This is over. You had nothing to back up your position at all. Literally nothing.
We have arrived at the point in any discussion where any intellectually honest person concedes the point to the side with a case.
You didn't do that. You're therefore not a legitimate opponent but rather an indignant child that doesn't understand how basic rhetoric works. And as such... I get to make fun of you with impunity for my own sport.
... but rather on a novel or something based on the game.
I don't trust hollywood to write something about a game or fandom with any competence unless they do it for years... fucking up repeatedly along the way and only after going through that do they finally figure out the rules.
Comic book movies are starting to get decent... how many years of comic book movies did we have to go through before we got the Chis Nolan batman movies etc?
I just don't trust most producers/directors to do it correctly.
Getting rid of AC for off grid applications makes sense. I'm all for it and look forward to the new DC appliances we're seeing come on market.
however, this article is not going to have people following suit.
I'm not giving up my quality of life. I don't have to and I don't want to and its the 21st century so anyone that disagrees can eat a rail gun round to the face.
I do believe in sustainable living. However, more in the way of breaking free from crumbling infrustructure and gaining a certain amount of logistical indepedence.
I'm a big believer in the backyard green house. I think solar panels and wind mills are a good idea AT YOUR HOUSE. And I am looking forward to economical energy storage systems that work at a personal level.
Am I dumping my refrigerator and cooking food on a camping stove? No.
Really none of this sustainable stuff works in an urban environment. Its sort of odd that so many people that like the idea live in the one place where it isn't possible. Logistically you're going to be depending on a very energy and resource intensive infrastructure and there's just no way around that in a city. That "IS" the city. The city is all the things the sustainable people say they don't like. Live in the suburbs and you have a CHOICE. You have enough property that you can do something. Live rural and you can go completely off grid for everything... food, water, power, whatever... live like the Amish or something. Yabba dabba doo. But in a city you're on the grid. I don't care if you shut off the breakers in your apartment or drink your own pee. You're on the grid because everyone around you is on the grid and you depend on them whether you're drinking your own pee or not.
Here is my suggestion for the urbanites. Support nuclear power. Worship the fucking atom.
... Its nice that epson is finally offering CIS in their consumer printers but the reality is that people have been buying third party CIS systems and using them with their epson printers for ages.
My real worry here... I know some great third party ink companies... they make really really good ink. And this will screw them.
I'm going to stick with what i have for now. I bought about half a liter of ink for 50 bucks last time... identical to the epson ink so far as I can tell.
Still, nice to see the old ink model dying I guess. I've always found the business model to be hateful and offensive.
Why should you create an account in a community you wish to have a debate in?
Fuck off. First, I think you do have an account... you're just trolling. And second, I've never heard of such a fucking stupid rebuttal. It takes you two seconds and you're just not going to do it?
Fine. Who needs to talk to you in the first place. you're sitting here going through the comment section of a social media site and you said something to me.
I told you that I'd debate the issue with you if you logged in... you're saying you can't bother to do that. Fine.
Nope, its just that sock puppet trolls like you that use the AC title to harass anyone in the community that is smarter than you forces me to do things in the light.
You're going to keep scuttling under the fridge and hiding because you're too incompetent to actually hold your ground when I know so much as your nickname. All your bullshit about "oh your record your record your record"... none of it means anything when people can see your own and realize that you've no grounds to accuse anyone of anything.
You're a shithead. And anyone that isn't a shithead themselves can see it.
Login and prove me wrong by showing yourself to be credible. You won't because you can't.
And for my position to be based on policy the Russians would have had to have accepted the deal. Thus your position is that no offer the US makes to the USSR is sincere or citable in this context unless the Russians accepted the deal.
She doesn't act like a politician. She acts like an incompetent politician.
Her husband acted like a politician.
The difference is experience and talent. She has neither.
She's never had to fight her way out of obscurity as a politician and she's entirely unable to be even remotely credible without the Clinton machine backing her up.
Her husband built that machine brick by brick from the ground up. Hillary is nothing. That CEO from HP that wants to be president is more competent... and I wouldn't put her in office either. Her track record at HP isn't exactly impressive and I don't think being a CEO makes you qualified to be president of the US. Hillary doesn't even have that. Her most impressive job qualification is Bill Clinton's wife. If THAT is what you consider qualifications and the country agrees... we're headed to banana republic status.
1. who is allowed to run cable is restricted to the franchise holders and that's frequently one or two companies.
2. high ways are more expensive than dirt roads... one becomes more practical than the other as traffic increases. If you only have a couple people running cable then the poles are fine. The criticism you're laying is what happens when there is too much cable to run on a pole... to which I responded... conduits. If your'e running that much cable then you can use the fees you're collecting to run conduits instead of poles. This is obvious. I don't want to hear about "we don't have space on the poles" again. Its a problem that solves itself.
