How many people order diet pop with their quarter pounder.
Numbnuts:
Would you rather they order the full-sugared pop? Maybe they really have a hankering for a Quarter Pounder, are not necessarily proud of that, understand the laws of physics and that the hundred or so calorie difference between the diet and the regular version DO matter, and are at least making ONE good choice (or one less bad choice). Why does it have to be all or nothing with guys like you? Ay carrumba.
Not sure if you have realized this by now, or if its even still applicable with the newer versions of SETI@Home, but when I was running it on my old PC, I found process time/unit was cut in half if I turned off the graphical screen saver.
I don't think you understand why fat bastards like me like the screen saver.
You see, we long for the day when that beautiful receptionist stops by our cube and asks, "Why, Milton, what is that on your screen?"
Then, my chest will puff up, and I will say, "You see, Daphne, I am searching for Extraterrestrial Life!"
And then Daphne will swoon, and realize how intelligent and deep I am, and will stop going out with that guy from marketing, and all will be swell!
"Slashdot, where saying something everyone hates turns you into a Troll even if it makes a point."
You don't seem to truly grok what the purpose of moderation is. Properly understood, it is not a 'reward' or 'penalty'. It is to be ultimately used by readers so that they can read what they find interesting, and block out the "things everyone hates".
Sorry, it ceases to become a "personal choice" when your choice is polluting the environment and causing greater danger to people who choose cars that aren't the size of small towns
No need to be sorry.
Where does it stop, though? Why not make carpooling mandatory? Why not force people to walk whenever they are within walking distance of a destination? Why not make everybody drive "Deux Cheveaux" ("Two Horsepower") vehicles? Why not make everyone ride around in mopeds when they are alone and not hauling cargo? Why not outlaw motorcycles, seeing as they take such damage when a Geo hits it, or outlaw anything larger than a motorcycle, since they are such a danger to bicyclists?
Where _does_ it stop? You want to take Joe Asshole's expedition, but Stanley Sprout wants to take your Honda and make you ride a bicycle.
Unless you can honestly tell me that you have never judged anyone based on the kind of vehicle they drive (or for that matter, the kind of music they listen to, the kind of food they eat, or any other product they've purchased), you're not standing on any kind of moral high ground.
Yes, I AM standing on a kind of moral high ground. I recognize my tendency, and others tendency, to be judgmental about other's choices, and I conciously try to mitigate those feelings and will never conciously act on them. One's thoughts can be impure, but that does not have to translate into action.
I'm just sick and tired of people trying to impose their tastes and values and sensibilities on others, when all they are just trying to enjoy their life a bit in an otherwise brutal and tearful existance.
You gripe about their 'bad taste' and 'gullibility'. Once again, I take and can claim the 'high ground' because I recognize those feelings for what they are, and I don't foster them, and I remind myself that taste is subjective, and what one man finds delicious and desirable, the other finds tasteless and ugly.
You mean like driving a family around while not looking like you're driving a station wagon.
What? That's not what SUVs are for? Right.
Exactly. Well said, my brother. It gets mighty tiresome, those loads going on and on about how the guy with the pickup never picks anything up, or the guy with the 4 X 4 never goes off road.
Very school-marmish. What is wrong with buying and driving a car - well - because one LIKES it? Why is that contemptable to so many people? And why do so many people feel the need to piss on another person's preferances as being 'illogical'?
Before I buy a PVR its going to have to be able to handle at least two digital streams at once...
Whatever. I figured, at about $300 for my Tivo, if it lasted two years, that's.50 cents a day for the privilige of never needing to sit through another commercial again. It was, and is WELL, WELL worth the price, and I just can't concieve having to deal with those inane, insulting, idiotic commercials again.
There is, however, nothing new about war time atrocities. The only difference, these days, is that they cannot be as easily covered up and hidden.
To wit: my old man served in Korea. When he got out, he burned his uniform. Here's one reason why. His commander gave him a pistol and a POW, and told him to take the POW beyond some hill and shoot him. My old man took the POW, shot the gun in the air, and told the POW to scram.
Scenes like that, and like we're hearing about, are a natural result of war, and are natural in war. If we don't want to see American soldiers doing this kind of stuff, the only option is to stop being the world's cop, and bring American troops home. Until that happens, however, the world will see more and more atrocities, will blame America more and more, and America and Americans will be hated more and more.
