Talk about strawmen. You imply that I'm shouting the douchebags down when, in fact, I said that so long as they act like religious fanatics I wouldn't listen to them. There's a world of difference between these two things; are you smart enough to parse it yourself, or do I have to spell it out for you?
And then, of course, YOU don't resort to insults. Oh no! That would be "lazy" and "shallow" and the mark of a "dumb-ass".
Kid, shit like this is just too funny to pass up. While you're reveling in your self-absorption over your own wit, try picking up a dictionary and looking up the word "hypocrisy". Then you might get a clue as to why your post made me laugh out loud.
These are the same fucking idiots who scream that we should tear down each and every power-generating dam in Oregon due to the 'damage to the environment' they cause, without providing any alternative whatsoever and not realizing that they'd have to be replaced with nuclear power plants (a Tool Of The Devil(TM) to these fools) or much worse - coal-fired plants.
So far as I can tell the extremist greenies aren't pro-environment but anti-technology. Nothing would make them happier than to destroy all trace of technology and science everywhere and force the rest of us to return to a hunter-gatherer society, dancing around the campfire and praying to their moronic Gaian goddess. That is, the few million that'd be left of us after everyone else died of starvation.
They can bitch, whine and moan all they like. And I'll continue to dismiss the douchebags at every turn so long as they continue to act like religious extremists.
Hippies or not, its dangerous to launch nukes into the atmosphere - you don't risk your own civilization to benefit science.
What a bunch of sensationalist crap. You could launch a thousand of these puppies into the atmosphere, have them all catastrophically fail, and civilization would hardly be affected at all. The recent NATURAL tsunami has done more damage than a thousand spectacular failures ever could.
And despite the tsunami death toll, I don't hear people screaming about 'big waves' wiping out all of civilization.
This is in part due to the fact that MS stock was vastly overvalued. It's still vastly overvalued, but more and more investors are getting wise to this fact and refuse to put a religious sort of faith in Microsoft's ability to make all that stock money back 'sometime in the future'. Especially since their attempts to enter and dominate alternate markets have met with either very limited success, or no success at all.
you get bitter when NO ONE believe what you say over time
There's a reason why people don't believe most of the horseshit that's dished to them. Perhaps you should wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that this reason isn't due to some inherent genetic fault in the people you're trying to dish your horseshit to.
Dressing up some company's mistake (deliberate or otherwise) to make it look better is still lying, whether you want to admit it or not. The general populace gets that pretty well, even if the hacks in the PR department do not.
Patenting an IDEA is an idiotic notion, especially when it only applies to favored cases. Under the current law I could patent the IDEA of a locked-room murder mystery (assuming no obvious prior art - sometimes) and no one else in the world could write about that concept unless I granted them use of my patent.
Oh, but wait! We give special treatment to certain types of ideas in specific fields! It doesn't apply to fiction...and why? Because perhaps doing so would highlight the absolute absurdity of current law?
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration
What's worrying is that there are people out there who actually think they have the right to ban others from going into space. Don't want to go into space? Fine - don't go? But when it comes to others going into space, bugger off and mind your own business.
The belief that there is no god is obviously a belief of a religious nature.
I suppose if you're zealous about it then it would seem to be akin to a religious belief (and equally as annoying).
However, there are a great many of us who simply don't give a damn about the question one way or another. I know that's hard for the pro-religion and anti-religion folk to accept, but it also happens to be true whether you like it or not.
If you have trouble wrapping your brain around the concept, replace the word 'religion' with 'golf'. There are a great many people who love golf, and a smaller subset who think the game absolutely sucks. But then there are the people who simply don't give a shit about golf one way or another, never think of it, never ponder it, never spend any time or energy on it at all. And we really don't care to listen to people who like golf ramble on and on (and on and on...) about it, nor are we interested in hearing the people who hate golf do the same thing. Because WE DON'T CARE ABOUT GOLF.
Some people find religion - pro, anti, whatever - to be dreadfully dull and of no interest. While that might make them atheists in the loosest sense of the word, that doesn't make their beliefs (or rather, lack thereof) religious in nature.
Anyone who uses "gay" as an insult just isn't worth listening to. And, of course, that their penis is almost certainly undersized and laughed at by any women who chances to see it.
