Some people assume full name is unique within a single family policy. I.e., which dependent do you want to file a claim for? They assume you won't have two kids with the same name, and the U/I can't distingish which is which.
First thing I learned back in 1993 when I got started.
1) George Foreman has five boys named George Foreman. Your database better be able to handle that. 2) Your database better be able to handle Cher (no last name). 3) People are not required to have Social Security numbers. (it's an optional program - you don't have to partipate). 4) Not everyone's last name starts with a capital letter. 5) Mexican people's names break ASCII (the tilda n). 6) People named O'Grady have a hard time getting their name in a database sometimes and have a hard time getting their name passed via a URL sometimes and generally mess stuff up. 7) People from Sri Lanka will break your name length limits. 8) Some people's name is only a single letter. 9) Some people go by their middle name god damn it!:-)
The difference in the two concepts of balance is in yours, someone or some group is deemed to be "right" or "desirable" and that point of view is elevated at the expense of others. In your estimation, the "wise middle" is that view - but from another point of view, your wise middle is the same as somebody else's extreme. They're both defined by certain groups of people getting together and positing a worldview at the expense of others.
The other kind of balance is the one to just let it all hang out. I like that one better, because everyone after a while grows chagrined at the silliness. I don't know, it's just more fruitful.
The main thing is I don't want anybody telling me what's "right."
On the contrary, I for example find C-SPAN's morning call-in show as the epitome of "balance." They take a call from one raving whacko from the left, let him speak for 30 seconds, until he sounds like an idiot, and then abruptly cut him off in the middle, and then do the same thing for the whacko on the right.
It's a splendiforous counterexample to what you see everywhere else. The only time I cringe is when it's obviously someone in a nursing home (who else is going to wait on hold for hours at 6 in the morning). Then it seems cruel.
Everyone should learn from C-SPAN. "We're militantly neutral, and smug about it." Refreshing.
It's possible there was fraud. But the fact that if Dems don't like an outcome, they immediately bring up this kind of bullshit is just fucking ridiculous. Does anybody not KNOW the state of South Carolina at all? It's perfectly conceivable that he could have won.
Let's see, duh, a halfway handsome black guy in a state full of lots of black people and EVERYONE in the state is a goddamn moron (the white morons are the ones that want to fly the Confederate flag, remember?)...
Nah, there's no way he could have won. Must be because of the evil people who did somethign we can't see! If ONLY we knew the truth!
Back in 1993 (pre WWW), I had an internet account. My college girlfriend was doing a paper on Nafta, and I was trying to help research. Some congressional staffer gave me the FTP address to his private hard drive where I picked up a copy in.ps format or something. All 9000 pages of it. I could see all his files.
Good times. In those days, there was a rule: never meet anyone from the internet IRL. That used to be condsidered a good way to end up in a bodybag. Nowadays everyone meets everyone that way (me + my wife for example.)
They lowered the price of a coffee to 1.50. With the card it's free refills and free flavored syrups. With the flavored syrup, it's getting damn close to being a good enough replacement for the $4 drinks. My wife and I have oddly started spending a lot more bread at starbucks since we discovered this.
Our conception of the Big Bang, with Planck Time, manifolds, etc - is just as far removed from the True State of Reality as God invented it in six days - in other words, science, don't be so f'in sure of yourself:-)
I went to the website, and still have no clue why I shouldn't just use Arial Unicode if I want some oddball glyph. What exciting new capabilities will come my way if I install these fonts?
Oh, shut up, you pansy. God, today, people are such pussies.
It's perfectly rational why people used to be more reckless: big old Steel American cars used to be able to handle it. If you slammed into something, your car could deal with it, relatively speaking, compared to today's fiberglass models. Cars used to be cars.
I never felt that out of control, I wasn't going THAT fast, and it was a big empty street.
Way back in the ancient days of 1987, I was given my grandmother's maroon Ford Fairlane (no radio). I carpooled to school with two other guys, including this asshole. I used to show off by swerving down this road, going fast and swerving from one far extreme edge to the other, just to piss the one guy off.