It is, when the general idea is to force unwilling viewers to waste their cycles processing information that is intrusive, ugly, not wanted, generally tasteless, and offensive to ones intelligence. It's like having to see dog dirt everywhere you go. It sucks, and I challenge the idea that it is even necessary. The world is brutal enough without these moral reprobates smacking me in the cranium with their advertising two by four every time I turn around.
If your new product is so great, and fills a need, there will be no need to shove pictures of it in front of everybody's face against their will. People who like it will write about it and recommend it and read about it voluntarily.
It's like that with movies, to me. I seek out Ebert and Roeper's reviews, watch them, and go to see movies they recommend. Paramount or Fox does not have to force me to learn about their works - if they are good, I will learn about it, and without advertising. Same thing with the food I eat, the computer I use, the car I drive. I seek out information from knowledgable sources, learn what will fill my needs, and go out and consume. I don't need some suspender wearing, BMW-driving, latte sipping, golf club toating gekko FORCING me to become aware of his shit so he can afford to send Jeremy to Montessori and summer at the Vineyard.
Unwanted, intrusive advertising coarsens society, and makes people more cynical (just look at me;). It is a disservice, unnecessary, a blight on society, and ugly. I cast general aspersions about it, and wave my naughty bits at the concept.
Marketing is an industry where the idea is to insinuate onesself where one is not wanted. An honest and upright man will not go where he is not wanted - marketers make a living at it.
There ARE immoral jobs. Marketing is one of them, albeit this side of manufacturing nerve gasses, but it is still not an occupation a good man should aspire to. Of course, if one has to feed his kids, etc, etc, but that is just goes to the old adage 'it is permissable to commite a lesser crime to prevent a greater crime'.
If the people who are working on this actually cared about offending people, they wouldn't be working in marketing.
True. A child does not exactly grow up dreaming about going into marketing - it kind of just happens to some of the weaker willed and morally challenged.
In order to go into marketing, one cannot be truly human. But it also goes to the fact that marketing is a career that one chooses once one has graduated college and realizes one has no other skills companies want.
... speed of reporting (which isn't currently an issue)
Maybe it's not an issued because results are issued on the same day. If the entire country went to paper ballots, as I advocate, you can bet it would become an issue, toot sweet.
There is a perception that e-voting machines are more accurate then current voting systems.
Excellently qualified, and a good point.
Some electronic voting systems require that the voter check their votes and show any errors
Personally, I think if someone is dumb enough to mark both 'yes" and "no" on a question, and cannot even properly mark a ballot, their reasoning abilities and the ability to decide an issue or select a candidate are highly suspect. Their disenfranchisement for that ballot should not be bemoaned.
However informed debate on the topic requires that e-voting skeptics understand the reasons that election officials choose these technology.
You are a gentleman and a scholar and I salute you.
Once again, I have to ask - what is the big goddamned rush to get election results that requires electronic voting machine? Why are people so frickin' hard to get the results of an election, like, on election day.
People should just chill, let a team of little old ladies count PAPER BALLOTS marked in PENCIL or PEN, and get the VERIFIABLE RESULTS a week or so later.
That is a truly AWFUL suggestion! I can see it right now... New York to Los Angeles - hour after hour of listening to some type A-hole suspender jockey with a Gordon Gekko haircut go on and on about the back nine he shot yesterday with Wilson, and how the buy-back offer is on the table, and how his son Joshua is doing at Montessori - I would have to tear an artery out of my wrist with my bare teeth to find ultimate relief from that living hell.
Reading those awards is a very depressing experience. It really drives home the simple-mindedness of so many authority figures. I found it mind-boggling that people can be so stupid and lack basic insight and 'common sense'.
I guess it all goes to the nature of the world these days. Whereas these imbiciles would have died naturally, thousands of years ago due to lack of common sense, today, it's "survival of the fattest" and stupidist. The law of Natural Selection is now null and void - one can be a total jackass and thrive, and not only thrive, but be a leader.
And here's a general idea: Next time you feel yourself getting really INDIGNANT and ANGRY about something you don't UNDERSTAND, you might want to stop and think about it, or maybe look into it, before posting a BLITHERING SCREED that makes you look like an ignorant nitwit.:)
Oh, no no no. THAT was NOT a 'blithering screed'. This, however is:
Here's the general idea dirtbag. I was at a light in downtown Denver just last night, it was raining, there was VERY little ped. traffic, at about 6:30 PM. Waiting at a 4 way stop for the non-existant pedestrians to cross. It was pretty fuckin' dumb then, and it is pretty fuckin' dumb now. I hope I have made it clear where I was coming from, dirtbag.
