are done here"? Who defines that?" The majority of the people living in a country.
"And as far as "blending in" goes, you seem to think that it means that they're the ones who have to do all the changing. You mix blue and yellow paint together, you don't get blue, you get green." Oh, really? Go mix 5% yellow with 95% blue and see what you get.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Single stupid people can be spectacular too.
"Since GZ almost got killed by TM, an unarmed man." Really? "Almost got killed"? That's as ridiculous as the rest of what you wrote. A 17-year-old unarmed kid weighing 158lbs attacks and "almost kills" a 28-year-old weighing 185-200lbs. Yep. Absolutely true. Everyone saw it, right? What's more believable - this or that Zimmerman stopped Martin, somehow ended up fighting him and having his ass kicked and then - being a big pussy that he is - shot him?
"I didn't comment on..." Again, please learn to read. I didn't assert that "a _trained_ fighter will be unable to disarm or disable an opponent armed with a makeshift weapon". I didn't say anything about fighting Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris or whoever. I didn't say anything about any "martial arts experts". I "asserted" that most of the people who consider themselves "trained in hand to hand combat" are useless in a real fight. Re-read this twice please before you think of replying.
That's a nice big straw-man you built there:) I didn't say anything about the "bat vs knife/gun/more than one attacker" scenario. You need to pay more attention to what you reply to. I wrote that most people who considered themselves "trained in hand to hand combat" were useless in fighting.
PS. Since when Trayvon Martin is considered "a man who is an expert in all things physical"?
"Anyone trained in hand to hand combat will take it away and beat you with it." "Anyone" "trained" in hand to hand combat has better chances of breaking their own neck than taking away a baseball bat. You must be thinking of SWAT, etc.
"He considered but passed on the idea of invading the USA simply because he would have to fight not only the military but the entire armed population here as well. So in a sense, it also serves as a militia for the government in time of need." Interesting. Any sources?
" Like I said, successfully killing 50 might be easier with a gun, but it's still for the record books. Well, unless you go back to the ancient warlords before guns were common. Some of them killed hundreds with their blades." Come on. Seriously? "Might be easier"? All other conditions being equal, it is _easier_ to pull the trigger and let the bullets chase somebody at about 1500 feet per second and rip through their bodies than running after people and hacking them with a blade.
"For the record books"? Do you watch any news other than local? It's not rare in Africa and Latin America.
"Some of them killed hundreds with their blades"? One person killing hundreds with a bladed weapon? Now, that's a record.
Are you really that illogical or just trying to wiggle out of admitting that you were wrong?
"There are guns specifically designed only for..." Yeah, and there are guns that shoot little flags. That proves that a gun is really a device to raise flags, right? Right?
"Hey, I...... resolve said threat'. You apparently envision yourself as a "knight in shining armor" without even realizing that there has to be an ethical/moral basis for that. It's not enough to have "a fairly developed ROE". I just wish there was a way to tell the people like you apart from others without getting too close. You're a piece of glass buried in the sand waiting for a bare foot.
I agree that sometimes the only way to protect someone is to kill the attacker (which isn't a goal per se; the goal being to _stop_ the attacker), but his choice of words was interesting. "The best solution"... Psychopaths usually speak like that. That, combined with other stuff that he wrote (i.e. his idea that guns are designed for anything else than killing) prompted me to say that.
PS. Yours was too btw. There's nothing "great" about it. PPS. I'm really not saying that you're psychopaths, but I'd think hard about my motives and myself if I were you.
"Why 50?" Because it's much easier to kill more with a semi-automatic rifle than a knife? Was that so hard to deduce?
"Guns are only designed to kill things". "Not worth it to try to change your mind, but as long as you hold this, yeah, we're not going to agree on things. " Sooo, guns aren't designed only to kill? Pray tell what else you can do with them. And, no, if you cuddle with them, it doesn't count.
"Especially when you get somebody like me who's convinced that sometimes killing something is the best solution..." I'm afraid you need help.
Uncomfortable? Why? It's childish and unprofessional, but is it offensive? It's not a curse word. It's not an insult. It's not even directed at someone in particular. Is it possible that you are overly sensitive? My reaction would be "Grow up, dude. Oh, and I want this gone by 4pm." Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
"It was 25% at the beginning, but eBay now owns 28% of CL for a couple of years since then."
You might be right. I just remember that eBay sued CL alleging 10% stock dilution. So I thought their share is less than 25% now.
Looks like George from Blackadder and Thatcher had an illegitimate child who was raised by McCarthy... :)
"Witness the debacle of the TARP2 which passed even with 80% of people calling representatives and saying no. And Obamacare which had almost 70% of people calling and demanding "no".
I'm not sure we're from the same planet.
I don't know that. Nor does anyone else. Nor do you apparently. eBay owns under 25% of CL.
PS. I don't have any problems using either. Moreover, I find both very easy to use. I must be doing something wrong. Alternatively, I might just have a functioning brain.
"What's keeping you from learning Spanish, or Portuguese?"
Nothing. What's keeping them from learning English? If I emigrate to your country can I just keep speaking English and expect everyone to understand me? What if I'm from China? Can I keep speaking Mandarin?
"Americans are brutally chauvinistic and arrogant linguists."
And you're a brutally stupid person. How do you like that?
" In most other first world countries, it's common for people to speak two or three languages fluently..."
First, it depends on the country.
Switzerland, Netherlands or the like? Sure. B/c those countries historically incorporate different ethnicities.
