thank goodness you said that. I keep wondering why conservatives vote for Republicans. Republicans aren't conservative! They never have been! Reagan grew the government three times as fast as Clinton! Bush is the most spendy President we've ever had (literally)! How far back do you have to go to find a Republican who was actually a fiscal conservative? There certainly hasn't been one in the last fifty years. If you're conservative, then for the love of all that is holy please start voting for conservatives, instead of Republicans!
I actually had a conservative friend say that Humphrey was the best President ever. Wow. That boggles the mind. I'm shocked at the disconnect between reality and ideology which would even allow that kind of statement to slip out of his mouth.
The Congress shall have Power To... borrow Money on the credit of the United States... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
Right you are. I meant "open source" in the wider context. Specifically, USB is "open source" because it's a published standard, whereas whatever lame connector my phone uses is "closed source" because it is an unpublished standard.
I don't care whether a phone (or anything else) is "open source" per se, I care whether it does what I want it to.
It is the fact that only open source products do what I want them to, that makes me love open source. Why the hell doesn't my iPod let me copy my music off of it? Because it's closed-source. Why doesn't my phone have a standard USB charger and data interface? Because it's closed-source.
Open source is wonderful because it was written by users, who make it do what they want it to do, instead of what some corporate guy wants.
That's correct. Evolution is a theory, whereas creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory. So if we're debating theories, we don't even need to consider nonsense like creationism.
We hear that so often that some scientists have made a special exception for evolution and promoted it beyond 'theory' even though as a rule we don't do that for any idea anymore. I've heard scientists go into debate and talk about the "fact of evolution", then the retards have to retort something about it being a "theory", and since they raise the theory question, they have to define and defend it.
I think that's a reasonable way to preclude that shit-stupid rhetorical nonsense argument.
Dude, OS X is so much better than OS 7/8. If you eschew the "image" stuff, then paint "DELL" on the outside of your MacBook and buy new headphones for your iPod. The simple fact of the matter is that you used Macs back when Macs weren't nearly so good as they are now. You should look past the hype and focus on the best products. Avoiding a product because of the hype is at least as dumb as using a product because of the hype, don't you think?
I don't know what the best way to get that is. Either we could move time to fit our preconceived notions of proper waking and sleeping "hours", or we as a dark society could change our preconceived notions. What if the government of Alaska (or wherever you live) pushed an agenda to get everyone on a one-am-to-five-pm schedule for business activity instead? We'd all get up in the dark, like we do anyway; go to our poorly lit offices, like we do anyway; get off work after eight hours, like we do anyway; then walk outside, but instead of darkness, we would open onto the sunrise, with a few hours to do something outside, or with natural lighting.
That's a great idea! Actually, let's do one better, and we'll change the names of the times whenever it drifts by six hours: we'll call noon "six o'clock", and whatnot. Actually, gosh, let's go all the way and do it for every hour. So, if we drift by an hour, then we'll rename "one o'clock" "two o'clock", and whatnot. That'll keep it all about right. No, wait, actually, we should do it for every minute -- no, let's do it for seconds! So, every time it gets off by a second, we'll add a second to the middle of the night!
Nobody will even notice an extra second in the middle of the night, except nerdy scientist types.
Most banks allow online bill payment, and many don't even charge a fee to use it. The good ones will even present my remembered vendors in a list, and allow me to simply enter the amount I want to pay, the date I want to pay, and click "send."
My bank (er, credit union) does exactly as you described. Are there banks that don't have that? I mean, today in 2008? If so, it's high time those customers find a new bank.
No, you're missing the point. It's not that Obama will attack her for being inexperienced -- he won't, because that would not make sense. Instead, any time McCain says Obama isn't experienced, Obama will just look at him and say, "yeah, well your VP pick indicates that you don't think inexperience is a flaw. So, let's debate the issues." He destroyed that meme which he would have used in the next nine weeks; he didn't destroy a meme Obama was trying to use; he destroyed a meme Obama is trying to avoid. Furthermore, he undermined his previous harping on inexperience.
For the record, I like McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden. They're all fine capable leaders. (I'm from Juneau.)
Oh, that's strange, other 9/11 conspiracy theorists have tried to claim that the buildings fell faster than gravity, which is a weird claim. I see now you want it to go slower than it actually did.
I shouldn't do this, but I'll bite: given a skyscraper blasted with lit jet fuel and left to burn, how would you expect it to fall down, or what would you expect to happen? How fast should it fall when it falls?
(Also, let us know if you are a structural engineer, or have some qualification in this area. For the record, I don't.)
Slashdot Mirror
thank goodness you said that. I keep wondering why conservatives vote for Republicans. Republicans aren't conservative! They never have been! Reagan grew the government three times as fast as Clinton! Bush is the most spendy President we've ever had (literally)! How far back do you have to go to find a Republican who was actually a fiscal conservative? There certainly hasn't been one in the last fifty years. If you're conservative, then for the love of all that is holy please start voting for conservatives, instead of Republicans!
The post you replied to was never modded Troll. What post are you talking about?