Denver, however, not only allows right turn on red, but in some cases, LEFT turn on red.
They'd better. Denver's whack. Is there any other town in the WORLD where pedestrians can cross an intersection DIAGONALLY, right through the center of the intersection? So that pedestrians can pull off this amazing stunt, you'll be sitting at a four way stop light for a minute or so to allow granny to walk through THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.
With weird ass customs such as this, Denven had BETTER allow left turns on red!
But I see what you were driving at. What I meant is that emotions are non-logical, as in they don't enter the logical realm, and can't really be called logical OR illogical, because they are not even OF logic.
I should obviously have said something like "emotions are not bound by logic" or some such.
That's a good point. I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants,
I don't know, either, but it's a fact. Not logical, but it's a fact. There are few things more annoying, and don't bother telling me it's illogical; emotions are BY DEFINITION illogical.
I think it may be a Pavlovian response. Nine time out of ten, in the past, whenever I've seen somebody yakking it up in a restaurant, it was at the top of their voice, talking bullshit (and don't EVEN get me started on those yahoos who do it walkie-talkie style at Starbucks). So we get used to it - "cell phone in public" = "rude behaviour". This expectation becomes ingraned. People become so used to equating "cell phone in public" with "rude person" that the response becomes automatic. What happens, then, is even though a person may be politely using a cell phone, because of past experiences, the immediate knee-jerk response is "rude SOB".
I'm probably not alone in this but the "peeing calvin" stuff is quite an annoyance to most people who have read and enjoyed watterson's work.
Those Calvin sticker perform a useful service. Whenever I see one, I immediatly know the driver is a jackass, and I give him wide berth. Kind of serves the same purpose as those old "Baby On Board" signs.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people order diet pop with their quarter pounder.
Numbnuts:
Would you rather they order the full-sugared pop? Maybe they really have a hankering for a Quarter Pounder, are not necessarily proud of that, understand the laws of physics and that the hundred or so calorie difference between the diet and the regular version DO matter, and are at least making ONE good choice (or one less bad choice). Why does it have to be all or nothing with guys like you? Ay carrumba.
Not sure if you have realized this by now, or if its even still applicable with the newer versions of SETI@Home, but when I was running it on my old PC, I found process time/unit was cut in half if I turned off the graphical screen saver.
I don't think you understand why fat bastards like me like the screen saver.
You see, we long for the day when that beautiful receptionist stops by our cube and asks, "Why, Milton, what is that on your screen?"
Then, my chest will puff up, and I will say, "You see, Daphne, I am searching for Extraterrestrial Life!"
And then Daphne will swoon, and realize how intelligent and deep I am, and will stop going out with that guy from marketing, and all will be swell!
I can't wait.
Signed,
Fat Bastard Loser.
computer: British in origin, but developed to its current form mostly by Americans
The British gave up on making computers because they could not figure out how to get them to leak oil.
Your sig:
"Slashdot, where saying something everyone hates turns you into a Troll even if it makes a point."
You don't seem to truly grok what the purpose of moderation is. Properly understood, it is not a 'reward' or 'penalty'. It is to be ultimately used by readers so that they can read what they find interesting, and block out the "things everyone hates".
Sorry, it ceases to become a "personal choice" when your choice is polluting the environment and causing greater danger to people who choose cars that aren't the size of small towns
No need to be sorry.
Where does it stop, though? Why not make carpooling mandatory? Why not force people to walk whenever they are within walking distance of a destination? Why not make everybody drive "Deux Cheveaux" ("Two Horsepower") vehicles? Why not make everyone ride around in mopeds when they are alone and not hauling cargo? Why not outlaw motorcycles, seeing as they take such damage when a Geo hits it, or outlaw anything larger than a motorcycle, since they are such a danger to bicyclists?
Where _does_ it stop? You want to take Joe Asshole's expedition, but Stanley Sprout wants to take your Honda and make you ride a bicycle.
Unless you can honestly tell me that you have never judged anyone based on the kind of vehicle they drive (or for that matter, the kind of music they listen to, the kind of food they eat, or any other product they've purchased), you're not standing on any kind of moral high ground.
Yes, I AM standing on a kind of moral high ground. I recognize my tendency, and others tendency, to be judgmental about other's choices, and I conciously try to mitigate those feelings and will never conciously act on them. One's thoughts can be impure, but that does not have to translate into action.
I'm just sick and tired of people trying to impose their tastes and values and sensibilities on others, when all they are just trying to enjoy their life a bit in an otherwise brutal and tearful existance.