3. As to there being limits to how much you can run in a cable... how much cable do you think people would run if you let people run however much they wanted? You keep presuming things would get insane and I see no reason to do that. First, the cost would be based on the demand for space in the cable. If there was very little left then the fees would go up as space became more limited. This is basic economics. Existing lease holders wouldn't pay more until their leases were renewed. So lets say your lease is for a year or five... when that comes due if you want to keep running cable through that pipe and competition for that space in that pipe is very competitive then you're going to have to pay more to do it. The increased fees collected would encourage the muni to expand pipes in places where things were getting too congested. The pipe would pay for itself and the width of it would be variable to demand. And no, we're not talking about tearing up the street every year. If there were very fast growth in demand you might see them tear it up once every five years or so. And the width could be anything people were willing to actually pay for. Current demand is being met by a tiny bundle of cables. If you had a conduit capable of handling 10 times that it wouldn't be a that large. And I really doubt its going to get more extreme than 10 times existing cable runs. At some point the competition over last mile pushes the prices down to cost. And that means there are diminishing returns to running more cable beyond that point. All we need to do is have ENOUGH cable that no one can inflate prices or reduce service because they have a monopoly.
That's all.
If you have several very comparable services all competing then they're going to lower the prices as low as they can and services will be as extensive and permissive as possible.
Don't like the taste of your own medicine? But its so thick and salty! You're the one that started claiming to have knowledge of the Japanese culture. Never mind that you had no knowledge of this specific topic.
As to your comical rebuttal that it isn't the japanese government that wants them gone but the locals... you have clearly not read a fucking thing I've said.
I said the dispute is between the locals and the japanese government. The locals want the japanese government to pay them MORE money for the US bases. The LOCALS want more money from the japanese... that is the dispute. The japanese government pays the island rent for the US bases. The locals want the rent payments increased or they want some of the land returned so they can build mini malls on it or golf courses or whatever.
That's all this is... Everything else is bullshit to put leverage on the japanese to pay up. The japanese are not paying up because its fucking extortion. So the island makes trouble. Beyond that, the islanders and the japanese government don't get along for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the island doesn't consider themselves japanese in the first place. They were a separate kingdom or something and want a separate government. So your knowledge of japanese culture is frankly f'ing pointless. The entire situation is something you don't even begin to understand.
I know this because i know something about this incident.
You know nothing. Absolutely fucking... nothing. You thought the Okinawans were bog standard Japanese. I suspect you picked up some japanese by watching anime or something... and from that you presume to be an expert on all things even vaguely related to japan.
Comical... so the US would have literally had to done it and the Russians would have had to accepted it for you consider the offer legitimate in this context.
1. who says I'm letting you actually climb up the pole and do it yourself? Letting anyone run the cable does not mean I do not have civic engineers do it that are employees of the muni.
2. who says I have to use poles instead of conduits?
3. who says that I can't charge use fees that allow me to scale conduits or poles to demand so that infrastructure doesn't get congested?
Just because something is fucking hilariously disorganized in India doesn't mean that a better run version of the same system wouldn't be idyllic somewhere that isn't run by the keystone cops of civil planners.
I'm not discounting them. I'm just not comparing them.
As to your belief about my contradictions. There's no contradiction.
I can say that the Okinawa dispute is mostly about the island wanting Japan to pay more money for the bases.
I can say that the US encourages false claims by giving out bags of money simply to silence an accusation.
And I can say that US rape stats are not directly comparable to japanese rape stats.
There is no contradiction.
As to your claim that japanese people don't commit fraud... I know they do just like everyone else. And I'm not especially interested in debating that point. its tiresome.
Regardless... its about money. The issue didn't get heated until the cold war ended which resulted in the US reducing military spending which meant the US spending on the island was cut.
Riddle me this... why does the desire for the US to leave coincide with the US reducing its presence there? The US navy used to be something like 80 percent of the economy on the island. Today it is something like 2 percent.
You might speak some of the language... but you're not doing the math.
Do the math. Watch/read the debates on the issue in the Japanese parliament.
THEN you can lecture me on who has a clue and who doesn't. I have actually looked into this issue specifically. You have not.
If either of us gets to high hat the other... it is me. Don't condescend to me... I'm amazing at it. Not a boast... a fact offered without false modesty.
Present your case if you have one. But don't presume to negate mine based on your presumed superior knowledge. I am very very good at that game and I don't lose it.
She's nothing as a candidate. She's never had to run on her own merits. She's standing firmly on the shoulders of the Bill Clinton machine. And that machine has only succeeded in getting Bill Clinton in power. It failed for Gore, it failed for Hillary in 2008, and its not going to succeed this time.
She's not a debater... she's not fast on her feet... she can't take a rhetorical punch.... she's not witty... she's not charming... she's not original... no one picked her because they thought she was smart.
She's Bill Clinton's wife. And on that basis she got a senatorial seat and a fairly disastrous tenure at the state department.
So no, I don't think I'm underestimating her. I know exactly what to expect from her and I haven't been surprised yet.
She's never had to fight her way through the political process from obscurity. She has this imperious entitlement that has come from years of just getting driven around like royalty and handed whatever she wants.