How's that socialism if Smith Falls people get more per capita than Ottawa people?
Because true socialism requires "each according to his NEEDS", not "each according to his needs only if it's cost effective". As the previous poster pointed out, the fact that people in the country have to travel farther for emergency medical care than those in the city (who're usually within a mile or two of a hospital) means that their NEED for paved roads is far, far greater (and certainly more immediate, in an actual emergency) than that of people who live within what's practically spitting distance of a local hospital.
You mislabel a capitalist approach as something following the lines of "the greater good", when socialism doesn't encompass this concept at all. True socialism is about supplying INDIVIDUAL needs, not bending the individual over and giving him a good reaming in the name of some nebulous "greater good".
It should be noted here that with a few exceptions I'm a libertarian and think socialism is a crock of shit. But I also think it's important to know the actual theory behind socialism and communism, and not whatever schlock is being passed off as socialism or communism amongst pseudo-liberal hippy types. As the previous poster said, there isn't a single socialist country on Earth, and there has never, ever been a true communism, or anything close to it.
Canada isn't socialist and never has been. It's economic structure is virtually identical to that of the United States, apart from the fact that the government offers a few extra services.
Under U.S. copyright law, you don't have to actually prove that distribution occured -- it is generally sufficient to make a copyrighted work available for distribution.
If that's the case then these people are completely fucked.
...work for government, and then you'll understand. Anyone beyond the level of 'prole' - that is, anyone with any sort of managerial responsibility - is likely to be a fucking idiot of the first order. The higher you go, the dumber they get, because promotion isn't based on ability but contacts and mutual secret-keeping. Who managed to get his 15-year-old babysitter to whore herself out to his boss? That's the person that's going to get promoted, be sure of it!
I know it's a trite, overused stereotype, but in more cases than you'd think possible it's also a *true* stereotype. Just about the only true stereotype I've run into during my life.
User fees aren't a libertarian idea; in fact, they don't have anything at all to do with libertarianism. The government - city, local, state, federal - all charge 'user fees' for a variety of different services right now, and I can't see anything remotely libertarian about any of these entities.
I don't agree with user fees either, btw. I fail to see the logic in forking out an ungodly sum from my paycheck for taxes that supposedly support necessary government functions, then doing so again for 'extra' services (e.g., vehicle registration, permit to add on to a house, and so forth. What, these aren't 'necessary government functions'???).
All corporations are sociopathic by definition. It's how they're constructed. This is furthered by the fact that corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that corporate employees can often commit crimes without fear of prosecution because they can hide behind a corporate legal shield.
There are no "good" corporations. If one acts in what appears to be a beneficial manner, it isn't because this giant pseudo-organic monstrous entity has suddenly developed (on a Borg-like scale) a conscience, but rather because it sees some way to profit from that activity.
A national i.d. number solves nothing. It'll simply replace the SSN as a universal identifier, and that number will used to accomplish identity theft rather than the SSN.
...when I was an independent, I did a little consulting for a state university which shall remain nameless on computerizing their class sign-up system and allowing folks to set their course schedule for the term via the university's web site. They used the student's SSN and real name for the entire transaction, transmitted in the clear. I pointed out that this was terribly unsafe and could quite easily be used to steal the identities of every student who used the system, but suffice to say they weren't the least bit interested in hearing about my concerns. In fact, my short-term contract with them was not renewed because they didn't want to deal with the security flaws I pointed out and apparently were displeased that I'd had the gall to highlight said flaws in the first place.
Not that I cared about the contract; it seemed terribly irresponsible to me to put so many people at risk and deliberately do nothing to reduce that risk despite being told of the danger. But I do wonder if they'd be legally liable for their behavior, especially in light of the fact that I told them flat-out just how dangerous it was and that they needed to change the system to protect their students.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about strawmen. You imply that I'm shouting the douchebags down when, in fact, I said that so long as they act like religious fanatics I wouldn't listen to them. There's a world of difference between these two things; are you smart enough to parse it yourself, or do I have to spell it out for you?
And then, of course, YOU don't resort to insults. Oh no! That would be "lazy" and "shallow" and the mark of a "dumb-ass".
Kid, shit like this is just too funny to pass up. While you're reveling in your self-absorption over your own wit, try picking up a dictionary and looking up the word "hypocrisy". Then you might get a clue as to why your post made me laugh out loud.
