so you A-Hole will be better at running things than my A-Hole?
Clinton walked OUT on the Keyoto treaty, and he bombed/invaded Iraq and Afganistan (Additionaly Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Central African Republicm, Rwanda, Zaire, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Kenya, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and East Timor. All together 26 countries in 8 years, but don't take my word for it http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.ht m)
They're all jerks. And not everthing evil that's happend to the US has happend since 2000.
Republicans aren't evil. Democrats are not out to save the world. So let's end the melodrama and realize that we are all small little actors (even the president) and we all just have to do our part and hope for the best.
I demand that the government employ thousands of (** remove** astronomers) biologists to blanket the (** remove** sky ) ocean watching out for these killer (** remove** aseroids ) microbes. At the moment we can only observe.00001% of the (** remove** sky ) marine biosphere. We need this protection now!
I hate to do this... I favor evolution, heavily but you leave me no choice. No one seems to have pointed this out:
What is extremist is insisting that a religious doctrine with no basis in scientific method (i.e., not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable) should be held as valid science.
1) Observation: modern biology is enormously complex. The likelyhood that it all could have come about by accident, even on a galactic time scale, is extreamly low given our current understanding of the universe. Of all hypothoses proposed, the most "probable" assumes an intervening "inteligent" source. Achem's Razor.
2) Testing: investigation of genetics, and attempts to modify will demonstrate pronounced lack of flexibility. If the system evolved randomly it will necessitate a flexible system that allows one component to change without imediatly impacting the other (thereby alowing generations to correct for the flaw created in the other system). It has already been demonstrated that our genetics are pretty finely tuned. Attempting to alter them to create enhanced features inevitably causes problems in other body systems.
3) Predictive: That over recorded history we will not observe the emergence of a new spieces from another. Individual spieces may adapt, but may not produce major morphological differences. (ie a bovine accostomed to eating leaves may over time grow a longer neck, but probably not one that's 2 meters long, and will always not produce hybrids from matting within it's origin spieces.
4) Falsafiable:
a) a law of physics will be descovered allowing for the probable creation of order out of chaos.
b) records can show spiecies transition
c) aliens show up and tell us they did it.
Ok, so I'm sure that the TRUE BELIEVERS (TM) out there wouldn't even give up hope then. but that's not the point. Every theory is inpsired from some other point, so the fact that it comes from an old book means nothing.
It may take a while to figure out one or the other, but it can be used as a testable scientific theory, at least to the same level as evolution.
All the same... since the likely hood of the christian genesis is no greater than the jewish, muslim, hindu or the jatravartidians(gezuntight) it lacks specifity. At best it could be taught within 5 min of vaugery:
Hello class, this is evolution "...". Some people don't like this theory because they say it has the likelyhood of winning the lottery every week for a year, while not being involved with the mob in the slightest. Many believe that there is/was an inteligence behind the formation of life, thereby giving it it's peculure properties of order and complexity. Both theorys are extreamly dificult to prove or disprove, and are both politicaly charged. So it's unlikely we'll know much of anything untill we either have 10k years of recorded history or the Almighty decides to drop by for tea and sort this all out.
because free speach isn't a free-for-all. Free speach always has limits. It's called incitement to violance. And the IndyMedia kiddies have a habbit of crossing the line.
The classic example is not screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Because somone's going to get trampled in the ensuing stampeed. Equally it's illegal for KKK'rs to get up and say "We should all go kill this [insert racial slur] [insert name]". Incedentally, it's legal to state it in the passive. "That [racial slur] [name] should just die!".
It's one thing to say "I think the war in Iraq is wrong" (not saying I do, just an example). It's another totaly to say "Soldiers should frag their officers" (WARNING: DON'T DO THAT).
It happens all the time, and some times it's not prosecuted because it just slips through the cracks. Like at protests when wacko's are carrying signs that call for specific violance (even assasination). This isn't free speach, it's incitement; but like prosecution of any law it's spotty and dependent on a citizen initiating the legal action. So it's not valid to say "Why this and not that?", because the right person just didn't see "that".
This is a fine line issue. But at IM they don't just dip their toes in the pool.. they dive in head first. This isn't expanding free speach rights, it's flouting them. Incitment is NEVER protected speach, and NEVER will be.
Calling Indymedia journalism, is like calling '10 PRINT "HELLO WORD" ' a C.S. Masters Thesis.
Every wahoo get's on indymedia, and makes up half of what they say out of their imagination. Even if they, by freak chance, are well informed they manage to mangle the 'facts' to the point of propaganda.
I was all for the concept when it started, and I followed it regularly. But it became quickly aparent that IM had nothing to do with news. It has long since degenerated into a reched sesspool of incestous self congradulation. Liberal or not, IM has no 'news value' that can be decerned.
I'm just cynical enough to believe that the only reason 'journalists' would get behind indimedia is that they have paranoid delusions that the New World Order(tm) is out to get them. And as long as Indymedia is around they have someone to point to who is vastly worse than them. "How can you come after us before them?"
Bezek? Do something imoral? unprofessional? Never!
Never mind all the other problems in the ME, we need to get rid of Bezek first (you hear this BB?). There embeded so deep in the legal system that it's illegal to offer long distance (even VOIP) with out giving them a tithing.
I decided to use Netvision & HOT for my internet just to avoid Bezek, found out latter that HOT is nothing but a reseller of their bandwidth.
"We don't care, we don't have to, were the phone company!"
It figures... 3 months after I choke on the cost of a rock for my fiancee they release a diamond the size of her head... is there anything these days that doesn't go obsolete?
Next you'll be telling me my new computer is obsolete.
There's always something biger, faster, more sparkly.
How exactly does Emporer Linux justify chargin $500 more for a computer without a licencsed OS?
I'm not great fan of Windows, but why should I pay $500 so that some screw up can spend 15min installing a version of Linux I don't like (vs one I do like)?
I think I've just stoped wondering why linux as a desktop OS has never taken off.
Traveling at 60MPH a cycle would probably be less effecient than an SUV. Since the major consumer of power at that speed is air resistance. And oddly enough that boxy SUV has a much lower drag coefficient than a human body curled up into a parabolic faceing the wind. Air resistance increases at the square of the velocity. At 20mph that most recreational bikers can avg, wind resistance isn't a big deal. But they nearly double their power requirements to go an extra 5mph!