You gripe about their 'bad taste' and 'gullibility'. Once again, I take and can claim the 'high ground' because I recognize those feelings for what they are, and I don't foster them, and I remind myself that taste is subjective, and what one man finds delicious and desirable, the other finds tasteless and ugly.
What's to like?
Why do you care? The fact of the matter is, the owner likes it. He probably thinks the things you hold in esteem are dumb, as well.
You mean like driving a family around while not looking like you're driving a station wagon.
What? That's not what SUVs are for? Right.
Exactly. Well said, my brother. It gets mighty tiresome, those loads going on and on about how the guy with the pickup never picks anything up, or the guy with the 4 X 4 never goes off road.
Very school-marmish. What is wrong with buying and driving a car - well - because one LIKES it? Why is that contemptable to so many people? And why do so many people feel the need to piss on another person's preferances as being 'illogical'?
Before I buy a PVR its going to have to be able to handle at least two digital streams at once...
.50 cents a day for the privilige of never needing to sit through another commercial again. It was, and is WELL, WELL worth the price, and I just can't concieve having to deal with those inane, insulting, idiotic commercials again.
Whatever. I figured, at about $300 for my Tivo, if it lasted two years, that's
Personally, you are a steaming load.
There is, however, nothing new about war time atrocities. The only difference, these days, is that they cannot be as easily covered up and hidden.
To wit: my old man served in Korea. When he got out, he burned his uniform. Here's one reason why. His commander gave him a pistol and a POW, and told him to take the POW beyond some hill and shoot him. My old man took the POW, shot the gun in the air, and told the POW to scram.
Scenes like that, and like we're hearing about, are a natural result of war, and are natural in war. If we don't want to see American soldiers doing this kind of stuff, the only option is to stop being the world's cop, and bring American troops home. Until that happens, however, the world will see more and more atrocities, will blame America more and more, and America and Americans will be hated more and more.
but marketing in and of itself is NOT bad.
;). It is a disservice, unnecessary, a blight on society, and ugly. I cast general aspersions about it, and wave my naughty bits at the concept.
It is, when the general idea is to force unwilling viewers to waste their cycles processing information that is intrusive, ugly, not wanted, generally tasteless, and offensive to ones intelligence. It's like having to see dog dirt everywhere you go. It sucks, and I challenge the idea that it is even necessary. The world is brutal enough without these moral reprobates smacking me in the cranium with their advertising two by four every time I turn around.
If your new product is so great, and fills a need, there will be no need to shove pictures of it in front of everybody's face against their will. People who like it will write about it and recommend it and read about it voluntarily.
It's like that with movies, to me. I seek out Ebert and Roeper's reviews, watch them, and go to see movies they recommend. Paramount or Fox does not have to force me to learn about their works - if they are good, I will learn about it, and without advertising. Same thing with the food I eat, the computer I use, the car I drive. I seek out information from knowledgable sources, learn what will fill my needs, and go out and consume. I don't need some suspender wearing, BMW-driving, latte sipping, golf club toating gekko FORCING me to become aware of his shit so he can afford to send Jeremy to Montessori and summer at the Vineyard.
Unwanted, intrusive advertising coarsens society, and makes people more cynical (just look at me
Marketing is an industry where the idea is to insinuate onesself where one is not wanted. An honest and upright man will not go where he is not wanted - marketers make a living at it.
There ARE immoral jobs. Marketing is one of them, albeit this side of manufacturing nerve gasses, but it is still not an occupation a good man should aspire to. Of course, if one has to feed his kids, etc, etc, but that is just goes to the old adage 'it is permissable to commite a lesser crime to prevent a greater crime'.
If the people who are working on this actually cared about offending people, they wouldn't be working in marketing.
True. A child does not exactly grow up dreaming about going into marketing - it kind of just happens to some of the weaker willed and morally challenged.
In order to go into marketing, one cannot be truly human. But it also goes to the fact that marketing is a career that one chooses once one has graduated college and realizes one has no other skills companies want.
Once again, I have to answer
... speed of reporting (which isn't currently an issue)
Thank you. Much abliged.
Maybe it's not an issued because results are issued on the same day. If the entire country went to paper ballots, as I advocate, you can bet it would become an issue, toot sweet.
There is a perception that e-voting machines are more accurate then current voting systems.
Excellently qualified, and a good point.
