No, you're saying its a design flaw, I'm saying it was the design. Make it short, make it thoughtless, make it so everybody can participate in a second so that they will. If you're at a store and looking at something you like, you might tweet "found some cute pubic wigs!" Because it's a 140 character field, people won't get annoyed by your stupid trash of a tweet - that is what it's there for! If people are writing paragraphs about stuff you won't want to look stupid by crapping out some tiny update every hour or so.
Fewer people want to post long things than short blurbs, even fewer want to read them. So get rid of them so the people who want to write stupid little things (everybody) feel better about doing it and don't feel pressured in to sounding smart or actually putting something worth reading. 140 specifically was for SMS, but "short" was a goal all along.
Oh, right, because NPR is a paragon of non-weenitude. Listen, twitter links are the new hit counters. Nobody gives a shit except the person posting it. Maybe not even them, but the person in marketing telling them the kids will love it. Wtf does a twitter link even DO? TinyURL the address of the post for you to tweet to others?
It actually encourages dumb shit to be posted, which everybody can do. Nobody wants to twitter if all the "good tweets" are well thought out paragraphs of actual information. Everybody can join in the stupid 140 character shit-fest, but if you raise or get rid of the limit suddenly a tweet becomes work. Not to mention nobody wants to read a bunch of paragraphs from the people they're following. Twitter is the Robot Chicken of communication. Tiny little segments have their draw, but nobody would watch a 30 minute episode of claymation just to find out its a dick joke.
I count the UN resolutions he didn't abide by, basically flipping us the bird after punishment for invasion of another country, to be diplomacy. I count the constant attempts to inspect his facilities to be diplomatic. In fact, in 1991 didn't we push Iraq back out of Kuwait then let them keep their government with diplomatic sanctions? Jesus Christ you really are a moron.
Oh stop with this bullshit, you know as well as everybody else that we didn't start that war and that was real war, not sissy bitch fights like we have now. Remember the bombing of London? Remember the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? But if you want to reduce WWII to these spats in the middle east go ahead. We'll continue thinking you're a retard.
By the way, the fact that we dropped one and they didn't surrender shows that we needed both. And as I recall we were figthing that war for defense and, if I am correct, have not taken over Japan. Instead of attacking us for using nukes, you should blame Germany, Italy and Japan for making us defend ourselves that way. Iran on the other hand has occupational aspirations in the middle east and their existence is not threatened.
I'm pretty sure we didn't fire a shot in the cold war. Was that not entirely and completely a diplomatic action? This whole thing is about the fact that Iran wants to militarily crush Isreal, not just beat them peacefully. I'm pretty sure at no point was our goal to flatten Russia and drive them in to the sea.
Yes, because if there is one thing people respond to more than nuclear weapons, its words. Or maybe in the real world the nukes do the controlling for us, but agreed to disarm in the hope that we might not destroy the world in an effort to control.
Sure we do. They signed a fucking treaty. Why do you think its ok for people to sign an agreement they have no intention of keeping? Further, we're still tense with the Russians. As in, we are in a MAD situation with them still. We built up a bunch of nukes to make sure if we died, they died too, then decided this isn't a good thing. So we all got together and the countries with big stockpiles agreed to work to disarm, and the people without nukes agreed to not get them. Iran agreed to not get them, we worked with the Russians to ease our nuclear stockpiles, then Iran starts getting them despite agreeing not to. In what stupid fucked up world do you live where that is not a problem? We're making agreement after agreement to disarm ourselves and Russia, and you're going to say "Since you have nuclear arms still the Iranians should have them." Fat lot of good that will do them. When they get enough to be useful as a deterrent, we will have to raise our stockpiles again to account for their nukes, which will make them want more, and all of a sudden we're in another nuclear arms race instead of disarming. So shut up with you ignorant, childish platitudes. You're nothing but fluff.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Coal miners. Don't be an ass, that's a pathetic reason. Don't do a job that is "dangerous".
Well the answer to why you are fighting in WWI doesn't make a lot of sense unless you look through the lens of time: If you don't destroy enough of the German economy Hitler will never take hold and that little brat Anne Frank will be able to complete her work on converting penny-pinching in to pure energy, putting oil companies out of business. Had we not succeeded Jews would eventually have been forced to breed, and their genetics mutated to the point that they looked like little more than cheap rotiserie chickens constantly haggling with each other (though none of them have any money or anything to sell) to keep those electrons flowing in to our brand new 1983 Bayer eCars. Hitler of course caught wind of the plot, but didn't capture all of the details. With his imperfect knowledge he didn't realize he was playing right in to our hands the whole time. To save Jews, we had to kill Germans and Austrians so they would kill the right Jews so the Jews didn't get themselves killed. Or some people will argue it was all to line the pockets of oil companies. We may never know for sure.