And you are right, storring that much energy on a humman boddy just isn't that easy. On the Tour De France, the avg speed is 35mph. They are burning over 8000+ calories a day!! They physically can not metablolize and store that many callories every day. Their bodies need additional energy so badly they start to canabalize the riders muscle mass. Riders end The Tour weighing less than when they started, and they are physicaly in worse shape.
Even if you put one of those super aero dynamic canopies, and drop the rider into a recumbant position, you still aren't going to have much speed. An olympic athleat can sustain a 1/4 horse power over 8hrs, and a normal person in good fitness can sustain 1/8th of a horse power over 8hrs. That's not allot of horse power for hauling all the groceries your going to need to eat, at 60mph.
That being said, I commute every day by bike. I average 1.5hrs on my bike on a work day, and more on days I get some freedom. I assure you I enjoy filling my tank more than any driver!
I know for me preassure has very different effects.
In tech, I'm so well grounded that I can be creative. Panic does set in, and often, but instead of freazing I just make a thought salad, and put all my ideas in a jumble, pretty easy to do when your bothered. The result is often hightened creativity, but at the cost of speed; it takes time to sort through much of the garbage.
On the other hand, I'm trying to learn a forign language. In addition to the fact that this is the first time in my life I've had to work HARD to learn something, thought salad doesn't help at all! When doing written assignments I'm the fastest in the class finishing in 1/3 to 1/4 the time of anyone else. But the second I have to speak I'm all stuteres and "Wait let me do that again". The thought salad get's in the way, as my unfamiliarity with the subject/language mean much more garbage to sort though, and a longer time doing it.
Smart people may simply be considered smart because they've developed unusal methods of thinking, that lead them to more creative/simpler/original solutions. But those methods of working are not common for a reason: There less effective at general tasks.
Einstein was almost 40 before he ever admited that it may be helpfull to memmorize facts and figures, rather than looking them up on demand. He had a creative way of looking at the world, that stemmed largley from his beliefe that there were central items of importance(ex: c), and the rest were secondary. As he grew older, and I assume more conventional, he had to accept that HIS way of doing things may not be best applied outside it's proper domain.
Now I find that the best way to get this new language in my head is to stop thinking, and do it like a dummy: Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. And supress creativity as much as I can while trying to speak it.
Multi threading get's you a speed boost not necesarily on the individual application, but definetly on the OS level. That's why Sun get's away with individual CPU's that are each 1/4 the speed of cheapy x86 hardware.
Most OS's these days are not monolithic. Even MS is really a collection of smaller pieces, but not nearly to the degreee of Linux.
Linux just scales better than Windows on multiple CPUs. I have no doubt that MS will work indian programers day and night to catch up, but this is a game they are definetly playing catch up in.
Linux, in some versions is scalling past 64 CPUs now (oh the benefits of forked kernel development!), which should factor nicely when time comes that AMD ('cause may not be around then) is pushing ships with dozens if not hundreds of micro-cores.
Last I checked (and I may be out of date on this) Windows started bogging on 4 CPUs. And never mind it's assanine global message loop.
I fully realize Joe User cares more about percieved performance than real performance (long live xorg!), and explaining Linux's advanced scaling architecture will not win over the desktop, but it will have a signifigant impact on technical decision markets; from servers to embeded devices (HUGE market for these clustered chips).
uh... correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to get it down into the martian atmosphere, we'd have to lift it up through ours.... on a flaming roman candle...
Assuming that stuff is as powerfull as they say, that it can raise Mars's temp imagine what it could do to ours...
"You still haven't defined... minimum government interference."
Yes I have. Repeatedly. Minimum goverment interference is where the G's don't have charter to force me to "do the right thing". If we as a society fail to live up to our "obligations" then we deserve what we get. But a minority should not dicate proper moral choice to the majority. (or vice versa). If people realy care about these issues let them put their money where there mouth is and leave the rest of us alone.
"Your entire attack assumes that some people want more government interference for the sake of government interference."
1) I'm not attacking. I'm explaining my view point. Attacking would imply that I expect to Counquer and Win. I have no expectation that my views will change yours. I mearly enjoy discussing the issue.
2) I also never said that it's interference for it's own sake. I think both sides of the issue are deaply concerned with helping set thing right. They just have different notions of how that get's done.
"Whom do you suggest be the arbitrator of who has screwed up"
No one! get it! no one! Nature makes that decision all by it's self! No one has to decide, because it's aparent at face value. The best part is nature can't be bribed, or screw up. Once in a while someone does get a raw deal, I would say it's more often the result of personal decisions.
"It is simply cheaper to give everyone a monthly check... than it is deal with all the issues your ideas raise"
Now you have a degree in macro economics? It's cheaper to create incentives for people to do the right thing, and let them choose. Then pick up the straglers in the end. At least in my opinion. Which is the current proposel in the senate.
Investment in the market creats jobs and economic development, LONG TERM investment helps to stabalize the market (as opposed to a mad rush to pull your money out and bursting the bubble). Spending it in a ponzie scheme just spreading it all too thin.
"Given the expense of raising a child..."
Don't kid yourself, it was never cheap. And there are still millions of Americans who do it. Some even have large families without first becoming millionares. People manage.
"You're talking about a minority on the size of the black population of the US."
10-15% represent the number of childess elderly. Not the number of childess elderly with no plans for retirement. And that was also a maximalist estimate by you, that I left unchalenged. Try to keep it in perspective. I'm also not advocating the complete removal of the system. Just shrinking it to encorage a more natrual flow, without totaly abandoning the straglers.
"The fascism you promote is.. the destruction of choices that those on the bottom end of the income... will face."
That's not fascism. It is, at worst, elietism, but it's not fascism. But since I say that ANYONE can succedde, poor or rich, white or black, it's hard to call me elietist either.
"Under you're plan, that mother and child will have to give up their liberties, much in the way a cash-advance place works. "
WTF?! When did I say this?! I'll grant you, it's a possible extraction from my views, taken to the UTMOST extream! But I'm talking about social security, not teenage mothers.
And btw: training programs are good, I would never deprive a person of the chance to improve their own lot.
"they were called company towns."
Your roots are showing...