And there are limits to what the Bill Clinton machine can just give you. And one of those things he has shown no track record in delivering is the white house. His machine worked for him. It has not worked for anyone else since. It isn't enough. And she has nothing to offer to make it work.
If she were Bill Clinton... she'd win. But she's not. She's his wife. And she's not funny, witty, fast on her feet, politically cunning, likable... or able to talk without reading off a card. She's dead on arrival and everyone in the DNC with a clue knew that before she even announced it. Why? Because they watched her senatorial campaign and they watched her campaign in 2008. They know what to expect and they know it is just going to be a rerun.
As to markers being called and arms being twisted... that's just Bill Clinton doing that. No one cares what Hillary wants as of this moment. She's nothing. She's Bill's wife. They care what he wants and they don't want to piss him off. But that only goes so far. Bill couldn't get Al Gore elected. He couldn't get Hillary elected in 2008. His machine isn't that all powerful. He can open doors in the DNC and introduce people around... but no one cares or wants to spend time with Hillary. They befriend her if anything hoping Bill will show up. He's the one you want. And he can't run. So... pointless.
The entire clinton machine is a parasite on the democrats at this point. It has no future. It just soaks up campaign dollars that could be spent on a more credible set of candidates. The republicans LOVE the Clintons at this point. They're easy to cite for corruption, the Republicans know everything about the Clintons... who they know... who they don't... the ins and the outs. Its textbook for republicans to deal with the Clintons at this point. And any energy the democrats waste on the Clintons is energy they won't have to spend on the real candidates when it comes to prime time. The Republicans feel the same way that the democrats feel about Jeb Bush. The democrats LOVE the bushes. So easy to tear them up these days. The democrats are praying for a Jeb Bush nomination. Praying on their knees.
Both parties realize they have a lot of crazy shitty candidates that they have to carefully get rid of before it comes to the nomination.
Hillary is one of those for the dems. As a presidential candidate... she's a dog. That she even thinks she has a chance is due entirely to insane hubris on her part. She has no executive experience. Her background is Bill's wife... a meaningless stint in the senate where she accomplished nothing of note... and record in the state department which is somewhere between unremarkable and disastrous.
As to sanders not getting donor dollars, the money is irrelevant. That's not the problem. Politicians that attract little money win all the time. The notion that donations decide elections is generally just sour grapes from the side that lost. No, Sander's problem is that he's going to have a hard time winning anyone outside of the hardcore base. He's also going to tu
That's not a big scripted response. I have entire expert systems scripts that trigger in certain circumstances. I don't even think about it.
X or Y or Z happens and I drop into standard response to condition Green... activate.
As to winkies... I am serious... the error is yours:D
I'm just not being a dick about it. I'm trying to convey some of my in person casual charm to the extent it can possibly be conveyed here. I say harsh things all the time... and I mean them quite often... but I don't say them to be offensive or to hurt people's feelings or to be an asshole.
Shit is occasionally "wrong"... and I spend a lot of my time every day slapping people upside the head and getting them to pull their heads out of their asses.
I don't do that because I want them to feel bad. I do that because they need to fix it and they need to not do that... often. I express the point clearly... but I don't want an emotional response. I want everyone to happily whistle while they work... or happily fix all the shit they fucked up while they work. People that get upset are generally not very productive. They get distracted and cause problems later on because they feel obligated to revenge themselves as a point of honor. And I've no patience for that shit so I make a point of making it hard for them to emotionally justify such behavior.
I am... a very odd person. I know that. But I'm not an asshole by any reasonable definition of the term. And so I prefer for people to be emotionally centered.
As regards Poe's law... sarcasm, jokes, voice tone, facial expressions... they don't carry naturally over text. You have to overtly put in clear signals for people to know.
A lot of times people will just presume people know what they're thinking and then make statements that can be taken in many different ways assuming they can only be taken in the way they privately intended but never actually made clear.
She was basically expected to fail. For various political reasons within the DNC she needed to be given the presumption of a chance but there was an understanding from the start that she'd not go anywhere.
Sort of like the republicans running John McCain or something... the know he's not going to win. They might even nominate him... but if they do... they know he's not going anywhere.
Hillary is the same thing and so is Bernie or Trump. the political forces that know anything know that these people are the opening circus attraction.
Behind Hillary there are a lot of people in the Dem ranks that can stand up and be more credible than her. And they will especially since Hillary appears to be self destructing faster than anything believed possible. This email thing is getting increasingly serious. I doubt she's going to jail over it but... it is looking like something nasty could come out of it. The sweater is getting unraveled.
On the other political side you have Trump... who also will not be president. Its not going to happen. Even if he got the nomination and he won't... but even if he did... he'd still lose.
So who cares what these people say they would do. I might as well stand up and say what I would do if I were president. Or anyone else on slashdot... Stand up and tell us what you'd do if you were president.
Whatever you said matters about as much as Hillary's various schemes to get enough votes to get her party's nomination.
