I have done this kind of work actually. I've basically lived at the office sometimes for weeks on end. Going home every other day or just going home to sleep and shower. There's a little motel near the office building and I've gone there more than a few times just because I can't deal with it. I've had people in sleeping bags in the office a few times.
Let us be adults here for a moment. Adults can make their own choices. If you don't want to work for the company... Don't. No one is forcing you to do it. Quit. No one will blame you. It just wasn't for you. Some people can hack it in some industries and some people cannot. If you can't hack it... Leave.
As to pay... the Amazon people are well paid.
Amazon has already addressed this... the people we're talking about exist in a competitive work environment. If Amazon is not offering a competitive wage and people don't want to work for amazon... then they can go work for someone else.
This is high demand labor. They can work wherever they want.
The NYTs wants to fight the Washington Post. I'm quite certain this is just GAME ON. Why they think they can win a fight like that is beyond me but who knows with these people.
The NYTs has been shedding credibility, market share, and copious amounts of money for decades. Good luck.
So you don't accept state wide university policy from a state that is dominated by progressive politics? You need a survey?
Who would have to do that survey? I assume not just anyone, right? I mean... so we'd literally need a Pew poll?
Your criteria are unreasonably limited. Would you say that white southerners during slavery were racist?
Did you take a poll?:D
Your criteria is idiotic. good game... I just wanted to see what it would take to make you drop to you knees. But even if I provided that, I really doubt you'd accept it.
Being insulting doesn't have anything to do with sophistry or stoicism.
A branch of stoicism is Cynicism and that was founded by Diogenes... who on occasion would literally urinate or spit into the face of people that annoyed him.
As to insults when I said the same thing... Nope. My argument is that tanks CAN operate independently just like infantry when EITHER of them has the right circumstances.
You didn't make that argument. What you're doing in your weasely little way is trying to change your position ex post facto to mine.
So you want to agree with me without admitting you agree.
This is why you're so CUTE Dbill... *kisses dbill right on the lips bugs bunny style"... Never change.
I would need to be able to physically pull the bios memory chip and plug it into another machine... and write lock it when I wasn't messing with it... to even begin to feel comfortable with this feature.
Its a thing, kitten. It is trivially easy to cite systemic example after systemic example after systemic example.
Not an individual... but rather... individuals... individuals in places of power, authority, and with the respect and support of millions of tweedle dees and tweedle fuckwits.
... yes if you drivers are infected then you'll have infected your machine. But if you have version control and known good copies then you can negate the issue by overwriting everything with known goods.
You can erase and verify the erasure of all writable memory, then write the known good bios and drivers.
Make constructive comments please. Anyone can gainsay anything. You can gainsay water, air, the Sun...its not hard to do. Be constructive. Its the only potentially useful thing.
Login, Troll and we'll continue this. If you don't then I don't even know who I'm talking to. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to keep your AC fucks straight.
Its all sourced. If you want to debate any one of them we can do that. And if you think I don't have fucking hundreds more where that came from you're in for a treat.
My next move will be to cite the University of California list of Micro Aggressions. They're awesome.
And no, it isn't one fucktard. Its an entire culture of fucktards. You don't get policies charge in universities around the country to make this garbage policy if its just one person.
As to some guy on a blog that was a nut case... did he try to redefine words, censor you, or police speech? Yes or no? Because saying "other people are stupid tooooo!"... is not relevant. Progressives are stupid in a specific way and that's what I was referring to. I was not saying that no one else in the history of the world has ever also been a fucktard. That would be silly.
As to one dude believing something crazy... sure. We're not talking about one dude. We're talking about maybe 20 percent of the country who are progressives... of them... maybe half are seriously progressive where as the other half are sort of guilted into it and don't take it that seriously.
If that 10 percent can be shamed back into the anus they climbed out of... and by all means... shame 10 percent on the right that are equally odious for their own reasons. Then the remaining 80 percent might have a reasonable dialog. But so long as people keep redefining words whenever they lose an argument, or censoring their opposition because they can't handle a debate... we're never going to get anywhere.
As to the added cost... I'll pay it. Fucking charge me for it. I'll pay the extra 10 dollars for the feature. Other people don't want to pay it? Don't. I want that feature. Its well worth the 2~10 dollars it would cost to do that.
I want the want the writable memory chip to be a micro SD card. or something equally easy to plug into another machine to independently wipe it and verify that its wiped.
Let me add some additional benefits of this... DRIVERS.
If we use an SD card, then we can put more stuff on it than just the bios. OR the bios could be fucking massive. Either concept has some interesting possibilities.
Imagine if the OS queried the motherboard for drivers. We could store viable copies of the drivers the system needs to use most of the installed hardware. That's nifty. Reinstall... no need to go hunting around for the right driver files. Automatically installed... actually. Not in theory... but actually. Anyone that has built a lot of machines knows what I'm talking about.
And a giant bios could mean the bios could have a lot of additional functionality built into it. Not just the man behind the curtain.
The last thing I want is my firmware getting updated automatically.
I'd really like for all writable memory in my computer to be removable. And that includes the bios memory. Have it be a micro SD card or something.