Company towns were broken up by the gov't, and in any case were illegal to begin with (you can't print your own money). I'm not against Unions (mostly), I'm not against Anti-Trust laws. Or the gov't stepping in to set things right.
At any rate, momentery gov't involvment is not in the same category as a "Social Program" that has an unlimited life span. One is brief, and then can be examined in the lense of
"Your idea that you can live off alone without need of society is ridiculous on it's face."
Such an idea would be a farce, I agree. Good thing I said no such thing. I did not suggest going off to live in the woods. I suggested being independent, with a MINIMUM of gov't interference. That each attempt by the gov't to help, reduces my freedom more.
It's not a black and white world, we have no need to jump to extreams.
"The penalties for failure that you propose removing are harsher than the crime."
The penelty for not working is not eating.
The penelty for not saving, is not having a retirement.
How do the punishments not fit the crime?
"any study of the facts show that poverty is not simply a result of making bad decisions. Most people in poverty have not had ample opportunity to get out of it."
We will have to agree to disagree then. I have never in my life met anyone who had a lack of opportunity. I'm not talking about opportunity for fantastic wealth. I'm talking about opportunity for basic happyness. That may include lowering your standards from a house in the burbs to a 2 room apt downtown over a blues club. It may include working your butt off for 40 years to support your family so you can see your grand kids.
Yes, it does, rarely, happen that some poor shmuck get's a raw deal. Like getting lukemia or getting shot at random. And it would be a tremendous credit to any society that reached out to help these people, but it's not an obligation. Again, thank G_d, daily life for most of us isn't like that.
"10% - 15% are going childless"
So you now agree: Childless elderly are in the minority.
Now wasn't that easy?
"You're idolizing a past that never existed and expecting fascist like adherence to a cultural ideal."
1) How is living with your parrents fascist? 2) It's not a cultural ideal, it's a norm. I'm not talking aobut Leave It To Beaver. I'm talking about taking care of your own family. It's not exactly so far fetched. And if you go any place in South America, you'll see it does exist NOW! America doesn't lack culture because of a dirth of coffee shops, it's because we throw away our history.
"Affirmative Action hampers your ability to find a job is unproven"
Choose what ever statistics make you feel better. The theory is all I require to substantiate my point, that civil and economic rights *can* conflict. Again I AM NOT GONG TO DEBATE AA!
"I find it ironic that you don't seem to grasp that.."
I grasp the scope of my statements quite well thankyou. And I understhand where you differ.
Two people can look at the same facts and have differing oppinions. Logic is a horse, emotions are the rider.
You see "equality" with respect to living conditions, where I see it as a matter of freedom.
You see "opportunity" as financial meens to grasp the reigns. I see the reigns as being in anyones reach, regardless of social status. (some exceptions do apply)
"Without those programs, that statement will be a pipedream."
The scariest words in the english language are: "Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
I can do it my own damn self thankyou. Now take your hands out of my walet, and if you feel so guilty for the rest of society go pay for it with your own money.
I'm just a stingy bastard who calls home every week to talk his parrents into retiring to his home. But my parrents are wiser and have their retirement already taken care of... in fact their takeing care of their parrents. My concience is clear either way. How about yours?
"That is the folly of youth. Life will teach you to be more humble."
Ahhh the sweet irony of telling somone else they need to be more humble!
BTW: How old am I?:)
"Huns sacking Rome"
The Romans were beasts. I can think of no greater Justice than that! But I supose that's the limitation of my imagination.
"If the odds are good that society will abandon me at old age due to no fault of my own, what loyalty should I have to that society?"
Here's a radical notion: You shouldn't.
It's that very purchase of loyalty I'm arguing against. As I indept myself to an individual or institution it gains power over me. That is Wealth=Power. Money is nothing less or more than the destiled essence of survival in the physical world. As source of my material survival becomes dependent on another, so do I. The cage may even be confortable, but it's still a cage.
I believe that the individuals when left to their own devices can and will make (mostly) good decisions.
I believe that by removing the penelties of failure you dissable the innate need for survival that drives the human spirit.
I choose freedom over security.
If you are oposed to those statements we will only argue till Slashdot rots or get's sued by MS.
"What nobility is there in dying in the streets, of having no recourse against more powerful people preying on you?"
1 The Man is not out to get you. The Man doesn't know you exist. You are infetesimel and irrelevent. That's a good thing. No one notices you untill after you've succeeded.
Where is the nobility? Not in dieing. In succeding. Pride only comes from acompliment, only. People who become accostomed to not doing for themselves, not acomplishing anything, decay. They loose all pride, thinking the only way they can succede is to keep taking the hand out.
"What is to stop cult like religious organizations..."
What's to stop the gov't from preying on those on the dole? Watch a politician stumping. They always bring up: "He's going to cut this social program!" True or not, it's scares the hell out of people who've become dependent on it. And again, you have to trust in peoples wisdom not to take the jello-shot; some times you loose the bet.
"If private charity was enough, we wouldn't have ever started these programs in the first place."
We started welfare durring the great depression as a temporary program. No One had money, so the gov't had to step in and speed things up again. Then it got a life of it's own. When we (mostly) killed it in '96 60% of single mothers on welfare found jobs within 3 years. State welfare systems are a fraction of the size the used to be, yet the streets are not crawling with the damned. Some stayed on, because they had no choice. But obviously 60% did.
Social Security isn't Welfare. The people on it now, got suckered into it. We can't pull the chord and expect them to adapt. That's why Bush want's to phase it out. No one actually wants to hurt old folks. They just want to correct a mistake that was made, rather then giving it immortality.
"Can you actually prove that these people are in a minority?"
The average american female is survived by 2.2 children. CIA World fact book. Mathmaticaly they have to be in the minority. There simply isn't a large enough population block having 2 dozen kids.
"What if my children turned out to be bums, even though I had done everything possible to raise them right?"
Then you didn't.
"Your entire premise assumes cultural norms that are not normal and hardly universal."
They were nearly universal 2 generations ago. If they aren't now, then why?
"Rights are never in conflict."
Uh.. sure they are. I want to apply for a job. I'm not a minority. An less qualified minority applies for the same possition. Afermative action means he get's the job, not me. For many decades this was NECESARY to help correct a major social problem in this country. But many, NOT RACIST, folks didn't get that job because of that law, that was trying to balace (and rightly so) the racial scales in the USA.