One day I lost control during a swerve, and did a perfect 180 turn the way this article describes. I ended up facing the exact right way (except the opposite way), and exactly in the right part of the lane. I just pretended like I did it on purpose and drove off like Mr. Cool.
Exactly. Most of the comments here are the classic example of the echo chamber.
I think there's a saying that goes something along the lines of "wrapping yourself in purple" or "bringing out the purple." If one has already made up one's mind about a topic (the way incorrect science that seems good - consider for example the Static Universe theory of the early 20th century), it's natural to call everyone who questions it a scheming evil nincompoop.
There's been lots of wrong science over the years. And the Static Universe theory wasn't something that was refined - it was just rejected, as wrong. The fact that the climate changers did sloppy stats sure doesn't help the science seem air tight.
It could be that all the premises are true, and yet the conclusion is false.
You know, the only place where the kind of thinking - open hatred towards a class of society, is considered normal and encouraged by society is - the sorts of views expressed by you and parrotted endlessly here:-) It's quite ironic, when one thinks about it....
Well, for a start, the terrorists pick random people to kill, the most convenient targets, so it's only fair to do the same in retaliation. If one group gets to live in total chaos, don't go crying if more chaos follows, it makes you sound like a pussy.
Secondly, we killed way more Arabs than died on 9/11. So we more than made up for it.
So, if someone wants to cause a huge tragedy, go for it, we'll try to stop you. If we fail, we'll wail a little while, and then get some payback. In the end we'll win.
I think it's safe to say there is already quite a lot of lampooning of Christians and Jesus in the culture. I'm not going to google it for you, it's self-evident.
I think it's also safe to say there is quite a bit "against" Jews in the culture, ready to find. As far as lampooning their big hook noses or whatever, I'm afraid if you want to do that you're not going to find yourself in very nice company.
Yeah, when you get Gray hair, it becomes a popular pastime. Believe it or not, people used to live in things called Communities, and sometimes, they'd recognize a name in the paper, because they Knew People.
Take it from a guy who's seen the NT source code: Inside Windows 2000, the windows kernel debuggers, and a firewire cable gave you MORE than enough detail; there's not much important that's not publicly known.
It just doesn't make Slashdot or the sites you frequent. How do you think Windows Device Driver writers do their job?
I think a lot of people who think Poker is a game of skill are confused because they view Poker in terms of "winning" or "losing."
In most games of skill, there's a winner or a loser. In solo events, you either achieve the feat or fail to achieve the feat.
Poker doesn't really work that way. There's no one event which means you "won," so saying it's a game of skill is not a falsifiable, testable statement.
I guess you could say that folding when you technically could have one a hand is "losing," but I'd have to say all the VAST numbers of factors that go into the psycholoigy of how people do X versus people do Y means it's not a game of skill in the traditional way we think of a game of skill. If I claim to have psyched out a person into folding, how do I falsify that statement?
So it's not really the cards that are random, it's the players decision making that is!
*
A disaster is a very bad accident such as an earthquake or a plane crash, especially one in which a lot of people are killed.
o
It was the second air disaster in the region in less than two months.
*
If you refer to something as a disaster, you are emphasizing that you think it is extremely bad or unacceptable.
I think it is clear that the submitter's intent was definition #1, an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people assume full name is unique within a single family policy. I.e., which dependent do you want to file a claim for? They assume you won't have two kids with the same name, and the U/I can't distingish which is which.
First thing I learned back in 1993 when I got started.
1) George Foreman has five boys named George Foreman. Your database better be able to handle that. :-)
2) Your database better be able to handle Cher (no last name).
3) People are not required to have Social Security numbers. (it's an optional program - you don't have to partipate).
4) Not everyone's last name starts with a capital letter.
5) Mexican people's names break ASCII (the tilda n).
