How long until someone packages all these blogs slickly enough to compete with TV news for their huge audiences?
All it would take would be a slick looking RSS reader with prepackaged content. For that to happen, though, more bloggers will need to open up their feeds to more than just headlines and a short blurb, which means more/cheaper bandwidth.
Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. Know what else makes you come across as knowing what you're talking about? Addressing the issues. You know, NOT dodging things and slinging ad hominems all over the place, to the exclusion of all other argument?
In the real world, I would expect a professional programmer with a background in OO to be able to perform competently in any OO language with very little learning curve. The only thing that really changes from language to language is the syntax.
Have to disagree with you there. OO languages are different in implementation, shorcomings, and strengths depending on the language in question. Java can do things that are difficult in Ruby, and vice versa (functions as objects), and Smalltalk can do things that neither can do without tacking on some hack or (for Java) dinking with the bytecote (e.g. continuations.)
There are similarities between languages, but there are frequently differences that are far more fundamental than mere syntax.
Is that ALL you have to say in reply, you retarded conservaclone? You feel good about yourself now, off to go jack off to Sean Hannity some more? "Ahh, tell me how to think, Rush! There for a minute I was actually starting to be skeptical about the GOP!"
Fuck off. If you can come up with something actually SUBSTANTIVE to say, we'll talk. Until then: you done been pwn3d, motherfucker.
The fake picture of Hillary Clinton and the space alien printed with the Weekly World News story about their affair were never formally disputed, either. By the standard you are implicitly proposing, the story should therefore be considered true.
No, not at all. All I am saying is that just because the documents were forgeries does not thereby make the assertions they make false. I could provide you with fake documents with Eintein's signature that said "2+3=5". Just because Einstein didn't actually sign it doesn't mean the arithmetic is bad.
Number 1: Learn to spell, you idiot. "Evidence", mmmk?
Number 2: What exactly has been contradicted? That Bush is a religious zealot who would rather bankrupt the nation than do anything politically brave? That both Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into terrorist havens, largely due to the incompetence and ideological fervor of people like Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and even your lord and savior himself? That given the opportunity to do something brave during the Vietnam war, he instead chose to use his family's connections and take a cushy National Guard post, defending Texas from the threat that was Mexico? Or perhaps the guy who sat next to lady Laura at the State of the Union address last year, Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be a goddammed Iranian spy, and just might be responsible for tricking us into war?
Responsiblity? Screw that. Party first! GOP! GOP! The Republican party can do no wrong, EVER, especially if it is politically damaging.
Go fuck yourself, loser. You support a man whose every policy decision has been wrong, who has bankrupted the nation, deceived it, and stubbornly refused to admit any culpability whatsoever for no better reason than it would be politically damaging to do so.
And that is no reason whatsoever.
And what do the conservatives offer up in defense? "Dan Rather sucks!" "Liberals suck!" "Liberals do the same thing!"
No, see, Democrats WIN wars. Republicans fuck shit up and Democrats have to clean up after them.
Fucktard.
Oh, and let me give you an idea for an opening response: "You're just a Bush hater." But whatever you do, don't address any actual issues.
If you had many other sources, written, verbal, and circumstantial, tell you that, yes, absolutely. The documents aren't the only proof of these claims. Far from it, in fact. But consider: If I show you a document with Albert Einstein's signature on it that says "2+3=5", and it turns out that Einstein didn't actually sign that paper, that doesn't mean the arithmetic is bad.
Wait, are you one of those conservatives who leap at every excuse they can find that lets them NOT listen to things that challenge their beliefs? If so, there's really no point in bothering with you.
LOL. That's right up there with "fake but accurate." "You're saying I'm a crazy person, but you're not addressing my point!"
That's exactly what you are doing. It doesn't matter who makes a claim, only if the claim is true or false. You are dutifully following conservaclone rule #1, though: "Attack the source."
BTW: It was fake but accurate, something that your failure to even address you implicitly concur with.
Frothing? Who are you talking to, and what was frothing about that? And are you saying that Bush did NOT go AWOL? If so, how to you reconcile that with McClellan's own statements, the other, undisputed documents, and the statements of those who were around at the time?
Dismissing someone as a "Bush-hater" might be all it takes to dismiss arguments to your satisfaction, but it does nothing to address the central points.
I started to reply to you, but then I realized that you're just another immoral conservative liar who takes every fact and uses as an exercise in rhetoric.
You know Bush went AWOL. In your heart, you know it. If you can make a complete sentence, you aren't so stupid as to really believe otherwise. It might make your guy look bad, but that doesn't make it untrue. Bush skipped out on duties that most of us would have been severely punished for. There IS an aristocracy in this nation, and Bush is a part of it, and has used it. You can spin it all you want so that you're candidate looks favorable, but it won't change the underlying facts.
Oh, and by the way: in early 1972: Nixon ordered physicals for every active duty military personel in an effort to stem drug abuse. That is why Bush was ordered to take the physical.
Because the woman who wrote the real documents stands by them, as does everyone else from that time. No one has contradicted the contents, not even the White House, and if you had watched the 60 Minutes in question you would have known this.