Max
No need to get nasty, Skim. Cluelessness isn't punishable by death...yet.
Max
Proof positive that there's at least one person on Earth who's never read LOTR, or seen the movies. I knew there had to be one, somewhere....
Max
But I'm glad that people stood up in opposition.
These are the same fucking idiots who scream that we should tear down each and every power-generating dam in Oregon due to the 'damage to the environment' they cause, without providing any alternative whatsoever and not realizing that they'd have to be replaced with nuclear power plants (a Tool Of The Devil(TM) to these fools) or much worse - coal-fired plants.
So far as I can tell the extremist greenies aren't pro-environment but anti-technology. Nothing would make them happier than to destroy all trace of technology and science everywhere and force the rest of us to return to a hunter-gatherer society, dancing around the campfire and praying to their moronic Gaian goddess. That is, the few million that'd be left of us after everyone else died of starvation.
They can bitch, whine and moan all they like. And I'll continue to dismiss the douchebags at every turn so long as they continue to act like religious extremists.
Max
Hippies or not, its dangerous to launch nukes into the atmosphere - you don't risk your own civilization to benefit science.
What a bunch of sensationalist crap. You could launch a thousand of these puppies into the atmosphere, have them all catastrophically fail, and civilization would hardly be affected at all. The recent NATURAL tsunami has done more damage than a thousand spectacular failures ever could.
And despite the tsunami death toll, I don't hear people screaming about 'big waves' wiping out all of civilization.
Max
Apparently you've had your sense of humor surgically removed.
Max
This is in part due to the fact that MS stock was vastly overvalued. It's still vastly overvalued, but more and more investors are getting wise to this fact and refuse to put a religious sort of faith in Microsoft's ability to make all that stock money back 'sometime in the future'. Especially since their attempts to enter and dominate alternate markets have met with either very limited success, or no success at all.
Max
and was very impressed by his vision
So were the nine kings of mortal men until Sauron uttered the words "and in the darkness bind them."
Max
you get bitter when NO ONE believe what you say over time
There's a reason why people don't believe most of the horseshit that's dished to them. Perhaps you should wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that this reason isn't due to some inherent genetic fault in the people you're trying to dish your horseshit to.
Dressing up some company's mistake (deliberate or otherwise) to make it look better is still lying, whether you want to admit it or not. The general populace gets that pretty well, even if the hacks in the PR department do not.
Max
How is is flamebait to point out a real and growing trend? What idiot modded this post?
Max
Patenting an IDEA is an idiotic notion, especially when it only applies to favored cases. Under the current law I could patent the IDEA of a locked-room murder mystery (assuming no obvious prior art - sometimes) and no one else in the world could write about that concept unless I granted them use of my patent.
Oh, but wait! We give special treatment to certain types of ideas in specific fields! It doesn't apply to fiction...and why? Because perhaps doing so would highlight the absolute absurdity of current law?
Max
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration
What's worrying is that there are people out there who actually think they have the right to ban others from going into space. Don't want to go into space? Fine - don't go? But when it comes to others going into space, bugger off and mind your own business.
Max
Prove it.
Max
The belief that there is no god is obviously a belief of a religious nature.
I suppose if you're zealous about it then it would seem to be akin to a religious belief (and equally as annoying).
However, there are a great many of us who simply don't give a damn about the question one way or another. I know that's hard for the pro-religion and anti-religion folk to accept, but it also happens to be true whether you like it or not.
If you have trouble wrapping your brain around the concept, replace the word 'religion' with 'golf'. There are a great many people who love golf, and a smaller subset who think the game absolutely sucks. But then there are the people who simply don't give a shit about golf one way or another, never think of it, never ponder it, never spend any time or energy on it at all. And we really don't care to listen to people who like golf ramble on and on (and on and on...) about it, nor are we interested in hearing the people who hate golf do the same thing. Because WE DON'T CARE ABOUT GOLF.
Some people find religion - pro, anti, whatever - to be dreadfully dull and of no interest. While that might make them atheists in the loosest sense of the word, that doesn't make their beliefs (or rather, lack thereof) religious in nature.
