While I may not have used your choice phrasing, I have to agree with your sentiment. It seems to me that all that happens in these situations is a lot of grumbling, a lot of of agreeing with the grumbling, and then a big, fat, nothing, while the RIAA continues to expand its legal control over all things music related.
One thing that I'd like to add, is that the RIAA is a scapegoat. It was created as a shield so that certain unnamed companies who know that their consumers were going to be, for lack of a better term, pissed at their practices, could obfuscate themselves behind a handy acronym. While we're all having a giant tirade about how evil said organization is, we still go out and purchase products from these companies; they have done an absolutely phenomenal job in seperating thier legal heinousity* from their corporate image.
Just something to think about the next time you're bashing Xbox in favor of playstation.
It's been a while, but I felt I needed to reply to this anyway.
I quoted those numbers, because that's what my father and I *actually got* while hauling a '89 Mustang GT convertible on a car trailer (not one of those front-wheels-only type trailers) from Riverside, CA, to Chester, CA via Highway 395. And no, we weren't out of efficient operating RPMs at 70mph, the truck is quite happy to cruise there with no noticable drop in mileage, and they're equiped with a 96mph governeror *for a reason*.
You're absolutely right: diesel isn't a wonder fuel, and Fords aren't wonder trucks. And you're right again when you say we all *should* be driving diesels. The catch (and the reason that not all my vehicles are diesel) is that a diesel engine is HEAVY. I would never put a diesel in my mustang for that reason.
If you don't mind me asking, what the hell do you drive that weighs 15 tons and has a gas motor? Or did you mean a 30,000 lb GVRW? I myself drive a small dumptruck (24,000 GVRW, about the largest truck you can get that's not tandem rear axle) as my weekend job, and while I've seen similarly sized trucks with gas motors, I've never seen a larger truck with one (though I am by no means an expert on heavy equipment).
And that brings me to the final point: "acceptable performance". What a loaded phrase that is! [local venacular] What the fuck does that even mean? That it gets the job done? What job is that? To say "I drive a big-ass rig at work with a gas motor and it gets the job done" means jack shit to me. We're all geeks here; give me specs to argue with! I mean, our truck runs an 8.2L Detroit diesel and it has "acceptable performance"; sure as shit don't mean I don't want more power! [/local venacular]
I also don't mean to be destinctly contrary, just to defend my numbers, and as such hope to get a response. I rather enjoy a lively debate:)
While I wish I could simply email you this, and not post an entire flamewar on/., you do not have yours publicly visible, and thus, I must respond here.
To the point: what in your experience shows that "colorful" language denotes a lack of vocabulary and/or self-control? Also, what makes you believe that one "stoops" to use such language? Do you honestly feel that by exclusively using polysyllabic words, you're showing a superior intelligence? (Okay, those are my words, not yours, but I do believe that you're inferring such a statement.)
Of course, I know that nothing I say here is going to change your mind, inversely, you probably will be even more cemented in your inferences of language and education. And that's cool (uh-oh, I just used a bit of slang, that must mean I am incapable of expressing my acceptance of your anti-swearing ways using any other words!). But I will continue to swear like a logger well past my college days, despite whatever education I may recieve.
huh... sounds like you've never played with anyone who's decent.
I'm not that good at the sport, I run a Spyder Xtra with a Dye Boomstick, and I can hit someone at 50' no problem. Hell, even 100' isn't that bad. My friend has a Tippman A-5 with a flatline barrel, he can hit people at 150' no issue.
Sounds like you either need to practice more, or stop buying your markers at Wal-Mart.
Actually, yes, I *do* need these words; they express the *degree* of the emotion. Consider the following:
Happiness: "Gee golly, this is a fantastically swell day!" versus "Holy Shit! I'm fuckin' stoked!"
Anger: "Well, sir, I'm very irritated because this part is broke." versus "That fucking piece of shit cocksucker cost me $900!"
Now which sounds more happy/angry to you? I liken it to the whole novel vs. comic book issue: one is an excellent use of the english language that takes its time to illustrate a beautiful picture. The other gets the job done in half the time and with half the energy. I guess it's an efficiency thing.
Of course, there are times where such language is not appropriate to the situation. I'm just rarely in them:)
Okay, this may be off-topic, but it's always bugged me. What do big companies base "damage" estimates on? IIRC, some/one of the companies during the whole Kevin Mitnick deal claimed that he caused $80 million in damage... how is this number figured?