Here someone will say it will make the machine take 1 second longer to boot up or OH NOES the mobo will cost 10 cents more to make. But its worth it. It means you can audit the system to check for viruses really easily. You pull the chip, plug it into a clean system, and scan it. Or if you prefer... wipe it. Write the whole thing with ones then zeros... and then flash it with a proper version of the bios.
And this also means that corrupted bios memory is less of a problem. You can pull the chip. Sure, if the processors or something else is damaged then this won't help. But i've had a few mobos that were totally fine except the bios was so corrupt you couldn't flash a fresh version. With this change, that problem is gone.
Cue people saying "you can't do that because no one has done it that way yet"... climb a fucking tree so I can throw bananas at you then, you filthy animal!:-D
If you want to have a more substantive discussion on how right I am... login. I can't keep the ACs straight. One AC says X, another AC says Y... I respond to either X or Y and the AC i'm talking to invariably says "I didn't say that"... login. Or you're just going to get a onesided lecture out of me. I can't engage in dialog with ACs because they don't label themselves.
I spent literally 5 seconds looking for an example and found this gem. So many good examples. Dare you to show me anyone else.... Anyone. Anyone that is trying to manipulate speech as hard as progressives. They are the number one world champions of fucking with language to try and manipulate the public dialog.
1. "Baa, Baa Black Sheep" The nursery rhyme... from the middle ages... racist apparently. Except it has nothing to do with race.
2. The word "master" in any context is racist... so a "master's degree" is racist. If you're a progressive moron.
3. Liking "white meat"... as in chicken breasts instead of thighs... is racist. If you're a progressive moron.
4. Hoop skirts are apparently racist... Because white southern women used to wear them. Do you know what white southerners also used to wear?... Pants, why aren't they racist? Fuckwits.
5. Lunch bags are racist if you call them "brown bags"... Apparently the words "white", "black", and "brown" are all racist in any context. Maybe we should ban colors in general? Oh wait, then we'd be color blind and that's racist too. Fuck.
6. Meritocracy in any form is apparently racist and sexist... basically this is just the progressives channeling their marxist roots.
7. The terms "liberty" and "freedom" are racist.... Which really does a lot of prove old Orwell right, no?
""George Orwell âoeWar is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."" - Orwell
We saw you morons coming generations ago.
8. Climate change is racism apparently as well... because... who needs to be rational.
9. Having a dress code that requires people to wear pants that fit or wear belts so their pants don't fall down is racist as well.
10. And any situation that is majority white people is also racist.
Its too easy, shithead. You can't win... you're wrong. Accept it and be less embarrassing specimen of the species going forward. The rest of humanity would appreciate it.
So... you say I am projecting... lets see where you back that up... anywhere.
First sentence... conservatives do X... well, I'm talking about progressives here... not everyone on the left. Most people on the left are not progressives. Progressives are to liberals what sister fucking red necks are to conservatives. Just so we're clear.
Second, you say I didn't learn the meaning of words? I got a near perfect score on the English portion of my SAT's, chump. I know what the words mean.
Third, to conservatives being all about divisiveness... no. Its not the conservatives trying to create class wars, gender wars, race wars, wars between labor and business, and basically divide and conquer everywhere. You're actually the one projecting there, cupcake.
Fourth, as to projecting inadequacies... that doesn't even make sense in this context. I think you're just repeating insults you heard somewhere that you think sound "smart". Word to the wise, when you use an insult in the wrong context you sound stupid. Just for future reference.
Fifth, jumping to conclusions? Can you name one instance where a mass shooting my a muslim in Europe or America was not religiously motivated? Just one. And furthermore, what is the harm in jumping to conclusions? Look, if I open a door and smoke pours out... is it reasonable for me to jump to the conclusion that there is a fire? Because smoke doesn't have to come from an active fire. The smoke could be stale from a burned out fire. Or the smoke could have been blown into that room from another location. Or it could just look like smoke but it isn't actually.
See, you use this "don't jump to conclusions" argument when the conclusion I'm going to jump to is inconvenient for your narrative. Reverse the situation... lets say a guy covered in confederate flags shoots a bunch of black people. Would it be presumptuous to assume the attack was racially motivated? See, you have no problem jumping to conclusions when it serves your narrative. But when it doesn't... then suddenly you think it is "irresponsible". You're so full of shit its funny. And the funniest part is that you're so brainwashed you don't even realize what a fuckwit you are.
People are going to assume. Everyone is going to assume Assuming is something done everywhere by everyone and the more you know about anything the more you assume... not the less. Because you know enough to make an informed and intelligent assumption. If I hear a pitter patter on my roof... I assume its raining. Assumptions. We all make them. You for example assumed I'm a conservative. I'm not. But you assumed that because in your experience most people that attack progressives for being the slackjawed fucktards that they are... are conservatives. But you're wrong. I'm not a conservative. I'm also not a christian. I'm also not religious. And frankly I doubt you'd even begin to understand anything outside of your pathetic binary US vs THEM progressive shitshow.