Thank you, Hubert Humphrey.
I actually had a conservative friend say that Humphrey was the best President ever. Wow. That boggles the mind. I'm shocked at the disconnect between reality and ideology which would even allow that kind of statement to slip out of his mouth.
I can see you are a constitutional scholar.
The Congress shall have Power To ... borrow Money on the credit of the United States ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
Right you are. I meant "open source" in the wider context. Specifically, USB is "open source" because it's a published standard, whereas whatever lame connector my phone uses is "closed source" because it is an unpublished standard.
I would love to have a handheld media device, if it did what I want, instead of what a corporation wants. I haven't found one of those yet.
I don't care whether a phone (or anything else) is "open source" per se, I care whether it does what I want it to.
It is the fact that only open source products do what I want them to, that makes me love open source. Why the hell doesn't my iPod let me copy my music off of it? Because it's closed-source. Why doesn't my phone have a standard USB charger and data interface? Because it's closed-source.
Open source is wonderful because it was written by users, who make it do what they want it to do, instead of what some corporate guy wants.
Is that why there were no new technologies until someone invented patents?
Except that the only reason to use a Mac now is Hype.
Aha. Gotcha. Okay then.
When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.
Huh?
well, santa, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny are topics for an International Relations class.
That's correct. Evolution is a theory, whereas creationism doesn't even qualify as a theory. So if we're debating theories, we don't even need to consider nonsense like creationism.
We hear that so often that some scientists have made a special exception for evolution and promoted it beyond 'theory' even though as a rule we don't do that for any idea anymore. I've heard scientists go into debate and talk about the "fact of evolution", then the retards have to retort something about it being a "theory", and since they raise the theory question, they have to define and defend it.
I think that's a reasonable way to preclude that shit-stupid rhetorical nonsense argument.
darwinian we came from frogs
No, frogs and humans share a common ancestor. Don't worry, though, it's a common misunderstanding.
I daresay that all other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
Dude, OS X is so much better than OS 7/8. If you eschew the "image" stuff, then paint "DELL" on the outside of your MacBook and buy new headphones for your iPod. The simple fact of the matter is that you used Macs back when Macs weren't nearly so good as they are now. You should look past the hype and focus on the best products. Avoiding a product because of the hype is at least as dumb as using a product because of the hype, don't you think?
Maybe call it Uhpuntu, and make the 'hp' a different color in the logo.
you want slashdot to have higher standards than CNN?
I live in Alaska, and I have always thought that!
I don't know what the best way to get that is. Either we could move time to fit our preconceived notions of proper waking and sleeping "hours", or we as a dark society could change our preconceived notions. What if the government of Alaska (or wherever you live) pushed an agenda to get everyone on a one-am-to-five-pm schedule for business activity instead? We'd all get up in the dark, like we do anyway; go to our poorly lit offices, like we do anyway; get off work after eight hours, like we do anyway; then walk outside, but instead of darkness, we would open onto the sunrise, with a few hours to do something outside, or with natural lighting.
That's a great idea! Actually, let's do one better, and we'll change the names of the times whenever it drifts by six hours: we'll call noon "six o'clock", and whatnot. Actually, gosh, let's go all the way and do it for every hour. So, if we drift by an hour, then we'll rename "one o'clock" "two o'clock", and whatnot. That'll keep it all about right. No, wait, actually, we should do it for every minute -- no, let's do it for seconds! So, every time it gets off by a second, we'll add a second to the middle of the night!
Nobody will even notice an extra second in the middle of the night, except nerdy scientist types.
Most banks allow online bill payment, and many don't even charge a fee to use it. The good ones will even present my remembered vendors in a list, and allow me to simply enter the amount I want to pay, the date I want to pay, and click "send."
My bank (er, credit union) does exactly as you described. Are there banks that don't have that? I mean, today in 2008? If so, it's high time those customers find a new bank.
Yeah. That sounds nice. In America, it's more like:
Me: "Hey, you guys charged my account improperly."
Them: "We don't care. Sue us if it's worth your time, which it isn't."
No, you're missing the point. It's not that Obama will attack her for being inexperienced -- he won't, because that would not make sense. Instead, any time McCain says Obama isn't experienced, Obama will just look at him and say, "yeah, well your VP pick indicates that you don't think inexperience is a flaw. So, let's debate the issues." He destroyed that meme which he would have used in the next nine weeks; he didn't destroy a meme Obama was trying to use; he destroyed a meme Obama is trying to avoid. Furthermore, he undermined his previous harping on inexperience.
For the record, I like McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden. They're all fine capable leaders. (I'm from Juneau.)
a whole nuther bag
tmesis!
Oh, that's strange, other 9/11 conspiracy theorists have tried to claim that the buildings fell faster than gravity, which is a weird claim. I see now you want it to go slower than it actually did.
I shouldn't do this, but I'll bite: given a skyscraper blasted with lit jet fuel and left to burn, how would you expect it to fall down, or what would you expect to happen? How fast should it fall when it falls?
(Also, let us know if you are a structural engineer, or have some qualification in this area. For the record, I don't.)