I used to work at a shopping mall where you couldn't take pictures. If you had a camera visible, security would bar entrance to you. If you whipped one out later and started snapping shots, the security people would toss you out. Very weird.
Re:Nothing new under the sun
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 0
Well, I for one don't know that I share your complete conviction in 'Bible as truth', but I sure respect your willingness to not care that other people don't agree with you. You go, man.
I'm still trying to figure out how a pimply high-schooler would have searched my bag by force.
As far as him being instructed by his bosses to do anything, I actually contacted the director of the library system and strongly advised that they post their 'personal belongings' policy on the door so I could decide whether to bring my bag into their libraries in the future unless they wanted a lawsuit, and I advised him to train his employees on how to conduct themselves better. He agreed with me, and I couldn't help but notice that the library assistant I complained about was never there when I went to that library afterwards.
"Does being able to spell nugatory and know what it means make one a better person or educated."
Yes, and being able to punctuate correctly helps as well.
"I just submitted my prose to them and they corrected my grammer and spelling"
Good thing, too, since you don't seem to be able to handle it on your own.
"I sure could use someone to tighten up this post and make me look educated."
No, you could benefit yourself by paying more attention to what you do, rather than depending on someone else to prop you up. This dependence on others for basic things is a mark of a clueless newbie fuckwit, and I'd thought that people on Slashdot might be a cut above that for the most part.
I did refuse just such a search at a library, because:
1.) Their policy wasn't posted;
2.) I'd had my bag on a tabletop in plain view for hours.
I simply told the librarian that I wasn't going to let him search my bag, and asked what he was going to do about it. The answer was nothing.
However, the environment the initial poster is in is a somewhat different situation, considering it is his jobplace. It would be hard to tell a security guard to shove it in that situation.
I've done 75 or more transactions on Ebay, up to buying an $1100 laptop, and I've used Paypal, money orders, and personal checks. I've never once been defrauded. Guess I'm lucky or something. I do always pick sellers with several hundred positives or better, but I guess one of those could still screw you over. Too bad for those people who have lost money.
I just read a short story last night where a supercomputer called Uncle SAM conducted tests of the electorate each four years to find the "best, qualified, person for the job". Unfortunately, since it was stated in that way, Uncle SAM looked for qualified people with the intent to choose the best...he didn't find anyone qualified. It took a group of eight specialists to 'mislead' the computer into appointing their chosen man as President. When I recall the author/title, I'll post it. Seemed appropriate
Secret Service (so the Treasury ultimately) has jurisdiction for computer crimes. Although, FBI and several other TLAs do investigations as well. This from my brother, who worked at a federal computer crime training center.
You know, I tried to come up with a hidden message by jotting down the letters in your misspelled words, but I couldn't even figure out what you were shooting for with suppisios and objectied.
According to Scott Adams himself, he used some sort of mystic method of wishing yourself success. He wished that the Calvin & Hobbes creator and the Bloom County creator would retire, and they did. I'm not making this up...it is actually at the end of one of the bound hardcover Dilbert books (The Dilbert Future, I think?)
That's so wrong. I'm running WinXP on the laptop I'm sitting at, and I had to jump through hoops to just get IIS installed, much less running. Your first sentence is just FUD, and it should stop. IIS IS NOT a default part of the WinXP setup, and even if it is running you have to explicitly allow the webserver to penetrate the built-in firewall.
So far I've installed the following games on my WinXP box:
Unreal Tournament
Quake III Arena
Crimson Skies
Black & White
Half Life
Falcon 4.0
I've had no issues with any of them, beyond a video driver issue with B&W that was known beforehand. I haven't even had to invoke explicit compatibility mode to get these to work out of the box, although the games are a mix of Win98/Win2K compatible.
"The real point of this is that hardware has currently surpassed software; people don't need (whatever) machines at home."
This will probably get modded down, but I distinctly remember reading this exact same sentence in a PC Magazine back when the Pentium 90s were debuting. It wasn't wrong then, but it became absurd later on. It'll be the same with Gigahertz machines as well...we may not need 'em now, but we will soon enough.
but I'm wondering why this place based an entire article on the following snippet:
"However, we've been lied to many times in the past by console makers (*coff* Nintendo), so we can't put too much faith in Microsoft's denials."