You're saying that I play with language, redefine words to suit my narrative, manipulate the media, ban words, misrepresent situations to suit my narrative, hide inconvenient realities, or otherwise push my preferred narrative no matter how irrational or baseless it is?
is that what you're implying?
Because these are falsifiable arguments.
Did I redefine language anywhere or would you like to associate me with some other group that does that? Lets see your argument. We can see on the issue of islamic terrorism that the progressives like to call it anything but terrorism and like to underplay the role of islam in the incidents when they're clearly central. But I'm open to your argument.
As to redefining words, no one outside of the old soviets is as likely to redefine words simply to misrepresent situations than the progressives. Its their go to solution to any political problem. They label a box of shit a box of apple pie and then call the problem solved. Its how they operate.
As to manipulating the media... I'd love to see your argument there. I can give many examples of the progressives manipulating the media. But if you think any group I might be associated with has done that, hit me with your best shot.
As to banning words... again, like the redefinition thing... its the progressives that are the arch censors of the 21st century. The nonsense coming out of them these days is pretty much to the level of book burning at this point.
I could go on... but you get the gist. If you want back up your argument then come at me, bro. A cheap comment followed by you running away is about what I expect from you. Surprise me by holding your ground.
... yeah okay so the picture shows that in their keyboard they're putting the 6 key a couple milometers one way versus the other... but it doesn't matter.
What is more the statement "in some countries people do X instead of Y"... in regards to pressing the six key with the right or left hand... no one gives a shit. People do either and both.
It varies very slightly from one keyboard to the next.
On mine for example... it appears to be so close to the middle that I can't really tell... I've looked at it a few times and it might be going right a bit... by maybe a millimeter. But I have no greater difficulty pressing that button with the right or left hand. So... effectively the middle.
Its all about narrative for the progressives. They like to play with language, redefine words, ban words, rephrase things... and its all to misrepresent situations, hide inconvenient realities, or otherwise push their preferred narrative no matter how irrational or baseless it is...
You see it everywhere on anything they really care about it. Look at the terms they use for things. Its all weird terms that were clearly concocted to avoid using another term that is actually more descriptive.
Its part of why whenever you see a crime happen that feeds into a narrative they don't like, they'll start suppressing the bits of information that allow you to make the obvious association. You typically need to do a search, go through four or five articles just to finally see the mask slip somewhere.
The internet is a wonderful thing though. The progressives can't control it which means they can only control the narrative in their little echo chambers and hug boxes which are increasingly turning into mental straightjackets that serve only to leave the progressives unprepared for addressing the public argument.
Though I think the real take away is that you shouldn't give visas to people that hate your country and want to kill your people.
Isn't that the real take away here?
As to trained people... we had that marine recruiting station in the US that was attacked by a similar muslim whack job. The marines couldn't defend themselves because they didn't have weapons. So... the NRA point is frankly valid... I mean... I'm just saying arm trained soldiers. Is that rocket science?
I guess some people will say "well, we don't want people with guns inside of this shopping mall"... Fine... don't put the recruiting station in the mall then. Put it right next door in a different building that the landlord will feel less politically pressured to impose irrational rules. And then put up some advertisements inside the mall that say "if you want to join the armed forces, we're in the next building."... done.
As to the TSA... the TSA is largely ineffective because they go for security theater instead of doing what the Israelis do... which is actually know who is getting on a plane. They know who you are if you board a plane in israel. They do background checks. And if you're a nut job then you're not getting on a plane.
That's their system. And its frankly the only security measure that is going to work. Rather than filtering for bombs or weapons you should filter for PEOPLE.
Bad people will find ways to do bad things. You can ban whatever you like and bad people will find ways to kill people. How many people do you think I could kill with my car? Dozens easily especially if I didn't care if I lived or not.
How many people are inside a restaurant on a friday night? Hundreds in some cases... Think like a monster for a moment. People are so vulnerable and there really isn't any way to protect yourself besides simply not permitting these people in the country in the first place.
Here someone is going to say I'm being bigoted or racist or something. I didn't say anything about banning a race or even a religion. I'm talking about crazy people or people that hate the country. Not people that just happen to come from country X or religion Y. And here someone will say "but how do you know"... these guys are known. They've all had files. They make these trips, they are known to move in radical circles... its not that controversial.
Really the whole basis of the argument is that they couldn't translate WoW gamers into other MMOs. Okay. But that doesn't mean there aren't gamers for given genres.
Take RTS games... there are absolutely RTS gamers.
FPS gamers? Oh yes. There are some gamers that that is what they play pretty much period.
Stealth games? Yuuup.
Adventure games... you know the point and click things... there are some people that that is all they play.
Now are there people that cross a lot of lines? sure. But just as with movies, you have people that prefer given types of movies.
I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies but I do like really stupid science fiction action movies... ideally with lots of explosions and slimy aliens. I make no excuses for this... its just a thing.
And the thing is that gaming is the same way. People have things they like and they're going to focus on games that give them that.
I think part of the problem is mis-identifying what the genres actually are in the first place.
The compelling thing about WoW from what I understand was the community... people would make friends and form guilds and stuff. If you look at games like Eve which is another very long running MMO, it also has that social aspect to it. I think a lot of the MMOs don't really understand that the MMO is basically a complicated facebook game. Its farmville in 3d with RPG elements... no offense... its just more about the community than it is about the game.