I have to disagree. We do *not* need large, gas-hog engines for trucks and heavy equipment. I know of *no* heavy equipment that runs on gasoline today (they're all diesels, or for the really big stuff, diesel/electric). Big gas trucks are inexcusable. An F-350 SuperDuty with the PowerStroke diesel will get 17-19 mpg while doing 70mph towing 4000 lbs through a hilly area (and have enough power that you don't know the trailer's even there). Conversely, an *empty* same truck with the gas V10 will get no better than 10-14 mpg. Point being, diesels make more power with much better fuel economy.
You may call me a troll for saying so, but if you (the universal you, not the specific you) buy a big truck/suv and get a gas motor, you're a total idiot.
Okay, maybe I'm reading in to this *waaay* to far, but in a universe where superheroes could exist, wouldn't it be concievable that two different average joes could suddenly have similar freak occurances happen to them, causing very similar powers? And perhaps, these two average joes get the same idea for their superhero identity, what's to stop them from both being [insert superhero name here]?
Now, continuing this reasoning, could superhero A sue superhero B for copyright infringement? Or does superhero law decree that they must fight to the death? Or... some... third option.
Ummm... yeah it is. The presedence set here is not just that you are responsible to what you link to, but are responsible to what is linked to from that site as well. And on and on. By creating one link, you become responsible for the entire content of the internet. Now, while this may not be strictly enforced (when's the last time someone *really* got busted strictly for giving their friend a copy of a video game?), it is one more charge they (the immortal them... one day I'll find out who they are) can bring against you when they suddenly decide they don't like you. In colleges, something along these lines can be used to deny someone net access, or even computer access entirely.
Besides... I should be able to play DVD's on a toaster if I own the disc and the toaster (I heard that somewhere...)
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit I know what the hell a gigawatt is; I was quoting the movie!
What's a Jigga-watt?
While I may not have used your choice phrasing, I have to agree with your sentiment. It seems to me that all that happens in these situations is a lot of grumbling, a lot of of agreeing with the grumbling, and then a big, fat, nothing, while the RIAA continues to expand its legal control over all things music related.
One thing that I'd like to add, is that the RIAA is a scapegoat. It was created as a shield so that certain unnamed companies who know that their consumers were going to be, for lack of a better term, pissed at their practices, could obfuscate themselves behind a handy acronym. While we're all having a giant tirade about how evil said organization is, we still go out and purchase products from these companies; they have done an absolutely phenomenal job in seperating thier legal heinousity* from their corporate image.
Just something to think about the next time you're bashing Xbox in favor of playstation.
*Yes, I made this word up.
It's been a while, but I felt I needed to reply to this anyway.
:)
I quoted those numbers, because that's what my father and I *actually got* while hauling a '89 Mustang GT convertible on a car trailer (not one of those front-wheels-only type trailers) from Riverside, CA, to Chester, CA via Highway 395. And no, we weren't out of efficient operating RPMs at 70mph, the truck is quite happy to cruise there with no noticable drop in mileage, and they're equiped with a 96mph governeror *for a reason*.
You're absolutely right: diesel isn't a wonder fuel, and Fords aren't wonder trucks. And you're right again when you say we all *should* be driving diesels. The catch (and the reason that not all my vehicles are diesel) is that a diesel engine is HEAVY. I would never put a diesel in my mustang for that reason.
If you don't mind me asking, what the hell do you drive that weighs 15 tons and has a gas motor? Or did you mean a 30,000 lb GVRW? I myself drive a small dumptruck (24,000 GVRW, about the largest truck you can get that's not tandem rear axle) as my weekend job, and while I've seen similarly sized trucks with gas motors, I've never seen a larger truck with one (though I am by no means an expert on heavy equipment).
And that brings me to the final point: "acceptable performance". What a loaded phrase that is! [local venacular] What the fuck does that even mean? That it gets the job done? What job is that? To say "I drive a big-ass rig at work with a gas motor and it gets the job done" means jack shit to me. We're all geeks here; give me specs to argue with! I mean, our truck runs an 8.2L Detroit diesel and it has "acceptable performance"; sure as shit don't mean I don't want more power! [/local venacular]
I also don't mean to be destinctly contrary, just to defend my numbers, and as such hope to get a response. I rather enjoy a lively debate
-Dex
Nah, it's a 2.5 hour loop of "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..."