I will say this... IF Hillary got nominated... she might win. She'd have a D after her name and that is a very powerful thing in an election. But... I don't think she's going to get nominated.
She's kind of a female Al Gore in a lot of ways. Neither Gore nor her wants to associate with Bill Clinton but neither of them would even be considered for high office without that association. I don't know why they distance themselves from Bill. If I were either of them I'd walk around on stage as Bill Clinton gave me piggybacks. As much as possible, I'd try to make people think they were voting for Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton could actually win again... I mean... legality and term limits aside... people like him. No one likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't like her. They feel comfortable with her maybe or they think her politics are right or whatever. But they don't like her. Who wants to have a beer with Hillary? or a glass of wine or anything? No one likes her. Bill is funny. He's got stories. He's charming. You'd have a good time and he projects that in his politics and personality.
Hillary projects... Agnes from accounting... The woman in the office that does something boring and repetitive that no one cares about... she goes home every day at 5pm and people assume she has a lot of cats because of the pictures of cats all over her cubicle...
I mean seriously... imagine if Hillary were not a politican but just some person. Would you want to know her or spend any time with her?
Exactly. I mean... I'd rather spend time with Trump then her... and Trump is insane. But Trump is at least amusing. I'd likely deck him every so often... and doubtless he'd call the cops on me because I assume he's a whiny bitch on the subject. But... people you want to spend time with versus not is relevant in politics. Likability.
And that's a problem for old Hill. She isn't getting the nomination. I don't see it. And if she does... she's one of the weaker presidential candidates the dems could field.
I'd actually fear Bernie more in this election if I were the republicans more than Hillary. I mean... bernie is a frizzy haired crack pot. But he's at least sincere. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth. Hillary doesn't believe anything. Those are just animal sounds she makes to lull the peasants. Everything is focus groups, talking points, lobbying scripts... she licks her finger, holds it up to the wind, and that's her position.
And I think THAT perception is going to be very hard for her to overcome.
As to my position... it has some basis to it. Yours has none what so ever.
Nothing.
Not anything at all.
Nada.
There is no evidence or indictation in anything you will find that implies the US was insincere in this offer. And I should note that the offer has not been recended... yet.
If this continues... it may be in our interests for Russia to just cease to exist as a country. Not a threat of violence from us... but a threat of strategic undermining that leads to systemic collapse.
The last time the Russians collapsed they lost of most of Eastern Europe to the West. We're not giving it back and the Eastern Europeans don't want to go back.
The next time Russia collapses they'll likely lose most of their eastern territory.
And while this is happening what remains of their Soviet warchest will have rusted and crumbled.
Time is on our side here. The smart move for Russia is to accept the deal while there is enough left of them to make it.
As to insinuations of deceit... I didn't insinuate it. I stated it in no uncertain terms. I think you're being very dishonest by refusing to accept the US made that offer.
You question the sincerity of the offer... okay... but it was made. And had the Russians accepted the deal it would obviously have included clauses that required X Y and Z to ensure compliance.
Can you show me incidents of the US making signed agreements with the USSR and then going back on those agreements? Go look for it. I'm sure we did something... we're human... but we complied with most of it pretty religious and that being the case I don't see where you find the justification to question our word in this context beyond your baseless prejudice. Which is all your position boils down to... prejudice. Nothing more when all is said and done.
So... frankly I don't find your position to be legitimate. The US made the offer. That is a matter of record.
The Russians rejected the offer. That is a matter of record.
The opinions of senior US diplomatic officials that were involved in that process are a matter of record. I'm sure I could get statements from the Russians of that era as why they did one thing or another.
And questions beyond that as to whether X or Y would have complied with provision Z is immaterial given that that is a common issue in any diplomatic agreement or business arrangement or any agreement between various parties.
How is it that we ever come to agreements on anything?
Because we work out the details. If party A has a problem with something party B wants then they say that and the two of them can work out compromises etc.
Saying there is a potential of one side or the other betraying the other... what is new?
Your counter argument is dishonest... and stupid mostly because you don't realize how obviously unsupportable your position is and yet you're making it anyway.
I mean... that is dumb.
We're done. If you're going to be stubborn, dishonest, and stupid then I have nothing to gain from talking to you. You've nothing to teach me and you're not clever enough to have thought of anything that I haven't already thought of or know.
So you have no value to me. Your opinion of me beyond that is immaterial to me.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh had enough, eh?" *dances around with no arms*
This is over. You had nothing to back up your position at all. Literally nothing.
We have arrived at the point in any discussion where any intellectually honest person concedes the point to the side with a case.
You didn't do that. You're therefore not a legitimate opponent but rather an indignant child that doesn't understand how basic rhetoric works. And as such... I get to make fun of you with impunity for my own sport.
Just how it is...
*coconut claps off*
... but rather on a novel or something based on the game.
I don't trust hollywood to write something about a game or fandom with any competence unless they do it for years... fucking up repeatedly along the way and only after going through that do they finally figure out the rules.