And I think THAT is what is elusive about MMOs for many companies. I also don't even know how you'd launch an MMO under that doctrine. Maybe partner with Facebook? I don't know.
I also think the subscription model that everyone assumes is going to be viable likely not something that even Blizzard could maintain indefinitely.
Maybe you could do it if you dropped the sub price down quite a bit. Make it three dollars a month for the sub and that's so cheap that its hard to complain about it.
Bezos has extra incentive to f' over the NYT now... cool. Couldn't happen to a more vile den of vipers.
Kids, if you think these are bad work schedules, try working in the oil industry and deploying to Alaska or an oil derrick. Or consider if you will deploying into a combat zone in the military... not only the long hours but an actual threat of death.
The job market for the people we're talking about is competitive. If people don't want to work at Amazon they don't have to. They can get a job with anyone else.
This is obviously a hit piece by the NYT for some reason. And whatever you might think about that... that is how Amazon sees it, how Bezos sees it, and if he can use the Washington Post to make the NYT's life hell... he's got extra incentive to do it.
Raise your hand for which CEO is more competent and dangerous when he gets pissed... the Bezos or whichever clown is running the NYTs into the ground?
This is stupid. I'm not saying the NYT shouldn't report on real stories. I contend that this isn't a real story. I contend that it is a hit piece and they're slapping someone that is so far outside of their weight class it isn't even funny.
What the NYT thinks it is doing is beyond me.
Cue the hordes of fucktwits saying that NYT is just sticking it to the man. The NYT is an establishment newspaper owned by an old money NY family. They are the man, fucktwit. Bezos is the new money upstart.
A security council seat isn't worth that much especially when Russia's vote can be bought much more cheaply than that.
China is only going to care about SOME votes and in that vein China then only has to care about votes where Russia wouldn't already vote the way China wants them to vote. And then they have to look at what the other security council members are doing because 2 votes isn't enough to carry a vote by itself..
When you drill down through it, you're talking about votes that the Western powers wouldn't unanimously vote down or UN-unanimously veto. Then that Russia would not automatically support, but that Russia could be bribed to support, then that China wants to pass.
You're talking about a tiny tiny tiny portion of votes. And the reality is that what is any of that worth? If whatever it is the US doesn't like... we'll just Veto it. So... what did that accomplish?
A security council vote isn't worth that much. We gave one to France. Just as an example of it not being that valuable. The point of the UN is mostly to keep everyone talking in a Western/First World super embassy. The UN is basically to NATO what the US military is to the State Department. The UN is a Western diplomatic alliance and organization used to promote the interests of the First world. That china or russia have seats serves US interests more than it serves theirs if you understand the geopolitics. It gets them to legitimize the organization. If it were just the US and the Europeans it would be obvious what it is... but we throw in some powerful people outside the alliance with subordinate power... and we call it a global thing.
Americans are not as stupid some like to think we are... You don't get this powerful by being dumb.
As to Africa, the long term significance of that is dubious. You're talking about a very fractious part of the world where alliances and agreements are not reliable and people don't stay bribed. You have to keep paying them and that gets expensive.
As to the only customer for Russian resources... that's not in Russia's interests. You're basically suggesting Russia become to China what Canada is to the US. And the problem there is that the US and Canada do trust each other. We have very similar cultures and both sides know that the US would die to protect Canada and the US knows that Canada is not going to stab us in the back. Russia and China will never have that relationship.
As to it being a win win for china... China doesn't need Russia. And when you look at what Russia could offer versus what Russia would need from China... it isn't practical for China. Russia isn't worth it.
Now if Russia went with a western alliance, the entire cost structure changes. Because the US would focus not on making Russia dependent but on making Russia profitable... think Japan or South Korea or Germany. Part of our process of integrating a country into the first world is that we make them profitable. This would allow the Russians to hold their own territory without long term investment from us. And the expenses would be compensated for by the understanding that Russia wouldn't just be another profitable country trading in our alliance, but they'd also be a military and poltiical power we could call on if we needed to put pressure somewhere.
China will never use Russia that way. if they add Russia to something they're going to want Russia weak and controllable which will reduce their value and require china to continuously protect them.
Russia has two options from what I can see for long term survival.
1. They can make this "go it alone" strategy work. I don't think it will. I think they're just headed for another collapse.
2. Western alliance. We can save them, make them rich, stop the brain drain, make them more powerful than they've ever been at any point in their history including at the height of Stalin's power... far far beyond that.
That's it. Protectorate of china is a dead end. The Chinese don't see anything in Russia worth that kind of exp
Slashdot Mirror
Not even remotely similar.
I have done this kind of work actually. I've basically lived at the office sometimes for weeks on end. Going home every other day or just going home to sleep and shower. There's a little motel near the office building and I've gone there more than a few times just because I can't deal with it. I've had people in sleeping bags in the office a few times.