I'm NOT going to debate Afermative Action, but it is a case of "Rights" comming into conflict.
"...completely unregulated capitalism, people will be in positions whe
"What about people with no family? How about if their entire family was killed in a natural disaster?"
They are, by far, the minority. And your right, they do fall to a communal responsiblity, to an extent. In the end that person, as are we all, is responsible for their own welfare. The fact they spent all their savings on cool toys instead of saving for their retirement truely is NOT a societal issue, it's an issue of that persons personal maturity.
That being said, there are still many people who fall through the cracks. And by the end of their productive years, through little fault of their own (lazyness is fault btw) came to an ill state. It may not be societies obligation to help them, but it is a measure of our humanity as a whole that we do help them. There are existing infestructures set up to deal with this, both govermental and private. I do however, sadely, believe that it is not in the US Gov't charter to provide these services, and that the task should fall to private organizations and charities.
"Poverty is linked to crime."
So is wealth. As every public official, corporate officer, lawyer, and politician with his hand out can attest too. I would like to propose that rather than poverty being the source of crime, perhaps dependence is. With no sense of nobility, there is no reason for a man to keep his path on the straight and narrow. Hand outs rob people of their dignity. There is a fine line between charity, and making someone dependent upon your generosity. Ask any one whos ever worked a soup kitchen (your truely included), as the homless slowly become accostomed to being "entitled" and not earning their daily bread, they slowly loose their humanity.
"here has been an increase in bank robberies over the past few years committed by seniors, "
Please provide sources or links. What kind of crime? Tax evaison? Steeling silverwear from resteraunts? Or selling crack to schoool kids?
"(a) an equal distribution of the burdens of citizenship, i.e. those limitations of freedom which are necessary in social life;"
in a-e you still fail to provide any evidence supporting your claim. Yes the FF had an idea of community, well yeah, that's what a "Nation" is. But did their idea of communital burdens extend to economic benefit, or civil. In numorous cases economic rights and civil rights come to conflict.
Civil rights/burdens might include, paying/fighting for the military defense of the country, or being bound by laws of common conduct (ex. speed limits), and freedom of speech vs. slander/liable. Economic benefits, found commonly in european charters, are things like the right to "Dignity", minimum standards of living, maximum work weeks to ensure enriched lives spent outside work.
All are noble ideas to be sure. We can be absolutly certain that the FF endorsed Civil rights. The bill of rights contains NOTHING but civil rights. However "(e) an equal share in the advantages (and not only of burden) which membership of the state may offer to its citizens." is an ambigious phrase to say the least. As one might view advantages as opportunies or entitelments.
In such an argument status quo alwasy has the high ground, and the burden of proof is put on the idea of change. In historic context, status quo does go against economigh rights, as all that are currently in place (save vetrans benefits), are within the last 80years; therefor far outside the perview of the FF.
"Your alluding to the relative value of senior citizens is quite anti-equalitarian."
Quite the contrary. My point, made both ironicly and explicitly, was that makeing the elderly a societal burden causes them to be degraded and their value to society lost, while they rot away in Florida 1000 miles from their nearest family.
"Only it'll be a much more direct and personal robbing of a specific rich S.O.B. than taxes are,"
So it's better to steel from the rich?
"You managed to shift a low tax burden from"
My point was that the elderly aren't a burden. They're a resource. And by making them a communal responsiblity rather than an indivdual/family one, we've deprived our society of that resource. So now they are a burden.
Incedently, it's just NOT that expensive. Raising kids (well) is by far more dificult, and pricey. The sole caveat is medical expenses, which is a seperate issue entirely, and something the USA is going to have to deal with REAL soon, as the market is not naturally correcting.
"It'll be the poor middle aged S.O.B. who has to try and support his parents at the same time as his family."
I've never met a couple that didn't love having their parrents help with the kids. Baby sitters are expensive, unreliable, and in the end strangers. Parents are the most guilt free method EVER of allowing "middle aged" parrents to have a life outside of diapers and screaming children.
That aside, the issue of simply passing on family traditions and wisdom that only someone with a full life can provide is invalueble to raising children.
Finally, every parrent should know your children do more watching then listening. They learn more from what you do than what you say, by far! And how you choose to treat your parrents will be reflected in how your children treat you. If you ever want to know if you've been a good son/daughter just look to your own children and see how they behave twoards you.
either you do it in an orderly fashion through a system like Social Security or you pay through externalized costs of destitute elderly.
Or you could act like a grown man, and take care of the people who spawned you. Yes I am suggesting you take your parrents into your house. It's really easy to be generous with someone elses money.
Plan on paying for increases in crime,
I can see it now: rioting, crack adicted, geriatrics running through the streets! Old people are not going to start nocking over banks and beating up young people to pay their medicare bills. This is just moronic.
No society has been able to progress and remain competitive with the shortsighted advice you've proposed here.
WTF does any of this have to do with progress? Right now elderly live in seperate communities or specialty group care facilities. They can no longer contribute ANYTHING to society, since they are cut off from the next generation. We washed our hands of them long ago with Social Security.
Given current societies involvment with their greatest intelectual assets, I don't think it would matter one little bit to our "Progress" if we let them starve in the street or die silently and alone in some sterile institution.
Wealth equals power,
Marxism, Leninism, Tratskism, Mauism, and the Kibuts are dead, they didn't work... just deal with it....Social Security fits the Founding Father's idea of justice, hence it's in the Constitution.
Please provide one proof, of this statement. Give me any qoute (in context PLEASE) to prove this. It's not enough that they used the word "Justice" and you have a new meening for that word.
Slashdot Mirror
And no SUVs? WTF!
exactly, great idea...
t m)
so you A-Hole will be better at running things than my A-Hole?
Clinton walked OUT on the Keyoto treaty, and he bombed/invaded Iraq and Afganistan (Additionaly Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia, Central African Republicm, Rwanda, Zaire, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Kenya, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and East Timor. All together 26 countries in 8 years, but don't take my word for it http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.h
They're all jerks. And not everthing evil that's happend to the US has happend since 2000.
Republicans aren't evil. Democrats are not out to save the world. So let's end the melodrama and realize that we are all small little actors (even the president) and we all just have to do our part and hope for the best.
oh... and ride bikes.