Ok, I see your point. Its a little more difficult to explain the ethics of WWI than WWII.
Hopefully the sarcasm wasn't lost on you. Sid has been a hero of mine (my only hero, really) since around 3rd grade. Colonization made U.S. history a breeze.
Ok, not that any of those ideas will really work, but "if you outsource we will tax you 99%" is basically saying "Hey international businesses! Don't put your headquarters here! Send all that money to another government!" Fucking idiot. Lets take the United States economy and make it even less relevant! Its the only way to balance the trade deficit!
The routing number indicates the financial institution that the account is held at, I don't know how you guys would get around that unless you all pull account numbers from the same pool of possibilities. When I electronically transfer money from one bank to another bank it shows the financial instituation the transfer came from and the account number. I guess we can't really attach a message very easily.
You are an idiot. People pay with bits of paper only when its convenient for them. We have electronic transfers, you can transfer money in to anybody's account as long as you have the two things that you would find on a check: routing number and account number. It has been that way for decades. The only thing I've ever used a check for was to pay rent, which has nothing to do with being able to transfer the money electronically and everything to do with the fact that landlords don't want it to be that convenient so they can stick you with a late payment fee. The only people writing checks choose to do that, but most of us don't even have check books. It sounds like you're just an asshole to me.
I'm fairly certain it is a regulation or law of some kind that you must give you social security number when establishing an account with a bank. I would assume that would cover loans as well.
Slashdot Mirror
With what?! Oh god the robits got him!
I use Hitler's ghost like the boogie man to scare my children.
No, you're saying its a design flaw, I'm saying it was the design. Make it short, make it thoughtless, make it so everybody can participate in a second so that they will. If you're at a store and looking at something you like, you might tweet "found some cute pubic wigs!" Because it's a 140 character field, people won't get annoyed by your stupid trash of a tweet - that is what it's there for! If people are writing paragraphs about stuff you won't want to look stupid by crapping out some tiny update every hour or so.
Fewer people want to post long things than short blurbs, even fewer want to read them. So get rid of them so the people who want to write stupid little things (everybody) feel better about doing it and don't feel pressured in to sounding smart or actually putting something worth reading. 140 specifically was for SMS, but "short" was a goal all along.
Yeah, because that thing couldn't translate for shit. It's probably what started the whole "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" thing.
He made the only social media that was worth a damn. So I guess my thoughts are he is the only one we should be listening to.
Oh, right, because NPR is a paragon of non-weenitude. Listen, twitter links are the new hit counters. Nobody gives a shit except the person posting it. Maybe not even them, but the person in marketing telling them the kids will love it. Wtf does a twitter link even DO? TinyURL the address of the post for you to tweet to others?
It actually encourages dumb shit to be posted, which everybody can do. Nobody wants to twitter if all the "good tweets" are well thought out paragraphs of actual information. Everybody can join in the stupid 140 character shit-fest, but if you raise or get rid of the limit suddenly a tweet becomes work. Not to mention nobody wants to read a bunch of paragraphs from the people they're following. Twitter is the Robot Chicken of communication. Tiny little segments have their draw, but nobody would watch a 30 minute episode of claymation just to find out its a dick joke.
I count the UN resolutions he didn't abide by, basically flipping us the bird after punishment for invasion of another country, to be diplomacy. I count the constant attempts to inspect his facilities to be diplomatic. In fact, in 1991 didn't we push Iraq back out of Kuwait then let them keep their government with diplomatic sanctions? Jesus Christ you really are a moron.
Oh stop with this bullshit, you know as well as everybody else that we didn't start that war and that was real war, not sissy bitch fights like we have now. Remember the bombing of London? Remember the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? But if you want to reduce WWII to these spats in the middle east go ahead. We'll continue thinking you're a retard.
By the way, the fact that we dropped one and they didn't surrender shows that we needed both. And as I recall we were figthing that war for defense and, if I am correct, have not taken over Japan. Instead of attacking us for using nukes, you should blame Germany, Italy and Japan for making us defend ourselves that way. Iran on the other hand has occupational aspirations in the middle east and their existence is not threatened.