Some electronic voting systems require that the voter check their votes and show any errors
Personally, I think if someone is dumb enough to mark both 'yes" and "no" on a question, and cannot even properly mark a ballot, their reasoning abilities and the ability to decide an issue or select a candidate are highly suspect. Their disenfranchisement for that ballot should not be bemoaned.
However informed debate on the topic requires that e-voting skeptics understand the reasons that election officials choose these technology.
You are a gentleman and a scholar and I salute you.
Once again, I have to ask - what is the big goddamned rush to get election results that requires electronic voting machine? Why are people so frickin' hard to get the results of an election, like, on election day.
People should just chill, let a team of little old ladies count PAPER BALLOTS marked in PENCIL or PEN, and get the VERIFIABLE RESULTS a week or so later.
Gordon Gekko was a character in Oliver Stone's movie, "Wall Street". He wore his hair greasy and slicked back, in a style favored by some businessmen.
That is a truly AWFUL suggestion! I can see it right now... New York to Los Angeles - hour after hour of listening to some type A-hole suspender jockey with a Gordon Gekko haircut go on and on about the back nine he shot yesterday with Wilson, and how the buy-back offer is on the table, and how his son Joshua is doing at Montessori - I would have to tear an artery out of my wrist with my bare teeth to find ultimate relief from that living hell.
Reading those awards is a very depressing experience. It really drives home the simple-mindedness of so many authority figures. I found it mind-boggling that people can be so stupid and lack basic insight and 'common sense'.
I guess it all goes to the nature of the world these days. Whereas these imbiciles would have died naturally, thousands of years ago due to lack of common sense, today, it's "survival of the fattest" and stupidist. The law of Natural Selection is now null and void - one can be a total jackass and thrive, and not only thrive, but be a leader.
Something I am worried about, is will Microsoft have anything to do with the coding?
Exactly. I'd feel MUCH better knowing that that bastion of mental health, RMS, was involved in hacking my brain.
And here's a general idea: Next time you feel yourself getting really INDIGNANT and ANGRY about something you don't UNDERSTAND, you might want to stop and think about it, or maybe look into it, before posting a BLITHERING SCREED that makes you look like an ignorant nitwit. :)
Oh, no no no. THAT was NOT a 'blithering screed'. This, however is:
Here's the general idea dirtbag. I was at a light in downtown Denver just last night, it was raining, there was VERY little ped. traffic, at about 6:30 PM. Waiting at a 4 way stop for the non-existant pedestrians to cross. It was pretty fuckin' dumb then, and it is pretty fuckin' dumb now. I hope I have made it clear where I was coming from, dirtbag.
Denver, however, not only allows right turn on red, but in some cases, LEFT turn on red.
They'd better. Denver's whack. Is there any other town in the WORLD where pedestrians can cross an intersection DIAGONALLY, right through the center of the intersection? So that pedestrians can pull off this amazing stunt, you'll be sitting at a four way stop light for a minute or so to allow granny to walk through THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.
With weird ass customs such as this, Denven had BETTER allow left turns on red!
who says emotions are illogical by definition??
;)
Me
But I see what you were driving at. What I meant is that emotions are non-logical, as in they don't enter the logical realm, and can't really be called logical OR illogical, because they are not even OF logic.
I should obviously have said something like "emotions are not bound by logic" or some such.
They must have known that if the username/password would leak, the impact would be huge.
One would think. I figured Cisco stock would be in for a hit today, but at the close, it's only down 0.37%.
That's why I've stopped playing the market. What makes sense to me does not make sense to the market, and vice versa.
That's a good point. I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants,
I don't know, either, but it's a fact. Not logical, but it's a fact. There are few things more annoying, and don't bother telling me it's illogical; emotions are BY DEFINITION illogical.
I think it may be a Pavlovian response. Nine time out of ten, in the past, whenever I've seen somebody yakking it up in a restaurant, it was at the top of their voice, talking bullshit (and don't EVEN get me started on those yahoos who do it walkie-talkie style at Starbucks). So we get used to it - "cell phone in public" = "rude behaviour". This expectation becomes ingraned. People become so used to equating "cell phone in public" with "rude person" that the response becomes automatic. What happens, then, is even though a person may be politely using a cell phone, because of past experiences, the immediate knee-jerk response is "rude SOB".
I'm probably not alone in this but the "peeing calvin" stuff is quite an annoyance to most people who have read and enjoyed watterson's work.
Those Calvin sticker perform a useful service. Whenever I see one, I immediatly know the driver is a jackass, and I give him wide berth. Kind of serves the same purpose as those old "Baby On Board" signs.