So, because we were lied to by Nintendo, this means that Microsoft saying they're going to hit their target is invalid? Considering we're talking about Microsoft, wouldn't it have made more sense to say "However, we've been misled in the past about Microsoft's ability to hit their ship dates, so we can't put too much faith in Microsoft's denials."
If you're going to get paid to do articles, at least base them on something directly relevant.
Sounds like you've already formed your opinion of B&W, but you don't have to 'grab,crawl' at all. Using the up/down/left/right keys works just as well. I think I 'grab,crawled' two or three times, then I figured out a better way.
The only thing I'll say about Objectivists in general is that most people you meet that call themselves 'Objectivist' have a very perverted idea of what Objectivism is. 'Selfishness', defined in the way Ayn Rand spells it out (in the manner of any philosopher, she applied rigorous, if slightly different, meanings to words she used) simply means that you are self-sufficient and your primary focus is that absolute self-sufficiency. 'Selfishness', as most people (including those pseudo-Objectivists) define it, means 'Give me everything I want because I'm morally entitled to it.'
A true Objectivist doesn't want anyone to give them anything...in fact, that's the moral opposite of what Objectivism stands for. An Objectivist wants what he has earned, with no free lunches, and does not expect anyone else to act or expect any differently. An Objectivist would never say "Let me borrow your hedge trimmer", because he doesn't want anything from you. He might say "I'll give you ten bucks to use your hedge trimmer this weekend" or he'll go buy his own damn hedge trimmer.
The only viewpoint of Objectivism I don't agree with is their approach to natural resources (ie. The government shouldn't own land, and whoever buys Yellowstone gets to do whatever the hell they want to it), because that is nuts.
Of course, as an Objectivist would tell you, if you don't subscribe to all of Rand's tenets, go make your own philosophy because they don't want you.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work at a shopping mall where you couldn't take pictures. If you had a camera visible, security would bar entrance to you. If you whipped one out later and started snapping shots, the security people would toss you out. Very weird.
"because your friggin ILLITERATE"
No need to point out the irony...but I did anyway.
That's cool as crap! Thanks for the link...
Well, I for one don't know that I share your complete conviction in 'Bible as truth', but I sure respect your willingness to not care that other people don't agree with you. You go, man.
I'm sure everyone knows this, but you can use NT (and Win2k)'s built in boot loader to launch Linux.
Here's the link:
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue36/larriera.html
I'm still trying to figure out how a pimply high-schooler would have searched my bag by force.
As far as him being instructed by his bosses to do anything, I actually contacted the director of the library system and strongly advised that they post their 'personal belongings' policy on the door so I could decide whether to bring my bag into their libraries in the future unless they wanted a lawsuit, and I advised him to train his employees on how to conduct themselves better. He agreed with me, and I couldn't help but notice that the library assistant I complained about was never there when I went to that library afterwards.
"Does being able to spell nugatory and know what it means make one a better person or educated."
Yes, and being able to punctuate correctly helps as well.
"I just submitted my prose to them and they corrected my grammer and spelling"
Good thing, too, since you don't seem to be able to handle it on your own.
"I sure could use someone to tighten up this post and make me look educated."
No, you could benefit yourself by paying more attention to what you do, rather than depending on someone else to prop you up. This dependence on others for basic things is a mark of a clueless newbie fuckwit, and I'd thought that people on Slashdot might be a cut above that for the most part.
I did refuse just such a search at a library, because:
1.) Their policy wasn't posted;
2.) I'd had my bag on a tabletop in plain view for hours.
I simply told the librarian that I wasn't going to let him search my bag, and asked what he was going to do about it. The answer was nothing.
However, the environment the initial poster is in is a somewhat different situation, considering it is his jobplace. It would be hard to tell a security guard to shove it in that situation.
I've done 75 or more transactions on Ebay, up to buying an $1100 laptop, and I've used Paypal, money orders, and personal checks. I've never once been defrauded. Guess I'm lucky or something. I do always pick sellers with several hundred positives or better, but I guess one of those could still screw you over. Too bad for those people who have lost money.
I just read a short story last night where a supercomputer called Uncle SAM conducted tests of the electorate each four years to find the "best, qualified, person for the job". Unfortunately, since it was stated in that way, Uncle SAM looked for qualified people with the intent to choose the best...he didn't find anyone qualified. It took a group of eight specialists to 'mislead' the computer into appointing their chosen man as President. When I recall the author/title, I'll post it. Seemed appropriate
Secret Service (so the Treasury ultimately) has jurisdiction for computer crimes. Although, FBI and several other TLAs do investigations as well. This from my brother, who worked at a federal computer crime training center.