I'm pretty sure we didn't fire a shot in the cold war. Was that not entirely and completely a diplomatic action? This whole thing is about the fact that Iran wants to militarily crush Isreal, not just beat them peacefully. I'm pretty sure at no point was our goal to flatten Russia and drive them in to the sea.
Yes, because if there is one thing people respond to more than nuclear weapons, its words. Or maybe in the real world the nukes do the controlling for us, but agreed to disarm in the hope that we might not destroy the world in an effort to control.
Sure we do. They signed a fucking treaty. Why do you think its ok for people to sign an agreement they have no intention of keeping? Further, we're still tense with the Russians. As in, we are in a MAD situation with them still. We built up a bunch of nukes to make sure if we died, they died too, then decided this isn't a good thing. So we all got together and the countries with big stockpiles agreed to work to disarm, and the people without nukes agreed to not get them. Iran agreed to not get them, we worked with the Russians to ease our nuclear stockpiles, then Iran starts getting them despite agreeing not to. In what stupid fucked up world do you live where that is not a problem? We're making agreement after agreement to disarm ourselves and Russia, and you're going to say "Since you have nuclear arms still the Iranians should have them." Fat lot of good that will do them. When they get enough to be useful as a deterrent, we will have to raise our stockpiles again to account for their nukes, which will make them want more, and all of a sudden we're in another nuclear arms race instead of disarming. So shut up with you ignorant, childish platitudes. You're nothing but fluff.
Coal miners. Don't be an ass, that's a pathetic reason. Don't do a job that is "dangerous".
Well the answer to why you are fighting in WWI doesn't make a lot of sense unless you look through the lens of time: If you don't destroy enough of the German economy Hitler will never take hold and that little brat Anne Frank will be able to complete her work on converting penny-pinching in to pure energy, putting oil companies out of business. Had we not succeeded Jews would eventually have been forced to breed, and their genetics mutated to the point that they looked like little more than cheap rotiserie chickens constantly haggling with each other (though none of them have any money or anything to sell) to keep those electrons flowing in to our brand new 1983 Bayer eCars. Hitler of course caught wind of the plot, but didn't capture all of the details. With his imperfect knowledge he didn't realize he was playing right in to our hands the whole time. To save Jews, we had to kill Germans and Austrians so they would kill the right Jews so the Jews didn't get themselves killed. Or some people will argue it was all to line the pockets of oil companies. We may never know for sure.
Ok, I see your point. Its a little more difficult to explain the ethics of WWI than WWII.
Like Hitler with the Jews or the US with the Mexicans or Saxons with the god damn Christians. And when you win, invade the invaders and baptize them.
That the thing they're cooling is above 100 C still. Is this a serious question?
Hopefully the sarcasm wasn't lost on you. Sid has been a hero of mine (my only hero, really) since around 3rd grade. Colonization made U.S. history a breeze.
Ok, not that any of those ideas will really work, but "if you outsource we will tax you 99%" is basically saying "Hey international businesses! Don't put your headquarters here! Send all that money to another government!" Fucking idiot. Lets take the United States economy and make it even less relevant! Its the only way to balance the trade deficit!
Nothing is louder than a horse freaking out... Oh, different kind of high horse.
Its spelled Cid Meier.
Hey, proprietary goods fed your fat ass, didn't they?
The routing number indicates the financial institution that the account is held at, I don't know how you guys would get around that unless you all pull account numbers from the same pool of possibilities. When I electronically transfer money from one bank to another bank it shows the financial instituation the transfer came from and the account number. I guess we can't really attach a message very easily.
You are an idiot. People pay with bits of paper only when its convenient for them. We have electronic transfers, you can transfer money in to anybody's account as long as you have the two things that you would find on a check: routing number and account number. It has been that way for decades. The only thing I've ever used a check for was to pay rent, which has nothing to do with being able to transfer the money electronically and everything to do with the fact that landlords don't want it to be that convenient so they can stick you with a late payment fee. The only people writing checks choose to do that, but most of us don't even have check books. It sounds like you're just an asshole to me.
I'm fairly certain it is a regulation or law of some kind that you must give you social security number when establishing an account with a bank. I would assume that would cover loans as well.
Lighter than Safari on Windows, yes.