Let us be adults here for a moment. Adults can make their own choices. If you don't want to work for the company... Don't. No one is forcing you to do it. Quit. No one will blame you. It just wasn't for you. Some people can hack it in some industries and some people cannot. If you can't hack it... Leave.
As to pay... the Amazon people are well paid.
Amazon has already addressed this... the people we're talking about exist in a competitive work environment. If Amazon is not offering a competitive wage and people don't want to work for amazon... then they can go work for someone else.
This is high demand labor. They can work wherever they want.
The NYTs wants to fight the Washington Post. I'm quite certain this is just GAME ON. Why they think they can win a fight like that is beyond me but who knows with these people.
The NYTs has been shedding credibility, market share, and copious amounts of money for decades. Good luck.
So you don't accept state wide university policy from a state that is dominated by progressive politics? You need a survey?
Who would have to do that survey? I assume not just anyone, right? I mean... so we'd literally need a Pew poll?
Your criteria are unreasonably limited. Would you say that white southerners during slavery were racist?
Did you take a poll? :D
Your criteria is idiotic. good game... I just wanted to see what it would take to make you drop to you knees. But even if I provided that, I really doubt you'd accept it.
Being insulting doesn't have anything to do with sophistry or stoicism.
A branch of stoicism is Cynicism and that was founded by Diogenes... who on occasion would literally urinate or spit into the face of people that annoyed him.
As to insults when I said the same thing... Nope. My argument is that tanks CAN operate independently just like infantry when EITHER of them has the right circumstances.
You didn't make that argument. What you're doing in your weasely little way is trying to change your position ex post facto to mine.
So you want to agree with me without admitting you agree.
This is why you're so CUTE Dbill... *kisses dbill right on the lips bugs bunny style"... Never change.
I would need to be able to physically pull the bios memory chip and plug it into another machine... and write lock it when I wasn't messing with it... to even begin to feel comfortable with this feature.
*laughs*
Okay, shithead. Tell me what it would take you to admit you were wrong?
What bit of evidence would I need to provide to make you just say "oh... I was wrong... sorry."
What would that take. Tell me so we can end this farce.
Nuuuup.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
Its a thing, kitten. It is trivially easy to cite systemic example after systemic example after systemic example.
Not an individual... but rather... individuals... individuals in places of power, authority, and with the respect and support of millions of tweedle dees and tweedle fuckwits.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"Cue people saying "you can't do that because no one has done it that way yet""
I can't tell if you're kidding... or if I'm psychic but forgot to buy bananas.
... yes if you drivers are infected then you'll have infected your machine. But if you have version control and known good copies then you can negate the issue by overwriting everything with known goods.
You can erase and verify the erasure of all writable memory, then write the known good bios and drivers.
Make constructive comments please. Anyone can gainsay anything. You can gainsay water, air, the Sun...its not hard to do. Be constructive. Its the only potentially useful thing.
Login, Troll and we'll continue this. If you don't then I don't even know who I'm talking to. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to keep your AC fucks straight.
Its all sourced. If you want to debate any one of them we can do that. And if you think I don't have fucking hundreds more where that came from you're in for a treat.
My next move will be to cite the University of California list of Micro Aggressions. They're awesome.
And no, it isn't one fucktard. Its an entire culture of fucktards. You don't get policies charge in universities around the country to make this garbage policy if its just one person.
As to some guy on a blog that was a nut case... did he try to redefine words, censor you, or police speech? Yes or no? Because saying "other people are stupid tooooo!"... is not relevant. Progressives are stupid in a specific way and that's what I was referring to. I was not saying that no one else in the history of the world has ever also been a fucktard. That would be silly.
As to one dude believing something crazy... sure. We're not talking about one dude. We're talking about maybe 20 percent of the country who are progressives... of them... maybe half are seriously progressive where as the other half are sort of guilted into it and don't take it that seriously.
If that 10 percent can be shamed back into the anus they climbed out of... and by all means... shame 10 percent on the right that are equally odious for their own reasons. Then the remaining 80 percent might have a reasonable dialog. But so long as people keep redefining words whenever they lose an argument, or censoring their opposition because they can't handle a debate... we're never going to get anywhere.
Because I want to pull it.
As to the added cost... I'll pay it. Fucking charge me for it. I'll pay the extra 10 dollars for the feature. Other people don't want to pay it? Don't. I want that feature. Its well worth the 2~10 dollars it would cost to do that.
I want the want the writable memory chip to be a micro SD card. or something equally easy to plug into another machine to independently wipe it and verify that its wiped.
Let me add some additional benefits of this... DRIVERS.
If we use an SD card, then we can put more stuff on it than just the bios. OR the bios could be fucking massive. Either concept has some interesting possibilities.
Imagine if the OS queried the motherboard for drivers. We could store viable copies of the drivers the system needs to use most of the installed hardware. That's nifty. Reinstall... no need to go hunting around for the right driver files. Automatically installed... actually. Not in theory... but actually. Anyone that has built a lot of machines knows what I'm talking about.
And a giant bios could mean the bios could have a lot of additional functionality built into it. Not just the man behind the curtain.
The last thing I want is my firmware getting updated automatically.
I'd really like for all writable memory in my computer to be removable. And that includes the bios memory. Have it be a micro SD card or something.