6) People named O'Grady have a hard time getting their name in a database sometimes and have a hard time getting their name passed via a URL sometimes and generally mess stuff up.
7) People from Sri Lanka will break your name length limits.
8) Some people's name is only a single letter.
9) Some people go by their middle name god damn it!
The difference in the two concepts of balance is in yours, someone or some group is deemed to be "right" or "desirable" and that point of view is elevated at the expense of others. In your estimation, the "wise middle" is that view - but from another point of view, your wise middle is the same as somebody else's extreme. They're both defined by certain groups of people getting together and positing a worldview at the expense of others.
The other kind of balance is the one to just let it all hang out. I like that one better, because everyone after a while grows chagrined at the silliness. I don't know, it's just more fruitful.
The main thing is I don't want anybody telling me what's "right."
On the contrary, I for example find C-SPAN's morning call-in show as the epitome of "balance." They take a call from one raving whacko from the left, let him speak for 30 seconds, until he sounds like an idiot, and then abruptly cut him off in the middle, and then do the same thing for the whacko on the right.
It's a splendiforous counterexample to what you see everywhere else. The only time I cringe is when it's obviously someone in a nursing home (who else is going to wait on hold for hours at 6 in the morning). Then it seems cruel.
Everyone should learn from C-SPAN. "We're militantly neutral, and smug about it." Refreshing.
Why would you believe that there was zero pictures of this person available to anyone before the election?
That doesn't make sense: I saw pictures of ALL the screwball candidates in my election.
Black people saw a black face and voted for it. Maybe. Stands to reason.
I'm just glad the "it's a conspiracy!!!" meme is on the left - it's so god damned tiring to talk to people on that trip.
It's possible there was fraud. But the fact that if Dems don't like an outcome, they immediately bring up this kind of bullshit is just fucking ridiculous. Does anybody not KNOW the state of South Carolina at all? It's perfectly conceivable that he could have won.
Let's see, duh, a halfway handsome black guy in a state full of lots of black people and EVERYONE in the state is a goddamn moron (the white morons are the ones that want to fly the Confederate flag, remember?)...
Nah, there's no way he could have won. Must be because of the evil people who did somethign we can't see! If ONLY we knew the truth!
Back in 1993 (pre WWW), I had an internet account. My college girlfriend was doing a paper on Nafta, and I was trying to help research. Some congressional staffer gave me the FTP address to his private hard drive where I picked up a copy in .ps format or something. All 9000 pages of it. I could see all his files.
Good times. In those days, there was a rule: never meet anyone from the internet IRL. That used to be condsidered a good way to end up in a bodybag. Nowadays everyone meets everyone that way (me + my wife for example.)
They lowered the price of a coffee to 1.50. With the card it's free refills and free flavored syrups. With the flavored syrup, it's getting damn close to being a good enough replacement for the $4 drinks. My wife and I have oddly started spending a lot more bread at starbucks since we discovered this.
They'll probably raise the price again.
I was wondering why a Live CD based version of Ubunutu was helping out Botnets.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubiquity
Our conception of the Big Bang, with Planck Time, manifolds, etc - is just as far removed from the True State of Reality as God invented it in six days - in other words, science, don't be so f'in sure of yourself :-)
when it comes to cosmology
I went to the website, and still have no clue why I shouldn't just use Arial Unicode if I want some oddball glyph. What exciting new capabilities will come my way if I install these fonts?
Fag :)
Oh, shut up, you pansy. God, today, people are such pussies.
It's perfectly rational why people used to be more reckless: big old Steel American cars used to be able to handle it. If you slammed into something, your car could deal with it, relatively speaking, compared to today's fiberglass models. Cars used to be cars.
I never felt that out of control, I wasn't going THAT fast, and it was a big empty street.
As Louie CK said, "shut up Faggot."