Can I mod CmdTaco down for posting "Redundant" material?
I demand that the government employ thousands of (** remove** astronomers) biologists to blanket the (** remove** sky ) ocean watching out for these killer (** remove** aseroids ) microbes. At the moment we can only observe .00001% of the (** remove** sky ) marine biosphere. We need this protection now!
I hate to do this... I favor evolution, heavily but you leave me no choice. No one seems to have pointed this out:
What is extremist is insisting that a religious doctrine with no basis in scientific method (i.e., not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable) should be held as valid science.
1) Observation: modern biology is enormously complex. The likelyhood that it all could have come about by accident, even on a galactic time scale, is extreamly low given our current understanding of the universe. Of all hypothoses proposed, the most "probable" assumes an intervening "inteligent" source. Achem's Razor.
2) Testing: investigation of genetics, and attempts to modify will demonstrate pronounced lack of flexibility. If the system evolved randomly it will necessitate a flexible system that allows one component to change without imediatly impacting the other (thereby alowing generations to correct for the flaw created in the other system). It has already been demonstrated that our genetics are pretty finely tuned. Attempting to alter them to create enhanced features inevitably causes problems in other body systems.
3) Predictive: That over recorded history we will not observe the emergence of a new spieces from another. Individual spieces may adapt, but may not produce major morphological differences. (ie a bovine accostomed to eating leaves may over time grow a longer neck, but probably not one that's 2 meters long, and will always not produce hybrids from matting within it's origin spieces.
4) Falsafiable:
a) a law of physics will be descovered allowing for the probable creation of order out of chaos.
b) records can show spiecies transition
c) aliens show up and tell us they did it.
Ok, so I'm sure that the TRUE BELIEVERS (TM) out there wouldn't even give up hope then. but that's not the point. Every theory is inpsired from some other point, so the fact that it comes from an old book means nothing.
It may take a while to figure out one or the other, but it can be used as a testable scientific theory, at least to the same level as evolution.
All the same... since the likely hood of the christian genesis is no greater than the jewish, muslim, hindu or the jatravartidians(gezuntight) it lacks specifity. At best it could be taught within 5 min of vaugery:
Hello class, this is evolution "...". Some people don't like this theory because they say it has the likelyhood of winning the lottery every week for a year, while not being involved with the mob in the slightest. Many believe that there is/was an inteligence behind the formation of life, thereby giving it it's peculure properties of order and complexity. Both theorys are extreamly dificult to prove or disprove, and are both politicaly charged. So it's unlikely we'll know much of anything untill we either have 10k years of recorded history or the Almighty decides to drop by for tea and sort this all out.
all DVD Johny did was remove an if statement that checks is the URL is from google or not...
the upshot is you get a VLC plugin that can read some propriatary MS formats (thanx to google paying the bill for those software royalties)
it seems so easy that it's as if Google was just waiting for someone to come in and hack it.
Now we see what Googles true colors are.
Will they say "hey thanx for the tip? Want a job?" or will they go all RIAA on little johny?
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of as my stomach turns!
I get modded down for beeing a troll, and being flame bait, but I don't attract even one flame or troll......
Can't win for loosing!
(Note: all you politico's with mod points can go get bent! Just because I dissagree with you doesn't meen I'm an troll. )
because free speach isn't a free-for-all. Free speach always has limits. It's called incitement to violance. And the IndyMedia kiddies have a habbit of crossing the line.
The classic example is not screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Why? Because somone's going to get trampled in the ensuing stampeed. Equally it's illegal for KKK'rs to get up and say "We should all go kill this [insert racial slur] [insert name]". Incedentally, it's legal to state it in the passive. "That [racial slur] [name] should just die!".
It's one thing to say "I think the war in Iraq is wrong" (not saying I do, just an example). It's another totaly to say "Soldiers should frag their officers" (WARNING: DON'T DO THAT).
It happens all the time, and some times it's not prosecuted because it just slips through the cracks. Like at protests when wacko's are carrying signs that call for specific violance (even assasination). This isn't free speach, it's incitement; but like prosecution of any law it's spotty and dependent on a citizen initiating the legal action. So it's not valid to say "Why this and not that?", because the right person just didn't see "that".
This is a fine line issue. But at IM they don't just dip their toes in the pool.. they dive in head first. This isn't expanding free speach rights, it's flouting them. Incitment is NEVER protected speach, and NEVER will be.
and if that's the case isn't indymedia redundant? at best a venue for the extreame fringe, at worst a home for them?
2 9/1411214&tid=1&tid=14Divincies helecopter to work.
IM's original goals were of a noble idea. It's just a failed idea. Allot of ideas are like that. But we move on and find better ones. Lest we'd all still be trying to get http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/
Calling Indymedia journalism, is like calling '10 PRINT "HELLO WORD" ' a C.S. Masters Thesis.
Every wahoo get's on indymedia, and makes up half of what they say out of their imagination. Even if they, by freak chance, are well informed they manage to mangle the 'facts' to the point of propaganda.
I was all for the concept when it started, and I followed it regularly. But it became quickly aparent that IM had nothing to do with news. It has long since degenerated into a reched sesspool of incestous self congradulation. Liberal or not, IM has no 'news value' that can be decerned.
I'm just cynical enough to believe that the only reason 'journalists' would get behind indimedia is that they have paranoid delusions that the New World Order(tm) is out to get them. And as long as Indymedia is around they have someone to point to who is vastly worse than them. "How can you come after us before them?"
Bezek? Do something imoral? unprofessional? Never!
Never mind all the other problems in the ME, we need to get rid of Bezek first (you hear this BB?). There embeded so deep in the legal system that it's illegal to offer long distance (even VOIP) with out giving them a tithing.
I decided to use Netvision & HOT for my internet just to avoid Bezek, found out latter that HOT is nothing but a reseller of their bandwidth.
"We don't care, we don't have to, were the phone company!"
It figures... 3 months after I choke on the cost of a rock for my fiancee they release a diamond the size of her head... is there anything these days that doesn't go obsolete?
Next you'll be telling me my new computer is obsolete.
There's always something biger, faster, more sparkly.
How exactly does Emporer Linux justify chargin $500 more for a computer without a licencsed OS?
I'm not great fan of Windows, but why should I pay $500 so that some screw up can spend 15min installing a version of Linux I don't like (vs one I do like)?
