Please respond with your full name, address, date of birth, SSN, bank details and credit and debit card details, a summary of your medical conditions, the themes of your last five masturbatory fantasies, and what you had for breakfast.
Oh, OK, then. One side of my family was born in the middle of a civil war and grew up under what was, by every definition, a dictatorship.
Guess what?
It's not all Hitler and Holocaust.
A good dictatorship delivers a lot more for its people than a sham democracy. A good dictator especially delivers a lot more than a country ruled by a bunch of militias with no direction other than "eh Monsieur we just 'elped you you still gonna let us av some of ze black stuff yes?"
I'm sure a random Libyan would love the freedom and peace enjoyed by, say, a man living in a well-insulated cottage the highlands of Scotland. Unfortunately, the world's more complicated than "under dictator's boot" and "glorious Celtic^WAnglo-Saxon freedom".
People adapt their generic hobby games software which they've developed over months to a particular word chosen a couple of days before the competition closing date.
If the Internet has taught anyone anything, it should be that people are full of shit.
If you really want to pit people against each other under strict time constraints, confiscate their smartphones/PDAs, put them in front of a set of your own locked-down workstations with no network access set up in some conference room in a hotel without Wifi, and require them not to leave the establishment until they've submitted their entry. They'll still try to be dishonest, but at least you'll have a good chance of catching them.
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like, "If you're not a Believer then you couldn't have read the Bible."
But at least the major world religions have authoritative texts. Libertarianism has no coherent text in its favour because it has no coherence. Even leeching misogynist Rand recognised this. Like RIAA, Libertarianism is the last gasp of a crude 18th century philosophy gone wild.
Also lots of phones look similar, lots of cars look similar, lots of TVs look similar, lots of computers look similar, lots of monitors look similar...
Ah, the sound of furious backpedalling. Now it's meaningless drivel in context, which is another way of saying perfectly meaningful remark but the measurements I obtained during my wet denial dreams do not support your conclusion. But at least you're no longer stumbling on a matter of law - that a well-built human of either gender past six years of age has a WHR<<1.0 with WHR(female)<WHR(male) - and getting down to the matter of fact. Progress be praised.
Though, Christ, I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times you've told me that you're not a pedo. At least you've perhaps finally taken the time to read my posts to see that I've not accused you once of being a pedo, nor even lusting after 12 year old boys. Is it that you've been accused of being pedo so many times that you just assume that this is what's being said? If so, would you perhaps review the evidence which causes people to jump to this conclusion?
Paper search for "waist to hip ratio". The phrase isn't only meaningful but is the subject of multiple studies on health and attractiveness. And guess what? It's visibly below 1.0 on average for healthy men but even further below that for women.
you are likely to be slapped with a lawsuit.
Though there's a risk of enjoying a lawsuit (lol, America) for publicly making any accusation, "in real life" simply giving someone your conclusion - that it's true in this case is irrelevant - gives no ground for legal action.
But congratulations on showing your cards. Such a stupid remark makes it clear that you're a troll and that not even you can honestly say Natalie Portman doesn't look like a boy. Your tenacity betrays your true desires. So, back to my first question: why? What is it with geeks like you?
Indeed. Entitlement to profit has been the bane of the world since the '80s.
Capitalism isn't about deserving or entitlement. It's about putting in / paying the least necessary to get what you want. That's how a market works and supposedly optimises things.
Then Reagan and Thatcher came along and decided to go back to the days of the Dishonourable East India Company where trade was actually just corporation rule. Government and common property from the water company to the radio spectrum were privatised and regulated to line the pockets of friends of the powers that be. Ministers themselves were handsomely thanked. I used to think Thatcher's tobacco industry appointments were bad but she's an idealistic saint when compared to Blair in the Middle East.
1) Barely shaped hips except perhaps in the second pic (but that could just be from her stance); small training-bra breasts. Sorry, dude, you're in some serious denial;
2) There's a decent chance that Hazel Bergeron is a skinny male who adopts the name of a character from the usually misinterpreted book Harrison Bergeron because she epitomises the average human which hilariously angry geeks adopt the prejudice that they must be superior to;
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language or you have some mild developmental problem.
Monroe is hourglass but thin whereas Natalie Portman looks like a boy. Neither are fat.
There are thin women considered attractive who are not anywhere near boyish - Naomi Campbell would be a fairly long-running example - and there are fat women who are attractive - I offer Sophie Dahl. The size is a minor issue: it's just typical geekery to take some ideal, in this case "not being fat", and take it to the extreme.
But the major issue is looking like a 12 year old boy.
You, like so many geeks, prefer the 12 year old boy look.
I'm not asking you to deny it. It's just the way you are. I'm wondering why.
Slashdot Mirror
Please respond with your full name, address, date of birth, SSN, bank details and credit and debit card details, a summary of your medical conditions, the themes of your last five masturbatory fantasies, and what you had for breakfast.
Nothing is so important...
Extending credit to every stranger who says they want to buy something from you? That's so 2007.
Oh, OK, then. One side of my family was born in the middle of a civil war and grew up under what was, by every definition, a dictatorship.
Guess what?
It's not all Hitler and Holocaust.
A good dictatorship delivers a lot more for its people than a sham democracy. A good dictator especially delivers a lot more than a country ruled by a bunch of militias with no direction other than "eh Monsieur we just 'elped you you still gonna let us av some of ze black stuff yes?"
I'm sure a random Libyan would love the freedom and peace enjoyed by, say, a man living in a well-insulated cottage the highlands of Scotland. Unfortunately, the world's more complicated than "under dictator's boot" and "glorious Celtic^WAnglo-Saxon freedom".