While I wish I could simply email you this, and not post an entire flamewar on /., you do not have yours publicly visible, and thus, I must respond here.
To the point: what in your experience shows that "colorful" language denotes a lack of vocabulary and/or self-control? Also, what makes you believe that one "stoops" to use such language? Do you honestly feel that by exclusively using polysyllabic words, you're showing a superior intelligence? (Okay, those are my words, not yours, but I do believe that you're inferring such a statement.)
Of course, I know that nothing I say here is going to change your mind, inversely, you probably will be even more cemented in your inferences of language and education. And that's cool (uh-oh, I just used a bit of slang, that must mean I am incapable of expressing my acceptance of your anti-swearing ways using any other words!). But I will continue to swear like a logger well past my college days, despite whatever education I may recieve.
huh... sounds like you've never played with anyone who's decent.
I'm not that good at the sport, I run a Spyder Xtra with a Dye Boomstick, and I can hit someone at 50' no problem. Hell, even 100' isn't that bad. My friend has a Tippman A-5 with a flatline barrel, he can hit people at 150' no issue.
Sounds like you either need to practice more, or stop buying your markers at Wal-Mart.
Actually, yes, I *do* need these words; they express the *degree* of the emotion. Consider the following:
:)
Happiness:
"Gee golly, this is a fantastically swell day!" versus "Holy Shit! I'm fuckin' stoked!"
Anger:
"Well, sir, I'm very irritated because this part is broke." versus "That fucking piece of shit cocksucker cost me $900!"
Now which sounds more happy/angry to you? I liken it to the whole novel vs. comic book issue: one is an excellent use of the english language that takes its time to illustrate a beautiful picture. The other gets the job done in half the time and with half the energy. I guess it's an efficiency thing.
Of course, there are times where such language is not appropriate to the situation. I'm just rarely in them
I know, I know, offtopic.
Okay, this may be off-topic, but it's always bugged me. What do big companies base "damage" estimates on? IIRC, some/one of the companies during the whole Kevin Mitnick deal claimed that he caused $80 million in damage... how is this number figured?
Yes, and they would call them Portable Instruments to Get Service (PIGS)
I have to disagree. We do *not* need large, gas-hog engines for trucks and heavy equipment. I know of *no* heavy equipment that runs on gasoline today (they're all diesels, or for the really big stuff, diesel/electric). Big gas trucks are inexcusable. An F-350 SuperDuty with the PowerStroke diesel will get 17-19 mpg while doing 70mph towing 4000 lbs through a hilly area (and have enough power that you don't know the trailer's even there). Conversely, an *empty* same truck with the gas V10 will get no better than 10-14 mpg. Point being, diesels make more power with much better fuel economy.
You may call me a troll for saying so, but if you (the universal you, not the specific you) buy a big truck/suv and get a gas motor, you're a total idiot.
Okay, maybe I'm reading in to this *waaay* to far, but in a universe where superheroes could exist, wouldn't it be concievable that two different average joes could suddenly have similar freak occurances happen to them, causing very similar powers? And perhaps, these two average joes get the same idea for their superhero identity, what's to stop them from both being [insert superhero name here]?
Now, continuing this reasoning, could superhero A sue superhero B for copyright infringement? Or does superhero law decree that they must fight to the death? Or... some... third option.
Atkins-Approved? What the crap is that?!
(I know what it means, but what is it doing here?)
Ummm... yeah it is. The presedence set here is not just that you are responsible to what you link to, but are responsible to what is linked to from that site as well. And on and on. By creating one link, you become responsible for the entire content of the internet. Now, while this may not be strictly enforced (when's the last time someone *really* got busted strictly for giving their friend a copy of a video game?), it is one more charge they (the immortal them... one day I'll find out who they are) can bring against you when they suddenly decide they don't like you. In colleges, something along these lines can be used to deny someone net access, or even computer access entirely. Besides... I should be able to play DVD's on a toaster if I own the disc and the toaster (I heard that somewhere...)
we can but only hope.
Am I the only one who notices that the government is namimg this project after a men's magazine? Or perhaps the only one who cares?