Max
Anyone who uses "gay" as an insult just isn't worth listening to. And, of course, that their penis is almost certainly undersized and laughed at by any women who chances to see it.
Max
How's that socialism if Smith Falls people get more per capita than Ottawa people?
Because true socialism requires "each according to his NEEDS", not "each according to his needs only if it's cost effective". As the previous poster pointed out, the fact that people in the country have to travel farther for emergency medical care than those in the city (who're usually within a mile or two of a hospital) means that their NEED for paved roads is far, far greater (and certainly more immediate, in an actual emergency) than that of people who live within what's practically spitting distance of a local hospital.
You mislabel a capitalist approach as something following the lines of "the greater good", when socialism doesn't encompass this concept at all. True socialism is about supplying INDIVIDUAL needs, not bending the individual over and giving him a good reaming in the name of some nebulous "greater good".
It should be noted here that with a few exceptions I'm a libertarian and think socialism is a crock of shit. But I also think it's important to know the actual theory behind socialism and communism, and not whatever schlock is being passed off as socialism or communism amongst pseudo-liberal hippy types. As the previous poster said, there isn't a single socialist country on Earth, and there has never, ever been a true communism, or anything close to it.
Canada isn't socialist and never has been. It's economic structure is virtually identical to that of the United States, apart from the fact that the government offers a few extra services.
Max
Under U.S. copyright law, you don't have to actually prove that distribution occured -- it is generally sufficient to make a copyrighted work available for distribution.
If that's the case then these people are completely fucked.
Max
Your sig is extremely offensive to us Christians, don't suppose you'd consider changing it would you?
Not in this lifetime.
Max
...work for government, and then you'll understand. Anyone beyond the level of 'prole' - that is, anyone with any sort of managerial responsibility - is likely to be a fucking idiot of the first order. The higher you go, the dumber they get, because promotion isn't based on ability but contacts and mutual secret-keeping. Who managed to get his 15-year-old babysitter to whore herself out to his boss? That's the person that's going to get promoted, be sure of it!
I know it's a trite, overused stereotype, but in more cases than you'd think possible it's also a *true* stereotype. Just about the only true stereotype I've run into during my life.
Max
You'd first have to have legislators with a conscience. And just how likely is *that*?
Max
User fees aren't a libertarian idea; in fact, they don't have anything at all to do with libertarianism. The government - city, local, state, federal - all charge 'user fees' for a variety of different services right now, and I can't see anything remotely libertarian about any of these entities.
I don't agree with user fees either, btw. I fail to see the logic in forking out an ungodly sum from my paycheck for taxes that supposedly support necessary government functions, then doing so again for 'extra' services (e.g., vehicle registration, permit to add on to a house, and so forth. What, these aren't 'necessary government functions'???).
Max
All corporations are sociopathic by definition. It's how they're constructed. This is furthered by the fact that corporations have the same rights as individuals, and that corporate employees can often commit crimes without fear of prosecution because they can hide behind a corporate legal shield.
There are no "good" corporations. If one acts in what appears to be a beneficial manner, it isn't because this giant pseudo-organic monstrous entity has suddenly developed (on a Borg-like scale) a conscience, but rather because it sees some way to profit from that activity.
Max
They have the Boomer mentality, both personally and nationally. As in "buy now, make the damned kids pay for everything later".
Max
A national i.d. number solves nothing. It'll simply replace the SSN as a universal identifier, and that number will used to accomplish identity theft rather than the SSN.
Max
...when I was an independent, I did a little consulting for a state university which shall remain nameless on computerizing their class sign-up system and allowing folks to set their course schedule for the term via the university's web site. They used the student's SSN and real name for the entire transaction, transmitted in the clear. I pointed out that this was terribly unsafe and could quite easily be used to steal the identities of every student who used the system, but suffice to say they weren't the least bit interested in hearing about my concerns. In fact, my short-term contract with them was not renewed because they didn't want to deal with the security flaws I pointed out and apparently were displeased that I'd had the gall to highlight said flaws in the first place.
Not that I cared about the contract; it seemed terribly irresponsible to me to put so many people at risk and deliberately do nothing to reduce that risk despite being told of the danger. But I do wonder if they'd be legally liable for their behavior, especially in light of the fact that I told them flat-out just how dangerous it was and that they needed to change the system to protect their students.
Max