Comic book movies are starting to get decent... how many years of comic book movies did we have to go through before we got the Chis Nolan batman movies etc?
I just don't trust most producers/directors to do it correctly.
So you admit to being a troll? Okay. I'm right again.
https://youtu.be/pjTfqOrVJRI?t...
Getting rid of AC for off grid applications makes sense. I'm all for it and look forward to the new DC appliances we're seeing come on market.
however, this article is not going to have people following suit.
I'm not giving up my quality of life. I don't have to and I don't want to and its the 21st century so anyone that disagrees can eat a rail gun round to the face.
I do believe in sustainable living. However, more in the way of breaking free from crumbling infrustructure and gaining a certain amount of logistical indepedence.
I'm a big believer in the backyard green house. I think solar panels and wind mills are a good idea AT YOUR HOUSE. And I am looking forward to economical energy storage systems that work at a personal level.
Am I dumping my refrigerator and cooking food on a camping stove? No.
Really none of this sustainable stuff works in an urban environment. Its sort of odd that so many people that like the idea live in the one place where it isn't possible. Logistically you're going to be depending on a very energy and resource intensive infrastructure and there's just no way around that in a city. That "IS" the city. The city is all the things the sustainable people say they don't like. Live in the suburbs and you have a CHOICE. You have enough property that you can do something. Live rural and you can go completely off grid for everything... food, water, power, whatever... live like the Amish or something. Yabba dabba doo. But in a city you're on the grid. I don't care if you shut off the breakers in your apartment or drink your own pee. You're on the grid because everyone around you is on the grid and you depend on them whether you're drinking your own pee or not.
Here is my suggestion for the urbanites. Support nuclear power. Worship the fucking atom.
https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690?t...
You're got no legs to stand on... say what you like... I'm coconut clapping on to less fucking retarded discussions.
... Its nice that epson is finally offering CIS in their consumer printers but the reality is that people have been buying third party CIS systems and using them with their epson printers for ages.
My real worry here... I know some great third party ink companies... they make really really good ink. And this will screw them.
I'm going to stick with what i have for now. I bought about half a liter of ink for 50 bucks last time... identical to the epson ink so far as I can tell.
Still, nice to see the old ink model dying I guess. I've always found the business model to be hateful and offensive.
Why should you create an account in a community you wish to have a debate in?
Fuck off. First, I think you do have an account... you're just trolling. And second, I've never heard of such a fucking stupid rebuttal. It takes you two seconds and you're just not going to do it?
Fine. Who needs to talk to you in the first place. you're sitting here going through the comment section of a social media site and you said something to me.
I told you that I'd debate the issue with you if you logged in... you're saying you can't bother to do that. Fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nope, its just that sock puppet trolls like you that use the AC title to harass anyone in the community that is smarter than you forces me to do things in the light.
You're going to keep scuttling under the fridge and hiding because you're too incompetent to actually hold your ground when I know so much as your nickname. All your bullshit about "oh your record your record your record"... none of it means anything when people can see your own and realize that you've no grounds to accuse anyone of anything.
You're a shithead. And anyone that isn't a shithead themselves can see it.
Login and prove me wrong by showing yourself to be credible. You won't because you can't.
You're garbage.
No it wasn't. Login and I'll explain.
And for my position to be based on policy the Russians would have had to have accepted the deal. Thus your position is that no offer the US makes to the USSR is sincere or citable in this context unless the Russians accepted the deal.
Your position remains retarded.
Good day.
She doesn't act like a politician. She acts like an incompetent politician.
Her husband acted like a politician.
The difference is experience and talent. She has neither.
She's never had to fight her way out of obscurity as a politician and she's entirely unable to be even remotely credible without the Clinton machine backing her up.
Her husband built that machine brick by brick from the ground up. Hillary is nothing. That CEO from HP that wants to be president is more competent... and I wouldn't put her in office either. Her track record at HP isn't exactly impressive and I don't think being a CEO makes you qualified to be president of the US. Hillary doesn't even have that. Her most impressive job qualification is Bill Clinton's wife. If THAT is what you consider qualifications and the country agrees... we're headed to banana republic status.
1. who is allowed to run cable is restricted to the franchise holders and that's frequently one or two companies.
2. high ways are more expensive than dirt roads... one becomes more practical than the other as traffic increases. If you only have a couple people running cable then the poles are fine. The criticism you're laying is what happens when there is too much cable to run on a pole... to which I responded... conduits. If your'e running that much cable then you can use the fees you're collecting to run conduits instead of poles. This is obvious. I don't want to hear about "we don't have space on the poles" again. Its a problem that solves itself.