It was actually a Fairmont.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/vehicles-wanted/172653d1238176562-wtb-78-82-ford-fairmont-futura-mercury-zephyr-fairmont-futura.jpg
From the Crappy Days of the american auto industry. I think it was built on a Friday :-)
Way back in the ancient days of 1987, I was given my grandmother's maroon Ford Fairlane (no radio). I carpooled to school with two other guys, including this asshole. I used to show off by swerving down this road, going fast and swerving from one far extreme edge to the other, just to piss the one guy off.
One day I lost control during a swerve, and did a perfect 180 turn the way this article describes. I ended up facing the exact right way (except the opposite way), and exactly in the right part of the lane. I just pretended like I did it on purpose and drove off like Mr. Cool.
This was a good thing.
and learned not a damned thing. Classic marketecture speak.
Exactly. Most of the comments here are the classic example of the echo chamber.
I think there's a saying that goes something along the lines of "wrapping yourself in purple" or "bringing out the purple." If one has already made up one's mind about a topic (the way incorrect science that seems good - consider for example the Static Universe theory of the early 20th century), it's natural to call everyone who questions it a scheming evil nincompoop.
There's been lots of wrong science over the years. And the Static Universe theory wasn't something that was refined - it was just rejected, as wrong. The fact that the climate changers did sloppy stats sure doesn't help the science seem air tight.
It could be that all the premises are true, and yet the conclusion is false.
You know, the only place where the kind of thinking - open hatred towards a class of society, is considered normal and encouraged by society is - the sorts of views expressed by you and parrotted endlessly here :-) It's quite ironic, when one thinks about it....
You're what you hate :-)
Well, for a start, the terrorists pick random people to kill, the most convenient targets, so it's only fair to do the same in retaliation. If one group gets to live in total chaos, don't go crying if more chaos follows, it makes you sound like a pussy.
Secondly, we killed way more Arabs than died on 9/11. So we more than made up for it.
So, if someone wants to cause a huge tragedy, go for it, we'll try to stop you. If we fail, we'll wail a little while, and then get some payback. In the end we'll win.
Because we rock :-)
Good, I hope you don't mind us killing the fuck out of you, since you're into it and all that.
This would work. Once.
Straw man!
I think it's safe to say there is already quite a lot of lampooning of Christians and Jesus in the culture. I'm not going to google it for you, it's self-evident.
I think it's also safe to say there is quite a bit "against" Jews in the culture, ready to find. As far as lampooning their big hook noses or whatever, I'm afraid if you want to do that you're not going to find yourself in very nice company.
Yeah, when you get Gray hair, it becomes a popular pastime. Believe it or not, people used to live in things called Communities, and sometimes, they'd recognize a name in the paper, because they Knew People.
I know, I can't believe it either. How wierd.
Take it from a guy who's seen the NT source code: Inside Windows 2000, the windows kernel debuggers, and a firewire cable gave you MORE than enough detail; there's not much important that's not publicly known.
It just doesn't make Slashdot or the sites you frequent. How do you think Windows Device Driver writers do their job?
I think a lot of people who think Poker is a game of skill are confused because they view Poker in terms of "winning" or "losing."
In most games of skill, there's a winner or a loser. In solo events, you either achieve the feat or fail to achieve the feat.
Poker doesn't really work that way. There's no one event which means you "won," so saying it's a game of skill is not a falsifiable, testable statement.
I guess you could say that folding when you technically could have one a hand is "losing," but I'd have to say all the VAST numbers of factors that go into the psycholoigy of how people do X versus people do Y means it's not a game of skill in the traditional way we think of a game of skill. If I claim to have psyched out a person into folding, how do I falsify that statement?
So it's not really the cards that are random, it's the players decision making that is!
It depends on which definition you use:
*
A disaster is a very bad accident such as an earthquake or a plane crash, especially one in which a lot of people are killed.
o
It was the second air disaster in the region in less than two months.
*
If you refer to something as a disaster, you are emphasizing that you think it is extremely bad or unacceptable.
I think it is clear that the submitter's intent was definition #1, an accident.