To be lying they would have had to have known in advance the documents were forged. They did not. When they came to that realization they admitted as much, which means that they have standards and should be praised for having the courage to admit it. Instead, partisans like yourself seek to rub salt in the wounds in order to serve your own narrow agenda.
Further, what the documents said was true, even if the documents themsevles were not actually the originals.
The memos were true. I have to admit to not having followed the latest on the veracity of the memos themselves, but it is my understanding that the validity of what they said was never disputed, whether they were "real" documents or not. In other words, Bush did, in fact, skip the medical check, etc.
I do not know. I tend towards "no", but I think the circumstances would very much dictate my answer. I can imagine a situation wherein the balance of power was so in favor of the management that it was necessary for every employee to be a member, and that if that mechanism failed certain horrible consequences were fairly certain to happen.
So do I support coercive labor unions? Only in certain limited circumstances.
I try not to be zealous about any prinicple, and liberty, while being one of my four core values of good government, is one of those principles.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen or considered the damage done to families and the economy by locking away and destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people whose crime is nothing more than possessing a socially unacceptable drug. The very real, very destructive consequences of marijuana prohibition far outweigh any harm that would occur from legalization.
And for the record, I have indeed done volunteer work with drug addicts. Many of them were no more "addicts" than Bugs Bunny, but due to overly harsh sentencing requirements were forced to go there, taking the place of those with far more serious problems. My time with those people convinced me more than ever that it should be legalized as soon as possible.
Oh, and should you consider throwing the "please think of the children" meme into the mix, you should know that I am the proud father of three.
I live in the Santa Cruz area where Hemp is pushed upon everyone like it's the greatest thing in the world for food, clothing, oils, etc. etc., but along the way they'd like you to forget their real agenda is to legalize pot.
Where, exactly did I say that Earthlink was doing something wrong? Maybe you read it into what I wrote, but you are the one that has a problem with corporate profit then.
Settle down, partner. I wasn't attacking you. If that's not what you meant, ok, but the tone was certainly in that direction, and it certainly wasn't clear why you brought up the point. It's been my experience that people don't usually bring up profit as a motive unless they are denegrating it. Without further context your message could have be read either way.
I hate libertarians as much as the next guy, but let me put on that hat for a minute and ask: so what? If Earthlink honestly provides a good or service that people want, and people use it, why should they not be financially rewarded for their efforts? Profit motive is not inherently bad, however much it may cause unscrupulous players to behave unfairly or unjustly. I don't think Earthlink has done anything to warrant criticism, here, nor are their motives worthy of scorn.
The libertarian view of government should not be one of no-government, but one of government focused on protecting the life and liberty of its citizens.
Yes, and you point out the problem I have with libertarianism (besides its inherent utopianism.) I believe a good, functioning society values three things in its government: liberty, justice, and democracy. Libertarians care only for the first, and none at all for the latter two.
Slashdot Mirror
You damn well should be. That was great.
How long until someone packages all these blogs slickly enough to compete with TV news for their huge audiences?
All it would take would be a slick looking RSS reader with prepackaged content. For that to happen, though, more bloggers will need to open up their feeds to more than just headlines and a short blurb, which means more/cheaper bandwidth.
Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. Know what else makes you come across as knowing what you're talking about? Addressing the issues. You know, NOT dodging things and slinging ad hominems all over the place, to the exclusion of all other argument?
In the real world, I would expect a professional programmer with a background in OO to be able to perform competently in any OO language with very little learning curve. The only thing that really changes from language to language is the syntax.
Have to disagree with you there. OO languages are different in implementation, shorcomings, and strengths depending on the language in question. Java can do things that are difficult in Ruby, and vice versa (functions as objects), and Smalltalk can do things that neither can do without tacking on some hack or (for Java) dinking with the bytecote (e.g. continuations.)
There are similarities between languages, but there are frequently differences that are far more fundamental than mere syntax.
Fuck off. If you can come up with something actually SUBSTANTIVE to say, we'll talk. Until then: you done been pwn3d, motherfucker.
revscat@gmail.com
You might also consider getting a GMail account. I've had mine for about 3 months now, and I have *yet* to receive any spam. Pretty impressive.
The fake picture of Hillary Clinton and the space alien printed with the Weekly World News story about their affair were never formally disputed, either. By the standard you are implicitly proposing, the story should therefore be considered true.
No, not at all. All I am saying is that just because the documents were forgeries does not thereby make the assertions they make false. I could provide you with fake documents with Eintein's signature that said "2+3=5". Just because Einstein didn't actually sign it doesn't mean the arithmetic is bad.
Number 1: Learn to spell, you idiot. "Evidence", mmmk?
Number 2: What exactly has been contradicted? That Bush is a religious zealot who would rather bankrupt the nation than do anything politically brave? That both Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into terrorist havens, largely due to the incompetence and ideological fervor of people like Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and even your lord and savior himself? That given the opportunity to do something brave during the Vietnam war, he instead chose to use his family's connections and take a cushy National Guard post, defending Texas from the threat that was Mexico? Or perhaps the guy who sat next to lady Laura at the State of the Union address last year, Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be a goddammed Iranian spy, and just might be responsible for tricking us into war?