3. As to there being limits to how much you can run in a cable... how much cable do you think people would run if you let people run however much they wanted? You keep presuming things would get insane and I see no reason to do that. First, the cost would be based on the demand for space in the cable. If there was very little left then the fees would go up as space became more limited. This is basic economics. Existing lease holders wouldn't pay more until their leases were renewed. So lets say your lease is for a year or five... when that comes due if you want to keep running cable through that pipe and competition for that space in that pipe is very competitive then you're going to have to pay more to do it. The increased fees collected would encourage the muni to expand pipes in places where things were getting too congested. The pipe would pay for itself and the width of it would be variable to demand. And no, we're not talking about tearing up the street every year. If there were very fast growth in demand you might see them tear it up once every five years or so. And the width could be anything people were willing to actually pay for. Current demand is being met by a tiny bundle of cables. If you had a conduit capable of handling 10 times that it wouldn't be a that large. And I really doubt its going to get more extreme than 10 times existing cable runs. At some point the competition over last mile pushes the prices down to cost. And that means there are diminishing returns to running more cable beyond that point. All we need to do is have ENOUGH cable that no one can inflate prices or reduce service because they have a monopoly.
That's all.
If you have several very comparable services all competing then they're going to lower the prices as low as they can and services will be as extensive and permissive as possible.
Wrong. Login I'll make the argument.
Don't like the taste of your own medicine? But its so thick and salty! You're the one that started claiming to have knowledge of the Japanese culture. Never mind that you had no knowledge of this specific topic.
As to your comical rebuttal that it isn't the japanese government that wants them gone but the locals... you have clearly not read a fucking thing I've said.
I said the dispute is between the locals and the japanese government. The locals want the japanese government to pay them MORE money for the US bases. The LOCALS want more money from the japanese... that is the dispute. The japanese government pays the island rent for the US bases. The locals want the rent payments increased or they want some of the land returned so they can build mini malls on it or golf courses or whatever.
That's all this is... Everything else is bullshit to put leverage on the japanese to pay up. The japanese are not paying up because its fucking extortion. So the island makes trouble. Beyond that, the islanders and the japanese government don't get along for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the island doesn't consider themselves japanese in the first place. They were a separate kingdom or something and want a separate government. So your knowledge of japanese culture is frankly f'ing pointless. The entire situation is something you don't even begin to understand.
Inform yourself, worm. :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I know this because i know something about this incident.
You know nothing. Absolutely fucking... nothing. You thought the Okinawans were bog standard Japanese. I suspect you picked up some japanese by watching anime or something... and from that you presume to be an expert on all things even vaguely related to japan.
Allow me to respond with the appropriate anime response:
https://youtu.be/_TxnL5VYgoY?t...
Feel shame or admit to being less than scum. :-D
Workable substitutes was the entire point of the message.
Login and we'll talk about it.
... and the distinction in this context is zero.
Look... you can either get on topic and have a point... or whine... or run away.
I don't really care. But whatever you do... make up your mind.
Comical... so the US would have literally had to done it and the Russians would have had to accepted it for you consider the offer legitimate in this context.
You have no case. I do.
Good day.
A tired argument with a standard response.
1. who says I'm letting you actually climb up the pole and do it yourself? Letting anyone run the cable does not mean I do not have civic engineers do it that are employees of the muni.
2. who says I have to use poles instead of conduits?
3. who says that I can't charge use fees that allow me to scale conduits or poles to demand so that infrastructure doesn't get congested?
Just because something is fucking hilariously disorganized in India doesn't mean that a better run version of the same system wouldn't be idyllic somewhere that isn't run by the keystone cops of civil planners.
As to Dads or managers... don't judge until you've been in the same position. Its harder than it looks.
I'm not discounting them. I'm just not comparing them.
As to your belief about my contradictions. There's no contradiction.
I can say that the Okinawa dispute is mostly about the island wanting Japan to pay more money for the bases.
I can say that the US encourages false claims by giving out bags of money simply to silence an accusation.
And I can say that US rape stats are not directly comparable to japanese rape stats.
There is no contradiction.
As to your claim that japanese people don't commit fraud... I know they do just like everyone else. And I'm not especially interested in debating that point. its tiresome.
Regardless... its about money. The issue didn't get heated until the cold war ended which resulted in the US reducing military spending which meant the US spending on the island was cut.
Riddle me this... why does the desire for the US to leave coincide with the US reducing its presence there? The US navy used to be something like 80 percent of the economy on the island. Today it is something like 2 percent.
You might speak some of the language... but you're not doing the math.
Do the math. Watch/read the debates on the issue in the Japanese parliament.
THEN you can lecture me on who has a clue and who doesn't. I have actually looked into this issue specifically. You have not.
If either of us gets to high hat the other... it is me. Don't condescend to me... I'm amazing at it. Not a boast... a fact offered without false modesty.
Present your case if you have one. But don't presume to negate mine based on your presumed superior knowledge. I am very very good at that game and I don't lose it.
I can't understand you with my cock in your mouth... Finish up and then try again.
She's nothing as a candidate. She's never had to run on her own merits. She's standing firmly on the shoulders of the Bill Clinton machine. And that machine has only succeeded in getting Bill Clinton in power. It failed for Gore, it failed for Hillary in 2008, and its not going to succeed this time.