Here someone will say it will make the machine take 1 second longer to boot up or OH NOES the mobo will cost 10 cents more to make. But its worth it. It means you can audit the system to check for viruses really easily. You pull the chip, plug it into a clean system, and scan it. Or if you prefer... wipe it. Write the whole thing with ones then zeros... and then flash it with a proper version of the bios.
And this also means that corrupted bios memory is less of a problem. You can pull the chip. Sure, if the processors or something else is damaged then this won't help. But i've had a few mobos that were totally fine except the bios was so corrupt you couldn't flash a fresh version. With this change, that problem is gone.
Cue people saying "you can't do that because no one has done it that way yet"... climb a fucking tree so I can throw bananas at you then, you filthy animal! :-D
hey AC shithead, was ONE thing on that list inaccurate?
Fucking one?
Drowned in horse smegma. ;-)
No I'm not.
Every citation I threw out was progress retards.
Choke on it.
If you want to have a more substantive discussion on how right I am... login. I can't keep the ACs straight. One AC says X, another AC says Y... I respond to either X or Y and the AC i'm talking to invariably says "I didn't say that"... login. Or you're just going to get a onesided lecture out of me. I can't engage in dialog with ACs because they don't label themselves.
I spent literally 5 seconds looking for an example and found this gem. So many good examples. Dare you to show me anyone else.... Anyone. Anyone that is trying to manipulate speech as hard as progressives. They are the number one world champions of fucking with language to try and manipulate the public dialog.
This is a funny list of stupid words, phrase,etc that progressives want banned:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
1. "Baa, Baa Black Sheep" The nursery rhyme... from the middle ages... racist apparently. Except it has nothing to do with race.
2. The word "master" in any context is racist... so a "master's degree" is racist. If you're a progressive moron.
3. Liking "white meat"... as in chicken breasts instead of thighs... is racist. If you're a progressive moron.
4. Hoop skirts are apparently racist... Because white southern women used to wear them. Do you know what white southerners also used to wear?... Pants, why aren't they racist? Fuckwits.
5. Lunch bags are racist if you call them "brown bags"... Apparently the words "white", "black", and "brown" are all racist in any context. Maybe we should ban colors in general? Oh wait, then we'd be color blind and that's racist too. Fuck.
6. Meritocracy in any form is apparently racist and sexist... basically this is just the progressives channeling their marxist roots.
7. The terms "liberty" and "freedom" are racist.... Which really does a lot of prove old Orwell right, no?
""George Orwell
âoeWar is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.""
- Orwell
We saw you morons coming generations ago.
8. Climate change is racism apparently as well... because... who needs to be rational.
9. Having a dress code that requires people to wear pants that fit or wear belts so their pants don't fall down is racist as well.
10. And any situation that is majority white people is also racist.
Its too easy, shithead. You can't win... you're wrong. Accept it and be less embarrassing specimen of the species going forward. The rest of humanity would appreciate it.
So... you say I am projecting... lets see where you back that up... anywhere.
First sentence... conservatives do X... well, I'm talking about progressives here... not everyone on the left. Most people on the left are not progressives. Progressives are to liberals what sister fucking red necks are to conservatives. Just so we're clear.
Second, you say I didn't learn the meaning of words? I got a near perfect score on the English portion of my SAT's, chump. I know what the words mean.
Third, to conservatives being all about divisiveness... no. Its not the conservatives trying to create class wars, gender wars, race wars, wars between labor and business, and basically divide and conquer everywhere. You're actually the one projecting there, cupcake.
Fourth, as to projecting inadequacies... that doesn't even make sense in this context. I think you're just repeating insults you heard somewhere that you think sound "smart". Word to the wise, when you use an insult in the wrong context you sound stupid. Just for future reference.
Fifth, jumping to conclusions? Can you name one instance where a mass shooting my a muslim in Europe or America was not religiously motivated? Just one. And furthermore, what is the harm in jumping to conclusions? Look, if I open a door and smoke pours out... is it reasonable for me to jump to the conclusion that there is a fire? Because smoke doesn't have to come from an active fire. The smoke could be stale from a burned out fire. Or the smoke could have been blown into that room from another location. Or it could just look like smoke but it isn't actually.
See, you use this "don't jump to conclusions" argument when the conclusion I'm going to jump to is inconvenient for your narrative. Reverse the situation... lets say a guy covered in confederate flags shoots a bunch of black people. Would it be presumptuous to assume the attack was racially motivated? See, you have no problem jumping to conclusions when it serves your narrative. But when it doesn't... then suddenly you think it is "irresponsible". You're so full of shit its funny. And the funniest part is that you're so brainwashed you don't even realize what a fuckwit you are.
People are going to assume. Everyone is going to assume Assuming is something done everywhere by everyone and the more you know about anything the more you assume... not the less. Because you know enough to make an informed and intelligent assumption. If I hear a pitter patter on my roof... I assume its raining. Assumptions. We all make them. You for example assumed I'm a conservative. I'm not. But you assumed that because in your experience most people that attack progressives for being the slackjawed fucktards that they are... are conservatives. But you're wrong. I'm not a conservative. I'm also not a christian. I'm also not religious. And frankly I doubt you'd even begin to understand anything outside of your pathetic binary US vs THEM progressive shitshow.