Responsiblity? Screw that. Party first! GOP! GOP! The Republican party can do no wrong, EVER, especially if it is politically damaging.
Go fuck yourself, loser. You support a man whose every policy decision has been wrong, who has bankrupted the nation, deceived it, and stubbornly refused to admit any culpability whatsoever for no better reason than it would be politically damaging to do so.
And that is no reason whatsoever.
And what do the conservatives offer up in defense? "Dan Rather sucks!" "Liberals suck!" "Liberals do the same thing!"
No, see, Democrats WIN wars. Republicans fuck shit up and Democrats have to clean up after them.
Fucktard.
Oh, and let me give you an idea for an opening response: "You're just a Bush hater." But whatever you do, don't address any actual issues.
You'll have to pardon me if I cant take a site that says F9/11 was anything other than a hack piece seriously..
Conservaclone rule #1: Attack the source.
Here's hoping /. puts in an option so I can -1 you "free iPod" idiots. Get a job, you freaking leeches.
Wait, are you one of those conservatives who leap at every excuse they can find that lets them NOT listen to things that challenge their beliefs? If so, there's really no point in bothering with you.
LOL. That's right up there with "fake but accurate." "You're saying I'm a crazy person, but you're not addressing my point!"
That's exactly what you are doing. It doesn't matter who makes a claim, only if the claim is true or false. You are dutifully following conservaclone rule #1, though: "Attack the source."
BTW: It was fake but accurate, something that your failure to even address you implicitly concur with.
Dismissing someone as a "Bush-hater" might be all it takes to dismiss arguments to your satisfaction, but it does nothing to address the central points.
I started to reply to you, but then I realized that you're just another immoral conservative liar who takes every fact and uses as an exercise in rhetoric.
You know Bush went AWOL. In your heart, you know it. If you can make a complete sentence, you aren't so stupid as to really believe otherwise. It might make your guy look bad, but that doesn't make it untrue. Bush skipped out on duties that most of us would have been severely punished for. There IS an aristocracy in this nation, and Bush is a part of it, and has used it. You can spin it all you want so that you're candidate looks favorable, but it won't change the underlying facts.
Oh, and by the way: in early 1972: Nixon ordered physicals for every active duty military personel in an effort to stem drug abuse. That is why Bush was ordered to take the physical.
Because the woman who wrote the real documents stands by them, as does everyone else from that time. No one has contradicted the contents, not even the White House, and if you had watched the 60 Minutes in question you would have known this.
Further, what the documents said was true, even if the documents themsevles were not actually the originals.
The memos were true. I have to admit to not having followed the latest on the veracity of the memos themselves, but it is my understanding that the validity of what they said was never disputed, whether they were "real" documents or not. In other words, Bush did, in fact, skip the medical check, etc.
Do you support coercive labor unions?
I do not know. I tend towards "no", but I think the circumstances would very much dictate my answer. I can imagine a situation wherein the balance of power was so in favor of the management that it was necessary for every employee to be a member, and that if that mechanism failed certain horrible consequences were fairly certain to happen.
So do I support coercive labor unions? Only in certain limited circumstances.
I try not to be zealous about any prinicple, and liberty, while being one of my four core values of good government, is one of those principles.
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen or considered the damage done to families and the economy by locking away and destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people whose crime is nothing more than possessing a socially unacceptable drug. The very real, very destructive consequences of marijuana prohibition far outweigh any harm that would occur from legalization.
And for the record, I have indeed done volunteer work with drug addicts. Many of them were no more "addicts" than Bugs Bunny, but due to overly harsh sentencing requirements were forced to go there, taking the place of those with far more serious problems. My time with those people convinced me more than ever that it should be legalized as soon as possible.
Oh, and should you consider throwing the "please think of the children" meme into the mix, you should know that I am the proud father of three.
I live in the Santa Cruz area where Hemp is pushed upon everyone like it's the greatest thing in the world for food, clothing, oils, etc. etc., but along the way they'd like you to forget their real agenda is to legalize pot.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
Where, exactly did I say that Earthlink was doing something wrong? Maybe you read it into what I wrote, but you are the one that has a problem with corporate profit then.
Settle down, partner. I wasn't attacking you. If that's not what you meant, ok, but the tone was certainly in that direction, and it certainly wasn't clear why you brought up the point. It's been my experience that people don't usually bring up profit as a motive unless they are denegrating it. Without further context your message could have be read either way.
Something like that. Also, I support strong labor unions and environmental regulations.
I hate libertarians as much as the next guy, but let me put on that hat for a minute and ask: so what? If Earthlink honestly provides a good or service that people want, and people use it, why should they not be financially rewarded for their efforts? Profit motive is not inherently bad, however much it may cause unscrupulous players to behave unfairly or unjustly. I don't think Earthlink has done anything to warrant criticism, here, nor are their motives worthy of scorn.
The libertarian view of government should not be one of no-government, but one of government focused on protecting the life and liberty of its citizens.
Yes, and you point out the problem I have with libertarianism (besides its inherent utopianism.) I believe a good, functioning society values three things in its government: liberty, justice, and democracy. Libertarians care only for the first, and none at all for the latter two.