You know, I tried to come up with a hidden message by jotting down the letters in your misspelled words, but I couldn't even figure out what you were shooting for with suppisios and objectied.
Nothing on you personally, but I swear to God the next person that quotes that damn statement is going to get a visit from my friend Guido.
P.S. I am the prototypical Simpson's "Comic Store guy".
Best. Analysis. Ever.
According to Scott Adams himself, he used some sort of mystic method of wishing yourself success. He wished that the Calvin & Hobbes creator and the Bloom County creator would retire, and they did. I'm not making this up...it is actually at the end of one of the bound hardcover Dilbert books (The Dilbert Future, I think?)
That's so wrong. I'm running WinXP on the laptop I'm sitting at, and I had to jump through hoops to just get IIS installed, much less running. Your first sentence is just FUD, and it should stop. IIS IS NOT a default part of the WinXP setup, and even if it is running you have to explicitly allow the webserver to penetrate the built-in firewall.
So far I've installed the following games on my WinXP box:
Unreal Tournament
Quake III Arena
Crimson Skies
Black & White
Half Life
Falcon 4.0
I've had no issues with any of them, beyond a video driver issue with B&W that was known beforehand. I haven't even had to invoke explicit compatibility mode to get these to work out of the box, although the games are a mix of Win98/Win2K compatible.
Just thought I'd share that.
Terry
"The real point of this is that hardware has currently surpassed software; people don't need (whatever) machines at home."
This will probably get modded down, but I distinctly remember reading this exact same sentence in a PC Magazine back when the Pentium 90s were debuting. It wasn't wrong then, but it became absurd later on. It'll be the same with Gigahertz machines as well...we may not need 'em now, but we will soon enough.
I GUESSED 'heywood' and 'jablowme' and it worked....just passing it on.
"Or I could lob up a couple microsats for my weekly salerie..."
Unless you're talking about SERIOUSLY micro sats, I think I hate you...;-)
but I'm wondering why this place based an entire article on the following snippet:
"However, we've been lied to many times in the past by console makers (*coff* Nintendo), so we can't put too much faith in Microsoft's denials."
So, because we were lied to by Nintendo, this means that Microsoft saying they're going to hit their target is invalid? Considering we're talking about Microsoft, wouldn't it have made more sense to say "However, we've been misled in the past about Microsoft's ability to hit their ship dates, so we can't put too much faith in Microsoft's denials."
If you're going to get paid to do articles, at least base them on something directly relevant.
Sounds like you've already formed your opinion of B&W, but you don't have to 'grab,crawl' at all. Using the up/down/left/right keys works just as well. I think I 'grab,crawled' two or three times, then I figured out a better way.
The only thing I'll say about Objectivists in general is that most people you meet that call themselves 'Objectivist' have a very perverted idea of what Objectivism is. 'Selfishness', defined in the way Ayn Rand spells it out (in the manner of any philosopher, she applied rigorous, if slightly different, meanings to words she used) simply means that you are self-sufficient and your primary focus is that absolute self-sufficiency. 'Selfishness', as most people (including those pseudo-Objectivists) define it, means 'Give me everything I want because I'm morally entitled to it.'
A true Objectivist doesn't want anyone to give them anything...in fact, that's the moral opposite of what Objectivism stands for. An Objectivist wants what he has earned, with no free lunches, and does not expect anyone else to act or expect any differently. An Objectivist would never say "Let me borrow your hedge trimmer", because he doesn't want anything from you. He might say "I'll give you ten bucks to use your hedge trimmer this weekend" or he'll go buy his own damn hedge trimmer.
The only viewpoint of Objectivism I don't agree with is their approach to natural resources (ie. The government shouldn't own land, and whoever buys Yellowstone gets to do whatever the hell they want to it), because that is nuts.
Of course, as an Objectivist would tell you, if you don't subscribe to all of Rand's tenets, go make your own philosophy because they don't want you.
My only concern about men who appear in porn videos is that they don't fall over on their faces when they have a naughty thought.
You know, this really does deserve a mod up for 'Funny'...too bad I have no points.