In what way was I projecting?
You're saying that I play with language, redefine words to suit my narrative, manipulate the media, ban words, misrepresent situations to suit my narrative, hide inconvenient realities, or otherwise push my preferred narrative no matter how irrational or baseless it is?
is that what you're implying?
Because these are falsifiable arguments.
Did I redefine language anywhere or would you like to associate me with some other group that does that? Lets see your argument. We can see on the issue of islamic terrorism that the progressives like to call it anything but terrorism and like to underplay the role of islam in the incidents when they're clearly central. But I'm open to your argument.
As to redefining words, no one outside of the old soviets is as likely to redefine words simply to misrepresent situations than the progressives. Its their go to solution to any political problem. They label a box of shit a box of apple pie and then call the problem solved. Its how they operate.
As to manipulating the media... I'd love to see your argument there. I can give many examples of the progressives manipulating the media. But if you think any group I might be associated with has done that, hit me with your best shot.
As to banning words... again, like the redefinition thing... its the progressives that are the arch censors of the 21st century. The nonsense coming out of them these days is pretty much to the level of book burning at this point.
I could go on... but you get the gist. If you want back up your argument then come at me, bro. A cheap comment followed by you running away is about what I expect from you. Surprise me by holding your ground.
... yeah okay so the picture shows that in their keyboard they're putting the 6 key a couple milometers one way versus the other... but it doesn't matter.
What is more the statement "in some countries people do X instead of Y"... in regards to pressing the six key with the right or left hand... no one gives a shit. People do either and both.
It varies very slightly from one keyboard to the next.
On mine for example... it appears to be so close to the middle that I can't really tell... I've looked at it a few times and it might be going right a bit... by maybe a millimeter. But I have no greater difficulty pressing that button with the right or left hand. So... effectively the middle.
This is silly. Who cares.
I mean, QWERTY itself is silly.
Its all about narrative for the progressives. They like to play with language, redefine words, ban words, rephrase things... and its all to misrepresent situations, hide inconvenient realities, or otherwise push their preferred narrative no matter how irrational or baseless it is...
You see it everywhere on anything they really care about it. Look at the terms they use for things. Its all weird terms that were clearly concocted to avoid using another term that is actually more descriptive.
Its part of why whenever you see a crime happen that feeds into a narrative they don't like, they'll start suppressing the bits of information that allow you to make the obvious association. You typically need to do a search, go through four or five articles just to finally see the mask slip somewhere.
The internet is a wonderful thing though. The progressives can't control it which means they can only control the narrative in their little echo chambers and hug boxes which are increasingly turning into mental straightjackets that serve only to leave the progressives unprepared for addressing the public argument.
its not one or the other...
Though I think the real take away is that you shouldn't give visas to people that hate your country and want to kill your people.
Isn't that the real take away here?
As to trained people... we had that marine recruiting station in the US that was attacked by a similar muslim whack job. The marines couldn't defend themselves because they didn't have weapons. So... the NRA point is frankly valid... I mean... I'm just saying arm trained soldiers. Is that rocket science?
I guess some people will say "well, we don't want people with guns inside of this shopping mall"... Fine... don't put the recruiting station in the mall then. Put it right next door in a different building that the landlord will feel less politically pressured to impose irrational rules. And then put up some advertisements inside the mall that say "if you want to join the armed forces, we're in the next building."... done.
As to the TSA... the TSA is largely ineffective because they go for security theater instead of doing what the Israelis do... which is actually know who is getting on a plane. They know who you are if you board a plane in israel. They do background checks. And if you're a nut job then you're not getting on a plane.
That's their system. And its frankly the only security measure that is going to work. Rather than filtering for bombs or weapons you should filter for PEOPLE.
Bad people will find ways to do bad things. You can ban whatever you like and bad people will find ways to kill people. How many people do you think I could kill with my car? Dozens easily especially if I didn't care if I lived or not.
How many people are inside a restaurant on a friday night? Hundreds in some cases... Think like a monster for a moment. People are so vulnerable and there really isn't any way to protect yourself besides simply not permitting these people in the country in the first place.
Here someone is going to say I'm being bigoted or racist or something. I didn't say anything about banning a race or even a religion. I'm talking about crazy people or people that hate the country. Not people that just happen to come from country X or religion Y. And here someone will say "but how do you know"... these guys are known. They've all had files. They make these trips, they are known to move in radical circles... its not that controversial.
Really the whole basis of the argument is that they couldn't translate WoW gamers into other MMOs. Okay. But that doesn't mean there aren't gamers for given genres.
Take RTS games... there are absolutely RTS gamers.
FPS gamers? Oh yes. There are some gamers that that is what they play pretty much period.
Stealth games? Yuuup.
Adventure games... you know the point and click things... there are some people that that is all they play.
Now are there people that cross a lot of lines? sure. But just as with movies, you have people that prefer given types of movies.