I think I've just stoped wondering why linux as a desktop OS has never taken off.
Traveling at 60MPH a cycle would probably be less effecient than an SUV. Since the major consumer of power at that speed is air resistance. And oddly enough that boxy SUV has a much lower drag coefficient than a human body curled up into a parabolic faceing the wind. Air resistance increases at the square of the velocity. At 20mph that most recreational bikers can avg, wind resistance isn't a big deal. But they nearly double their power requirements to go an extra 5mph!
And you are right, storring that much energy on a humman boddy just isn't that easy. On the Tour De France, the avg speed is 35mph. They are burning over 8000+ calories a day!! They physically can not metablolize and store that many callories every day. Their bodies need additional energy so badly they start to canabalize the riders muscle mass. Riders end The Tour weighing less than when they started, and they are physicaly in worse shape.
Even if you put one of those super aero dynamic canopies, and drop the rider into a recumbant position, you still aren't going to have much speed. An olympic athleat can sustain a 1/4 horse power over 8hrs, and a normal person in good fitness can sustain 1/8th of a horse power over 8hrs. That's not allot of horse power for hauling all the groceries your going to need to eat, at 60mph.
That being said, I commute every day by bike. I average 1.5hrs on my bike on a work day, and more on days I get some freedom. I assure you I enjoy filling my tank more than any driver!
I know for me preassure has very different effects.
In tech, I'm so well grounded that I can be creative. Panic does set in, and often, but instead of freazing I just make a thought salad, and put all my ideas in a jumble, pretty easy to do when your bothered. The result is often hightened creativity, but at the cost of speed; it takes time to sort through much of the garbage.
On the other hand, I'm trying to learn a forign language. In addition to the fact that this is the first time in my life I've had to work HARD to learn something, thought salad doesn't help at all! When doing written assignments I'm the fastest in the class finishing in 1/3 to 1/4 the time of anyone else. But the second I have to speak I'm all stuteres and "Wait let me do that again". The thought salad get's in the way, as my unfamiliarity with the subject/language mean much more garbage to sort though, and a longer time doing it.
Smart people may simply be considered smart because they've developed unusal methods of thinking, that lead them to more creative/simpler/original solutions. But those methods of working are not common for a reason: There less effective at general tasks.
Einstein was almost 40 before he ever admited that it may be helpfull to memmorize facts and figures, rather than looking them up on demand. He had a creative way of looking at the world, that stemmed largley from his beliefe that there were central items of importance(ex: c), and the rest were secondary. As he grew older, and I assume more conventional, he had to accept that HIS way of doing things may not be best applied outside it's proper domain.
Now I find that the best way to get this new language in my head is to stop thinking, and do it like a dummy: Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. And supress creativity as much as I can while trying to speak it.
Multi threading get's you a speed boost not necesarily on the individual application, but definetly on the OS level. That's why Sun get's away with individual CPU's that are each 1/4 the speed of cheapy x86 hardware.
Most OS's these days are not monolithic. Even MS is really a collection of smaller pieces, but not nearly to the degreee of Linux.
Linux just scales better than Windows on multiple CPUs. I have no doubt that MS will work indian programers day and night to catch up, but this is a game they are definetly playing catch up in.
Linux, in some versions is scalling past 64 CPUs now (oh the benefits of forked kernel development!), which should factor nicely when time comes that AMD ('cause may not be around then) is pushing ships with dozens if not hundreds of micro-cores.
Last I checked (and I may be out of date on this) Windows started bogging on 4 CPUs. And never mind it's assanine global message loop.
I fully realize Joe User cares more about percieved performance than real performance (long live xorg!), and explaining Linux's advanced scaling architecture will not win over the desktop, but it will have a signifigant impact on technical decision markets; from servers to embeded devices (HUGE market for these clustered chips).
Install cell phone towers everywhere. We've already proven we can cover every d@mn square meter of this planet with them!
uh... correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to get it down into the martian atmosphere, we'd have to lift it up through ours.... on a flaming roman candle...
Assuming that stuff is as powerfull as they say, that it can raise Mars's temp imagine what it could do to ours...
can you say "oops"?
"You still haven't defined ... minimum government interference."
... than it is deal with all the issues your ideas raise"
..."
.. the destruction of choices that those on the bottom end of the income ... will face."
Yes I have. Repeatedly. Minimum goverment interference is where the G's don't have charter to force me to "do the right thing". If we as a society fail to live up to our "obligations" then we deserve what we get. But a minority should not dicate proper moral choice to the majority. (or vice versa). If people realy care about these issues let them put their money where there mouth is and leave the rest of us alone.
"Your entire attack assumes that some people want more government interference for the sake of government interference."
1) I'm not attacking. I'm explaining my view point. Attacking would imply that I expect to Counquer and Win. I have no expectation that my views will change yours. I mearly enjoy discussing the issue.
2) I also never said that it's interference for it's own sake. I think both sides of the issue are deaply concerned with helping set thing right. They just have different notions of how that get's done.
"Whom do you suggest be the arbitrator of who has screwed up"
No one! get it! no one! Nature makes that decision all by it's self! No one has to decide, because it's aparent at face value. The best part is nature can't be bribed, or screw up. Once in a while someone does get a raw deal, I would say it's more often the result of personal decisions.
"It is simply cheaper to give everyone a monthly check
Now you have a degree in macro economics? It's cheaper to create incentives for people to do the right thing, and let them choose. Then pick up the straglers in the end. At least in my opinion. Which is the current proposel in the senate.
Investment in the market creats jobs and economic development, LONG TERM investment helps to stabalize the market (as opposed to a mad rush to pull your money out and bursting the bubble). Spending it in a ponzie scheme just spreading it all too thin.
"Given the expense of raising a child
Don't kid yourself, it was never cheap. And there are still millions of Americans who do it. Some even have large families without first becoming millionares. People manage.
"You're talking about a minority on the size of the black population of the US."
10-15% represent the number of childess elderly. Not the number of childess elderly with no plans for retirement. And that was also a maximalist estimate by you, that I left unchalenged. Try to keep it in perspective. I'm also not advocating the complete removal of the system. Just shrinking it to encorage a more natrual flow, without totaly abandoning the straglers.