See also China.
You've let your government destroy lives and waste money sponsoring another pointless war to serve the interests of a powerful few.
Mission accomplished. Let the pillaging begin!
During a gold rush, sell shovels.
No, no, no.
People adapt their generic hobby games software which they've developed over months to a particular word chosen a couple of days before the competition closing date.
If the Internet has taught anyone anything, it should be that people are full of shit.
If you really want to pit people against each other under strict time constraints, confiscate their smartphones/PDAs, put them in front of a set of your own locked-down workstations with no network access set up in some conference room in a hotel without Wifi, and require them not to leave the establishment until they've submitted their entry. They'll still try to be dishonest, but at least you'll have a good chance of catching them.
typical nerd, right? Say that after...
I got to this bit and thought "it's going to be something about having a girlfriend or a gun"...
you see my firearms
...and I was right.
Yep, you're a modern pseudo-nerd.
Acting is all about feeling, which is pretty much the polar opposite of thinking.
Feeling is prerequisite to all willing thought, and all thought must be willing.
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like, "If you're not a Believer then you couldn't have read the Bible."
But at least the major world religions have authoritative texts. Libertarianism has no coherent text in its favour because it has no coherence. Even leeching misogynist Rand recognised this. Like RIAA, Libertarianism is the last gasp of a crude 18th century philosophy gone wild.
Libertarianism in theory: perfectly informed, rational, able consumers interacting freely for mutual benefit.
Libertarianism in practice: CAVEAT EMPTOR, IDIOTS! MIGHT IS RIGHT!
Hope this helps.
Maybe Samsung are just great artists.
So all marketers are Nazis?
No. I was just arguing that Jobs was one of the best marketers (in the West) since Goebbels.
Would you say that he wasn't as good as Goebbels?
...on 16 October, we celebrate the life of another great propagandist.
Bla bla Godwin. Face it: Jobs' main talent was marketing his vision and he was one of the best at it since Joseph.
The actual item was worth a billion dollars?
Oh, imaginary property value. Then this post is worth ten billion.
So you're saying that only uncreative people don't like the patent system?
Are you stupid or just religious? But I repeat myself.
Also lots of phones look similar, lots of cars look similar, lots of TVs look similar, lots of computers look similar, lots of monitors look similar...
Who cares?
You reloaded.
Good day, Sir.
Ah, the sound of furious backpedalling. Now it's meaningless drivel in context, which is another way of saying perfectly meaningful remark but the measurements I obtained during my wet denial dreams do not support your conclusion. But at least you're no longer stumbling on a matter of law - that a well-built human of either gender past six years of age has a WHR<<1.0 with WHR(female)<WHR(male) - and getting down to the matter of fact. Progress be praised.
Though, Christ, I'm beginning to lose count of the number of times you've told me that you're not a pedo. At least you've perhaps finally taken the time to read my posts to see that I've not accused you once of being a pedo, nor even lusting after 12 year old boys. Is it that you've been accused of being pedo so many times that you just assume that this is what's being said? If so, would you perhaps review the evidence which causes people to jump to this conclusion?
"Barely shaped hips" is meaningless drivel.
Paper search for "waist to hip ratio". The phrase isn't only meaningful but is the subject of multiple studies on health and attractiveness. And guess what? It's visibly below 1.0 on average for healthy men but even further below that for women.
you are likely to be slapped with a lawsuit.
Though there's a risk of enjoying a lawsuit (lol, America) for publicly making any accusation, "in real life" simply giving someone your conclusion - that it's true in this case is irrelevant - gives no ground for legal action.
But congratulations on showing your cards. Such a stupid remark makes it clear that you're a troll and that not even you can honestly say Natalie Portman doesn't look like a boy. Your tenacity betrays your true desires. So, back to my first question: why? What is it with geeks like you?
If you can convince me that retardation is sexy, I guess so.
Indeed. Entitlement to profit has been the bane of the world since the '80s.
Capitalism isn't about deserving or entitlement. It's about putting in / paying the least necessary to get what you want. That's how a market works and supposedly optimises things.
Then Reagan and Thatcher came along and decided to go back to the days of the Dishonourable East India Company where trade was actually just corporation rule. Government and common property from the water company to the radio spectrum were privatised and regulated to line the pockets of friends of the powers that be. Ministers themselves were handsomely thanked. I used to think Thatcher's tobacco industry appointments were bad but she's an idealistic saint when compared to Blair in the Middle East.
Oh well, you all voted for 'em.
Like everything.
1) Barely shaped hips except perhaps in the second pic (but that could just be from her stance); small training-bra breasts. Sorry, dude, you're in some serious denial;
2) There's a decent chance that Hazel Bergeron is a skinny male who adopts the name of a character from the usually misinterpreted book Harrison Bergeron because she epitomises the average human which hilariously angry geeks adopt the prejudice that they must be superior to;
3) Can't disagree there.
To help geek up this analogy: enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex but avoiding partners with STDs.
Marilyn Monroe was not fat.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language or you have some mild developmental problem.
Monroe is hourglass but thin whereas Natalie Portman looks like a boy. Neither are fat.
There are thin women considered attractive who are not anywhere near boyish - Naomi Campbell would be a fairly long-running example - and there are fat women who are attractive - I offer Sophie Dahl. The size is a minor issue: it's just typical geekery to take some ideal, in this case "not being fat", and take it to the extreme.
But the major issue is looking like a 12 year old boy.
You, like so many geeks, prefer the 12 year old boy look.
I'm not asking you to deny it. It's just the way you are. I'm wondering why.