She's not a debater... she's not fast on her feet... she can't take a rhetorical punch.... she's not witty... she's not charming... she's not original... no one picked her because they thought she was smart.
She's Bill Clinton's wife. And on that basis she got a senatorial seat and a fairly disastrous tenure at the state department.
So no, I don't think I'm underestimating her. I know exactly what to expect from her and I haven't been surprised yet.
She's never had to fight her way through the political process from obscurity. She has this imperious entitlement that has come from years of just getting driven around like royalty and handed whatever she wants.
And there are limits to what the Bill Clinton machine can just give you. And one of those things he has shown no track record in delivering is the white house. His machine worked for him. It has not worked for anyone else since. It isn't enough. And she has nothing to offer to make it work.
If she were Bill Clinton... she'd win. But she's not. She's his wife. And she's not funny, witty, fast on her feet, politically cunning, likable... or able to talk without reading off a card. She's dead on arrival and everyone in the DNC with a clue knew that before she even announced it. Why? Because they watched her senatorial campaign and they watched her campaign in 2008. They know what to expect and they know it is just going to be a rerun.
As to markers being called and arms being twisted... that's just Bill Clinton doing that. No one cares what Hillary wants as of this moment. She's nothing. She's Bill's wife. They care what he wants and they don't want to piss him off. But that only goes so far. Bill couldn't get Al Gore elected. He couldn't get Hillary elected in 2008. His machine isn't that all powerful. He can open doors in the DNC and introduce people around... but no one cares or wants to spend time with Hillary. They befriend her if anything hoping Bill will show up. He's the one you want. And he can't run. So... pointless.
The entire clinton machine is a parasite on the democrats at this point. It has no future. It just soaks up campaign dollars that could be spent on a more credible set of candidates. The republicans LOVE the Clintons at this point. They're easy to cite for corruption, the Republicans know everything about the Clintons... who they know... who they don't... the ins and the outs. Its textbook for republicans to deal with the Clintons at this point. And any energy the democrats waste on the Clintons is energy they won't have to spend on the real candidates when it comes to prime time. The Republicans feel the same way that the democrats feel about Jeb Bush. The democrats LOVE the bushes. So easy to tear them up these days. The democrats are praying for a Jeb Bush nomination. Praying on their knees.
Both parties realize they have a lot of crazy shitty candidates that they have to carefully get rid of before it comes to the nomination.
Hillary is one of those for the dems. As a presidential candidate... she's a dog. That she even thinks she has a chance is due entirely to insane hubris on her part. She has no executive experience. Her background is Bill's wife... a meaningless stint in the senate where she accomplished nothing of note... and record in the state department which is somewhere between unremarkable and disastrous.
As to sanders not getting donor dollars, the money is irrelevant. That's not the problem. Politicians that attract little money win all the time. The notion that donations decide elections is generally just sour grapes from the side that lost. No, Sander's problem is that he's going to have a hard time winning anyone outside of the hardcore base. He's also going to tu
That's not a big scripted response. I have entire expert systems scripts that trigger in certain circumstances. I don't even think about it.
X or Y or Z happens and I drop into standard response to condition Green... activate.
As to winkies... I am serious... the error is yours :D
I'm just not being a dick about it. I'm trying to convey some of my in person casual charm to the extent it can possibly be conveyed here. I say harsh things all the time... and I mean them quite often... but I don't say them to be offensive or to hurt people's feelings or to be an asshole.
Shit is occasionally "wrong"... and I spend a lot of my time every day slapping people upside the head and getting them to pull their heads out of their asses.
I don't do that because I want them to feel bad. I do that because they need to fix it and they need to not do that... often. I express the point clearly... but I don't want an emotional response. I want everyone to happily whistle while they work... or happily fix all the shit they fucked up while they work. People that get upset are generally not very productive. They get distracted and cause problems later on because they feel obligated to revenge themselves as a point of honor. And I've no patience for that shit so I make a point of making it hard for them to emotionally justify such behavior.
I am... a very odd person. I know that. But I'm not an asshole by any reasonable definition of the term. And so I prefer for people to be emotionally centered.
As regards Poe's law... sarcasm, jokes, voice tone, facial expressions... they don't carry naturally over text. You have to overtly put in clear signals for people to know.
A lot of times people will just presume people know what they're thinking and then make statements that can be taken in many different ways assuming they can only be taken in the way they privately intended but never actually made clear.
m'kay? :D
See... serious... but not a dick. :)
She was basically expected to fail. For various political reasons within the DNC she needed to be given the presumption of a chance but there was an understanding from the start that she'd not go anywhere.
Sort of like the republicans running John McCain or something... the know he's not going to win. They might even nominate him... but if they do... they know he's not going anywhere.
Hillary is the same thing and so is Bernie or Trump. the political forces that know anything know that these people are the opening circus attraction.