France or Germany, etc.? Those countries are monocultural. They learn other languages just b/c they're useful. And they speak English to foreigners out of courtesy. I'm pretty sure if an immigrant from the US living in France speaks only English that's considered rude. The lesson? If you emigrate to a country - learn that country's official (de jure or de facto) language. The same applies to that country's traditions. Otherwise - stay where you are.
"Let's make speaking English and another language mandatory for graduation from high school, for EVERYONE."
Where? The US? The world? Our planetary system?
"Becoming "members of society"? What's your criteria for that?"
Judging from what the parent wrote I think I can deduce that he meant that the people who don't speak English limit themselves to personal or professional interaction with the people they can speak to, which hurts everyone. Was it that hard?
""How things are done here"? Who defines that?"
The majority of the people living in a country.
"And as far as "blending in" goes, you seem to think that it means that they're the ones who have to do all the changing. You mix blue and yellow paint together, you don't get blue, you get green."
Oh, really? Go mix 5% yellow with 95% blue and see what you get.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
Single stupid people can be spectacular too.
You might want to read up on what "design" and "intent" are and how they differ.
"Since GZ almost got killed by TM, an unarmed man."
Really? "Almost got killed"? That's as ridiculous as the rest of what you wrote. A 17-year-old unarmed kid weighing 158lbs attacks and "almost kills" a 28-year-old weighing 185-200lbs. Yep. Absolutely true. Everyone saw it, right?
What's more believable - this or that Zimmerman stopped Martin, somehow ended up fighting him and having his ass kicked and then - being a big pussy that he is - shot him?
"I didn't comment on..."
Again, please learn to read. I didn't assert that "a _trained_ fighter will be unable to disarm or disable an opponent armed with a makeshift weapon". I didn't say anything about fighting Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris or whoever. I didn't say anything about any "martial arts experts".
I "asserted" that most of the people who consider themselves "trained in hand to hand combat" are useless in a real fight. Re-read this twice please before you think of replying.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/ff_rabies/all/
That's a nice big straw-man you built there :)
I didn't say anything about the "bat vs knife/gun/more than one attacker" scenario. You need to pay more attention to what you reply to.
I wrote that most people who considered themselves "trained in hand to hand combat" were useless in fighting.
PS. Since when Trayvon Martin is considered "a man who is an expert in all things physical"?
"Anyone trained in hand to hand combat will take it away and beat you with it."
"Anyone" "trained" in hand to hand combat has better chances of breaking their own neck than taking away a baseball bat. You must be thinking of SWAT, etc.
"Homocide"
A Freudian slip?
"He considered but passed on the idea of invading the USA simply because he would have to fight not only the military but the entire armed population here as well. So in a sense, it also serves as a militia for the government in time of need."
Interesting. Any sources?
" Like I said, successfully killing 50 might be easier with a gun, but it's still for the record books. Well, unless you go back to the ancient warlords before guns were common. Some of them killed hundreds with their blades."
Come on. Seriously?
"Might be easier"?
All other conditions being equal, it is _easier_ to pull the trigger and let the bullets chase somebody at about 1500 feet per second and rip through their bodies than running after people and hacking them with a blade.
"For the record books"?
Do you watch any news other than local? It's not rare in Africa and Latin America.
"Some of them killed hundreds with their blades"?
One person killing hundreds with a bladed weapon? Now, that's a record.
Are you really that illogical or just trying to wiggle out of admitting that you were wrong?
"There are guns specifically designed only for..."
Yeah, and there are guns that shoot little flags. That proves that a gun is really a device to raise flags, right? Right?
"Hey, I... ... resolve said threat'.
You apparently envision yourself as a "knight in shining armor" without even realizing that there has to be an ethical/moral basis for that. It's not enough to have "a fairly developed ROE". I just wish there was a way to tell the people like you apart from others without getting too close. You're a piece of glass buried in the sand waiting for a bare foot.
I agree that sometimes the only way to protect someone is to kill the attacker (which isn't a goal per se; the goal being to _stop_ the attacker), but his choice of words was interesting. "The best solution"... Psychopaths usually speak like that. That, combined with other stuff that he wrote (i.e. his idea that guns are designed for anything else than killing) prompted me to say that.
PS. Yours was too btw. There's nothing "great" about it.
PPS. I'm really not saying that you're psychopaths, but I'd think hard about my motives and myself if I were you.
Wake up, mods! Up this.
Ever tried applying that thought to yourself? :D
"Why 50?"
Because it's much easier to kill more with a semi-automatic rifle than a knife? Was that so hard to deduce?
"Guns are only designed to kill things".
"Not worth it to try to change your mind, but as long as you hold this, yeah, we're not going to agree on things. "
Sooo, guns aren't designed only to kill? Pray tell what else you can do with them. And, no, if you cuddle with them, it doesn't count.
"Especially when you get somebody like me who's convinced that sometimes killing something is the best solution..."
I'm afraid you need help.
Were you a customer or a contractor? :)
Mod this up please.
"The gun the shooter use was already illegal in Colorado."
No, it wasn't. He bought it at a pawn shop. They interviewed the owner on TV.
Your sources?
Well, yeah :)
But I was mostly trying to channel the rage the NRA-type people must be overcome with right now :)
Freaking commie guberment!!! You'll get my buckyballs if you pry them from my cold dead hands!!!!
A point, a point, my kingdom for a point!
So, at what point in your life did you switch to bugs? :)
Uncomfortable? Why? It's childish and unprofessional, but is it offensive? It's not a curse word. It's not an insult. It's not even directed at someone in particular. Is it possible that you are overly sensitive? My reaction would be "Grow up, dude. Oh, and I want this gone by 4pm."
Am I missing something?