I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies but I do like really stupid science fiction action movies... ideally with lots of explosions and slimy aliens. I make no excuses for this... its just a thing.
And the thing is that gaming is the same way. People have things they like and they're going to focus on games that give them that.
I think part of the problem is mis-identifying what the genres actually are in the first place.
The compelling thing about WoW from what I understand was the community... people would make friends and form guilds and stuff. If you look at games like Eve which is another very long running MMO, it also has that social aspect to it. I think a lot of the MMOs don't really understand that the MMO is basically a complicated facebook game. Its farmville in 3d with RPG elements... no offense... its just more about the community than it is about the game.
And I think THAT is what is elusive about MMOs for many companies. I also don't even know how you'd launch an MMO under that doctrine. Maybe partner with Facebook? I don't know.
I also think the subscription model that everyone assumes is going to be viable likely not something that even Blizzard could maintain indefinitely.
Maybe you could do it if you dropped the sub price down quite a bit. Make it three dollars a month for the sub and that's so cheap that its hard to complain about it.
Bezos has extra incentive to f' over the NYT now... cool. Couldn't happen to a more vile den of vipers.
Kids, if you think these are bad work schedules, try working in the oil industry and deploying to Alaska or an oil derrick. Or consider if you will deploying into a combat zone in the military... not only the long hours but an actual threat of death.
The job market for the people we're talking about is competitive. If people don't want to work at Amazon they don't have to. They can get a job with anyone else.
This is obviously a hit piece by the NYT for some reason. And whatever you might think about that... that is how Amazon sees it, how Bezos sees it, and if he can use the Washington Post to make the NYT's life hell... he's got extra incentive to do it.
Raise your hand for which CEO is more competent and dangerous when he gets pissed... the Bezos or whichever clown is running the NYTs into the ground?
This is stupid. I'm not saying the NYT shouldn't report on real stories. I contend that this isn't a real story. I contend that it is a hit piece and they're slapping someone that is so far outside of their weight class it isn't even funny.
What the NYT thinks it is doing is beyond me.
Cue the hordes of fucktwits saying that NYT is just sticking it to the man. The NYT is an establishment newspaper owned by an old money NY family. They are the man, fucktwit. Bezos is the new money upstart.
A security council seat isn't worth that much especially when Russia's vote can be bought much more cheaply than that.
China is only going to care about SOME votes and in that vein China then only has to care about votes where Russia wouldn't already vote the way China wants them to vote. And then they have to look at what the other security council members are doing because 2 votes isn't enough to carry a vote by itself..
When you drill down through it, you're talking about votes that the Western powers wouldn't unanimously vote down or UN-unanimously veto. Then that Russia would not automatically support, but that Russia could be bribed to support, then that China wants to pass.
You're talking about a tiny tiny tiny portion of votes. And the reality is that what is any of that worth? If whatever it is the US doesn't like... we'll just Veto it. So... what did that accomplish?
A security council vote isn't worth that much. We gave one to France. Just as an example of it not being that valuable. The point of the UN is mostly to keep everyone talking in a Western/First World super embassy. The UN is basically to NATO what the US military is to the State Department. The UN is a Western diplomatic alliance and organization used to promote the interests of the First world. That china or russia have seats serves US interests more than it serves theirs if you understand the geopolitics. It gets them to legitimize the organization. If it were just the US and the Europeans it would be obvious what it is... but we throw in some powerful people outside the alliance with subordinate power... and we call it a global thing.
Americans are not as stupid some like to think we are... You don't get this powerful by being dumb.
As to Africa, the long term significance of that is dubious. You're talking about a very fractious part of the world where alliances and agreements are not reliable and people don't stay bribed. You have to keep paying them and that gets expensive.
As to the only customer for Russian resources... that's not in Russia's interests. You're basically suggesting Russia become to China what Canada is to the US. And the problem there is that the US and Canada do trust each other. We have very similar cultures and both sides know that the US would die to protect Canada and the US knows that Canada is not going to stab us in the back. Russia and China will never have that relationship.
As to it being a win win for china... China doesn't need Russia. And when you look at what Russia could offer versus what Russia would need from China... it isn't practical for China. Russia isn't worth it.
Now if Russia went with a western alliance, the entire cost structure changes. Because the US would focus not on making Russia dependent but on making Russia profitable... think Japan or South Korea or Germany. Part of our process of integrating a country into the first world is that we make them profitable. This would allow the Russians to hold their own territory without long term investment from us. And the expenses would be compensated for by the understanding that Russia wouldn't just be another profitable country trading in our alliance, but they'd also be a military and poltiical power we could call on if we needed to put pressure somewhere.
China will never use Russia that way. if they add Russia to something they're going to want Russia weak and controllable which will reduce their value and require china to continuously protect them.
Russia has two options from what I can see for long term survival.
1. They can make this "go it alone" strategy work. I don't think it will. I think they're just headed for another collapse.
2. Western alliance. We can save them, make them rich, stop the brain drain, make them more powerful than they've ever been at any point in their history including at the height of Stalin's power... far far beyond that.
That's it. Protectorate of china is a dead end. The Chinese don't see anything in Russia worth that kind of exp