Behind Hillary there are a lot of people in the Dem ranks that can stand up and be more credible than her. And they will especially since Hillary appears to be self destructing faster than anything believed possible. This email thing is getting increasingly serious. I doubt she's going to jail over it but... it is looking like something nasty could come out of it. The sweater is getting unraveled.
On the other political side you have Trump... who also will not be president. Its not going to happen. Even if he got the nomination and he won't... but even if he did... he'd still lose.
So who cares what these people say they would do. I might as well stand up and say what I would do if I were president. Or anyone else on slashdot... Stand up and tell us what you'd do if you were president.
Whatever you said matters about as much as Hillary's various schemes to get enough votes to get her party's nomination.
I will say this... IF Hillary got nominated... she might win. She'd have a D after her name and that is a very powerful thing in an election. But... I don't think she's going to get nominated.
She's kind of a female Al Gore in a lot of ways. Neither Gore nor her wants to associate with Bill Clinton but neither of them would even be considered for high office without that association. I don't know why they distance themselves from Bill. If I were either of them I'd walk around on stage as Bill Clinton gave me piggybacks. As much as possible, I'd try to make people think they were voting for Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton could actually win again... I mean... legality and term limits aside... people like him. No one likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't like her. They feel comfortable with her maybe or they think her politics are right or whatever. But they don't like her. Who wants to have a beer with Hillary? or a glass of wine or anything? No one likes her. Bill is funny. He's got stories. He's charming. You'd have a good time and he projects that in his politics and personality.
Hillary projects... Agnes from accounting... The woman in the office that does something boring and repetitive that no one cares about... she goes home every day at 5pm and people assume she has a lot of cats because of the pictures of cats all over her cubicle...
I mean seriously... imagine if Hillary were not a politican but just some person. Would you want to know her or spend any time with her?
Exactly. I mean... I'd rather spend time with Trump then her... and Trump is insane. But Trump is at least amusing. I'd likely deck him every so often... and doubtless he'd call the cops on me because I assume he's a whiny bitch on the subject. But... people you want to spend time with versus not is relevant in politics. Likability.
And that's a problem for old Hill. She isn't getting the nomination. I don't see it. And if she does... she's one of the weaker presidential candidates the dems could field.
I'd actually fear Bernie more in this election if I were the republicans more than Hillary. I mean... bernie is a frizzy haired crack pot. But he's at least sincere. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth. Hillary doesn't believe anything. Those are just animal sounds she makes to lull the peasants. Everything is focus groups, talking points, lobbying scripts... she licks her finger, holds it up to the wind, and that's her position.
And I think THAT perception is going to be very hard for her to overcome.
As to my position... it has some basis to it. Yours has none what so ever.
Nothing.
Not anything at all.
Nada.
There is no evidence or indictation in anything you will find that implies the US was insincere in this offer. And I should note that the offer has not been recended... yet.
If this continues... it may be in our interests for Russia to just cease to exist as a country. Not a threat of violence from us... but a threat of strategic undermining that leads to systemic collapse.
The last time the Russians collapsed they lost of most of Eastern Europe to the West. We're not giving it back and the Eastern Europeans don't want to go back.
The next time Russia collapses they'll likely lose most of their eastern territory.
And while this is happening what remains of their Soviet warchest will have rusted and crumbled.
Time is on our side here. The smart move for Russia is to accept the deal while there is enough left of them to make it.
As to insinuations of deceit... I didn't insinuate it. I stated it in no uncertain terms. I think you're being very dishonest by refusing to accept the US made that offer.
You question the sincerity of the offer... okay... but it was made. And had the Russians accepted the deal it would obviously have included clauses that required X Y and Z to ensure compliance.
Can you show me incidents of the US making signed agreements with the USSR and then going back on those agreements? Go look for it. I'm sure we did something... we're human... but we complied with most of it pretty religious and that being the case I don't see where you find the justification to question our word in this context beyond your baseless prejudice. Which is all your position boils down to... prejudice. Nothing more when all is said and done.
So... frankly I don't find your position to be legitimate. The US made the offer. That is a matter of record.
The Russians rejected the offer. That is a matter of record.
The opinions of senior US diplomatic officials that were involved in that process are a matter of record. I'm sure I could get statements from the Russians of that era as why they did one thing or another.
And questions beyond that as to whether X or Y would have complied with provision Z is immaterial given that that is a common issue in any diplomatic agreement or business arrangement or any agreement between various parties.
How is it that we ever come to agreements on anything?
Because we work out the details. If party A has a problem with something party B wants then they say that and the two of them can work out compromises etc.
Saying there is a potential of one side or the other betraying the other... what is new?
Your counter argument is dishonest... and stupid mostly because you don't realize how obviously unsupportable your position is and yet you're making it anyway.
I mean... that is dumb.
We're done. If you're going to be stubborn, dishonest, and stupid then I have nothing to gain from talking to you. You've nothing to teach me and you're not clever enough to have thought of anything that I haven't already thought of or know.
So you have no value to me. Your opinion of me beyond that is immaterial to me.
Good day, sir.