"The fascism you promote is
That's not fascism. It is, at worst, elietism, but it's not fascism. But since I say that ANYONE can succedde, poor or rich, white or black, it's hard to call me elietist either.
"Under you're plan, that mother and child will have to give up their liberties, much in the way a cash-advance place works. "
WTF?! When did I say this?! I'll grant you, it's a possible extraction from my views, taken to the UTMOST extream! But I'm talking about social security, not teenage mothers.
And btw: training programs are good, I would never deprive a person of the chance to improve their own lot.
"they were called company towns."
Your roots are showing...
Company towns were broken up by the gov't, and in any case were illegal to begin with (you can't print your own money). I'm not against Unions (mostly), I'm not against Anti-Trust laws. Or the gov't stepping in to set things right.
At any rate, momentery gov't involvment is not in the same category as a "Social Program" that has an unlimited life span. One is brief, and then can be examined in the lense of
"Your idea that you can live off alone without need of society is ridiculous on it's face."
:)
Such an idea would be a farce, I agree. Good thing I said no such thing. I did not suggest going off to live in the woods. I suggested being independent, with a MINIMUM of gov't interference. That each attempt by the gov't to help, reduces my freedom more.
It's not a black and white world, we have no need to jump to extreams.
"The penalties for failure that you propose removing are harsher than the crime."
The penelty for not working is not eating.
The penelty for not saving, is not having a retirement.
How do the punishments not fit the crime?
"any study of the facts show that poverty is not simply a result of making bad decisions. Most people in poverty have not had ample opportunity to get out of it."
We will have to agree to disagree then. I have never in my life met anyone who had a lack of opportunity. I'm not talking about opportunity for fantastic wealth. I'm talking about opportunity for basic happyness. That may include lowering your standards from a house in the burbs to a 2 room apt downtown over a blues club. It may include working your butt off for 40 years to support your family so you can see your grand kids.
Yes, it does, rarely, happen that some poor shmuck get's a raw deal. Like getting lukemia or getting shot at random. And it would be a tremendous credit to any society that reached out to help these people, but it's not an obligation. Again, thank G_d, daily life for most of us isn't like that.
"10% - 15% are going childless"
So you now agree: Childless elderly are in the minority.
Now wasn't that easy?
"You're idolizing a past that never existed and expecting fascist like adherence to a cultural ideal."
1) How is living with your parrents fascist?
2) It's not a cultural ideal, it's a norm. I'm not talking aobut Leave It To Beaver. I'm talking about taking care of your own family. It's not exactly so far fetched. And if you go any place in South America, you'll see it does exist NOW! America doesn't lack culture because of a dirth of coffee shops, it's because we throw away our history.
"Affirmative Action hampers your ability to find a job is unproven"
Choose what ever statistics make you feel better. The theory is all I require to substantiate my point, that civil and economic rights *can* conflict. Again I AM NOT GONG TO DEBATE AA!
"I find it ironic that you don't seem to grasp that.."
I grasp the scope of my statements quite well thankyou. And I understhand where you differ.
Two people can look at the same facts and have differing oppinions. Logic is a horse, emotions are the rider.
You see "equality" with respect to living conditions, where I see it as a matter of freedom.
You see "opportunity" as financial meens to grasp the reigns. I see the reigns as being in anyones reach, regardless of social status. (some exceptions do apply)
"Without those programs, that statement will be a pipedream."
The scariest words in the english language are:
"Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
I can do it my own damn self thankyou. Now take your hands out of my walet, and if you feel so guilty for the rest of society go pay for it with your own money.
I'm just a stingy bastard who calls home every week to talk his parrents into retiring to his home. But my parrents are wiser and have their retirement already taken care of... in fact their takeing care of their parrents. My concience is clear either way. How about yours?
"That is the folly of youth. Life will teach you to be more humble."
Ahhh the sweet irony of telling somone else they need to be more humble!
BTW: How old am I?
"Huns sacking Rome"
The Romans were beasts. I can think of no greater Justice than that! But I supose that's the limitation of my imagination.
"If the odds are good that society will abandon me at old age due to no fault of my own, what loyalty should I have to that society?"
..."
Here's a radical notion: You shouldn't.
It's that very purchase of loyalty I'm arguing against. As I indept myself to an individual or institution it gains power over me. That is Wealth=Power. Money is nothing less or more than the destiled essence of survival in the physical world. As source of my material survival becomes dependent on another, so do I. The cage may even be confortable, but it's still a cage.
I believe that the individuals when left to their own devices can and will make (mostly) good decisions.
I believe that by removing the penelties of failure you dissable the innate need for survival that drives the human spirit.
I choose freedom over security.
If you are oposed to those statements we will only argue till Slashdot rots or get's sued by MS.
"What nobility is there in dying in the streets, of having no recourse against more powerful people preying on you?"
1 The Man is not out to get you. The Man doesn't know you exist. You are infetesimel and irrelevent. That's a good thing. No one notices you untill after you've succeeded.
Where is the nobility? Not in dieing. In succeding. Pride only comes from acompliment, only. People who become accostomed to not doing for themselves, not acomplishing anything, decay. They loose all pride, thinking the only way they can succede is to keep taking the hand out.
"What is to stop cult like religious organizations
What's to stop the gov't from preying on those on the dole? Watch a politician stumping. They always bring up: "He's going to cut this social program!" True or not, it's scares the hell out of people who've become dependent on it. And again, you have to trust in peoples wisdom not to take the jello-shot; some times you loose the bet.
"If private charity was enough, we wouldn't have ever started these programs in the first place."
We started welfare durring the great depression as a temporary program. No One had money, so the gov't had to step in and speed things up again. Then it got a life of it's own. When we (mostly) killed it in '96 60% of single mothers on welfare found jobs within 3 years. State welfare systems are a fraction of the size the used to be, yet the streets are not crawling with the damned. Some stayed on, because they had no choice. But obviously 60% did.
Social Security isn't Welfare. The people on it now, got suckered into it. We can't pull the chord and expect them to adapt. That's why Bush want's to phase it out. No one actually wants to hurt old folks. They just want to correct a mistake that was made, rather then giving it immortality.
"Can you actually prove that these people are in a minority?"
The average american female is survived by 2.2 children. CIA World fact book. Mathmaticaly they have to be in the minority. There simply isn't a large enough population block having 2 dozen kids.
"What if my children turned out to be bums, even though I had done everything possible to raise them right?"
Then you didn't.
"Your entire premise assumes cultural norms that are not normal and hardly universal."
They were nearly universal 2 generations ago. If they aren't now, then why?
"Rights are never in conflict."
Uh.. sure they are. I want to apply for a job. I'm not a minority. An less qualified minority applies for the same possition. Afermative action means he get's the job, not me. For many decades this was NECESARY to help correct a major social problem in this country. But many, NOT RACIST, folks didn't get that job because of that law, that was trying to balace (and rightly so) the racial scales in the USA.
I'm NOT going to debate Afermative Action, but it is a case of "Rights" comming into conflict.
"...completely unregulated capitalism, people will be in positions whe
"What about people with no family? How about if their entire family was killed in a natural disaster?"
They are, by far, the minority. And your right, they do fall to a communal responsiblity, to an extent. In the end that person, as are we all, is responsible for their own welfare. The fact they spent all their savings on cool toys instead of saving for their retirement truely is NOT a societal issue, it's an issue of that persons personal maturity.
That being said, there are still many people who fall through the cracks. And by the end of their productive years, through little fault of their own (lazyness is fault btw) came to an ill state. It may not be societies obligation to help them, but it is a measure of our humanity as a whole that we do help them. There are existing infestructures set up to deal with this, both govermental and private. I do however, sadely, believe that it is not in the US Gov't charter to provide these services, and that the task should fall to private organizations and charities.
"Poverty is linked to crime."
So is wealth. As every public official, corporate officer, lawyer, and politician with his hand out can attest too. I would like to propose that rather than poverty being the source of crime, perhaps dependence is. With no sense of nobility, there is no reason for a man to keep his path on the straight and narrow. Hand outs rob people of their dignity. There is a fine line between charity, and making someone dependent upon your generosity. Ask any one whos ever worked a soup kitchen (your truely included), as the homless slowly become accostomed to being "entitled" and not earning their daily bread, they slowly loose their humanity.
"here has been an increase in bank robberies over the past few years committed by seniors, "
Please provide sources or links. What kind of crime? Tax evaison? Steeling silverwear from resteraunts? Or selling crack to schoool kids?
"(a) an equal distribution of the burdens of citizenship, i.e. those limitations of freedom which are necessary in social life;"
in a-e you still fail to provide any evidence supporting your claim. Yes the FF had an idea of community, well yeah, that's what a "Nation" is. But did their idea of communital burdens extend to economic benefit, or civil. In numorous cases economic rights and civil rights come to conflict.
Civil rights/burdens might include, paying/fighting for the military defense of the country, or being bound by laws of common conduct (ex. speed limits), and freedom of speech vs. slander/liable. Economic benefits, found commonly in european charters, are things like the right to "Dignity", minimum standards of living, maximum work weeks to ensure enriched lives spent outside work.
All are noble ideas to be sure. We can be absolutly certain that the FF endorsed Civil rights. The bill of rights contains NOTHING but civil rights. However "(e) an equal share in the advantages (and not only of burden) which membership of the state may offer to its citizens." is an ambigious phrase to say the least. As one might view advantages as opportunies or entitelments.
In such an argument status quo alwasy has the high ground, and the burden of proof is put on the idea of change. In historic context, status quo does go against economigh rights, as all that are currently in place (save vetrans benefits), are within the last 80years; therefor far outside the perview of the FF.
"Your alluding to the relative value of senior citizens is quite anti-equalitarian."
Quite the contrary. My point, made both ironicly and explicitly, was that makeing the elderly a societal burden causes them to be degraded and their value to society lost, while they rot away in Florida 1000 miles from their nearest family.
No one is talking about thro
"Only it'll be a much more direct and personal robbing of a specific rich S.O.B. than taxes are,"
So it's better to steel from the rich?
"You managed to shift a low tax burden from"
My point was that the elderly aren't a burden. They're a resource. And by making them a communal responsiblity rather than an indivdual/family one, we've deprived our society of that resource. So now they are a burden.
Incedently, it's just NOT that expensive. Raising kids (well) is by far more dificult, and pricey. The sole caveat is medical expenses, which is a seperate issue entirely, and something the USA is going to have to deal with REAL soon, as the market is not naturally correcting.
"It'll be the poor middle aged S.O.B. who has to try and support his parents at the same time as his family."
I've never met a couple that didn't love having their parrents help with the kids. Baby sitters are expensive, unreliable, and in the end strangers. Parents are the most guilt free method EVER of allowing "middle aged" parrents to have a life outside of diapers and screaming children.
That aside, the issue of simply passing on family traditions and wisdom that only someone with a full life can provide is invalueble to raising children.
Finally, every parrent should know your children do more watching then listening. They learn more from what you do than what you say, by far! And how you choose to treat your parrents will be reflected in how your children treat you. If you ever want to know if you've been a good son/daughter just look to your own children and see how they behave twoards you.
either you do it in an orderly fashion through a system like Social Security or you pay through externalized costs of destitute elderly.
...Social Security fits the Founding Father's idea of justice, hence it's in the Constitution.
Or you could act like a grown man, and take care of the people who spawned you. Yes I am suggesting you take your parrents into your house. It's really easy to be generous with someone elses money.
Plan on paying for increases in crime,
I can see it now: rioting, crack adicted, geriatrics running through the streets! Old people are not going to start nocking over banks and beating up young people to pay their medicare bills. This is just moronic.
No society has been able to progress and remain competitive with the shortsighted advice you've proposed here.
WTF does any of this have to do with progress? Right now elderly live in seperate communities or specialty group care facilities. They can no longer contribute ANYTHING to society, since they are cut off from the next generation. We washed our hands of them long ago with Social Security.
Given current societies involvment with their greatest intelectual assets, I don't think it would matter one little bit to our "Progress" if we let them starve in the street or die silently and alone in some sterile institution.
Wealth equals power,
Marxism, Leninism, Tratskism, Mauism, and the Kibuts are dead, they didn't work... just deal with it.
Please provide one proof, of this statement. Give me any qoute (in context PLEASE) to prove this. It's not enough that they used the word "Justice" and you have a new meening for that word.
you've vomited all over this page.
I couldnt agree more.