unfortunately I haven't had as good of luck as you yet. Both songs that I've been wanting lately didn't show up at amazon. I hope they have a larger collection at their official launch.
Yeah, in the newly released Corruption Perceptions Index, Uzbekistan was tied for the 4th most corrupt country in the world. Of course, Kazakhstan wasn't too far behind. Maybe next year they'll beat out Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, or the Republic of the Congo:)
I'm not 100% sure we're talking about the same incident, do you have a reference? Strangely, I haven't been able to find one on the incident I mentioned (I looked before I posted), so though I recall it more as I described, I may have been misinformed, but I also know that things like this happened more than once (though, with the riots, surely many were justified). I don't remember hearing about her losing an eye at all, so I'm wondering if it might have been a different case.
You're right, they have meetings every tuesday. Osama bin Laden brings the punch and pie.
It's not difficult to see how we keep ending up in this mess when there's so many people in this country who think the way you do. I suppose you were a big fan of the vietnam war, too, since you're so concerned with saving us from communists. As long as you're blaming things on "the libs" and "commies", you might want to remember who it was in the middle east that we armed to fight against the commies, and what they've been up to in the last 10 years.
Are you positing that we've made it a better place? Because, if you can even compare more than 20 years of brutal dictatorship by none other than Saddam Hussein to 4-5 years of occupation by the USA... there's a major problem there.
I've always been all for making places like Iraq a better place, but if you don't recall, that is *not* why we went there, and it's certainly not what we achieved.
oops, sorry, I misread the portion of your post that I copied and pasted and conflated it with some of the others I read this morning. This is what happens when you stop drinking coffee....
So, immediately grabbing, forcing to the ground, and tasering is OK for someone who is asking a long question in a "civil" forum, so long as the guy is kind of annoying? What the hell kind of protocol for a "civil" debate is that? Next time one of my friends doesn't shut up, I'll just kick his ass and tell him that's slashdot's idea of civility.
I'm sure that if it had been someone else speaking besides a presidential candidate, police would not have been there and Andrew would have been just politely asked to stop talking over and over.
You're sure? Why? Because he's a dick? Maybe you haven't noticed that this isn't the first occurrence of this sort of thing, and not all of them are on youtube. A couple years ago at OSU (columbus, OH), the city finally settled with a student who had been shot in the head with a wooden bullet. She had been unfortunate enough to walk near a party that was too large. As she was walking by, the police shot her in the head with a wooden bullet, giving her brain damage. She wasn't even on the same side of the street as the party.
And this is no shocker. Friends of mine have been maced for the horrific crime of leaving a concert. That's right. There was no altercation, just a croud of people leaving a concert. Apperantly the croud was large enough and the music weird enough to warrant a riot force to be waiting outside the venue, mace at hand. This sort of thing happened on a weekly or monthly basis in columbus.
Wake up. Just because this guy was an annoying prick doesn't mean that the cops don't taser these fucks for shits and giggles. Please don't tell me that the 4 of them didn't have his ass under control.
I'd agree with you if it was a mistake. This was intentional, and because it was intentional, the only way to prevent future offenses is to detur them with some sort of punishment. In most cases involving the police, that comes in the form of a civil suit.
You're forgetting the "legal fees" part of the lawsuit. Anyone can hire a lawyer who is willing to work for them, and in this case, IMHO, it seems like a good bet.
Look guy, I didn't have to go very far through your history to find an even bigger mistake in your comments, so first of, drop the smug shit. You were off by a bit more than an order of magnitude there. I have 3 math related degrees (one being, er... math), so I don't need your lecture on the importance of numbers, nor a tenth of the attitude problem that goes with it. It's not just that [the] numbers [in this case] aren't important. It's more that you completely and bizzarely misunderstood my argument.
Considering that there are fewer than 7 billion humans alive, quite a bit I would say -
If I was as much of a douchebag as you, I'd point out that there are quite a bit fewer than 7 billion humans alive (in fact, you're also off by nearly a billion; you're about 700 million away from being able to round up to the nearest *billion* to your estimate). Did 7 just sound a lot cooler to you? Anyway, apart from the hypocrisy, this is just as irrelevant as your reply, so onward to more fun...
if either party represented tens of percent of humanity that would be staggering and they would in fact be the only sides worth mentioning. Or are readers supposed to be psychic and guess that you meant a small number instead of a large number?
First off, I'm not talking about a percentage of the world population, so this is irrelevant. Jesus, man, all I'm trying to say is that these two parties are large. That's it. Anyway, your phrase "would in fact be" implies that my point was that (or was predicated by): "democrats and replublicans are the only political parties worth mentioning". This is also irrelevant, in that it is already assumed in the sort of ideas I was attempting to argue against (see below). Furthermore, it's true according to your definition, in that I'm only referring to the US anyway. What I'm talking about is the odds that a shitload of people can be evenly divided into two differing political opinions, equal in soundness of opinion, virtue, etc... (this is what I meant by *equal*).
In point of fact, I would be surprised if either party represented in close approximation the beliefs of many more than a few dozen million humans, a much smaller percentage than even your "corrected" completely made up guess. There were (for example) 44.8 million self-described Republicans in the US in 2004, or roughly.7% of humanity and roughly 15% of Americans (which is around 1/7th).
Oops, you seem to have replaced my word "represented" with your phrase "represented in close approximation the beliefs of". It sure does make your "rhetoric" sound a lot better tho, eh?...and helps me to start understanding what rabit hole you fell down. Republicans and Democrats both represent more than a hundred million people, in that more than a hundred million people have voted for them. This is what the word "represent" means in a political context. I'm not sure if a political party could "represent" more than 20 people were the word to have your meaning in this context.
In case you forgot it through all of this, here's my previous partial-sentence (which you say has changed "quite a bit" due to my error): "to say that both of these parties, who represent billions of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit."
Following the natural generalization that most non-autistic people follow, the argument might read: "to say that both of these parties, who represent a shitload of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit."
In fact, this prepositional phrase is so unimportant, I might as well have not even included it. I could have just said "large" before parties and had the same logical impact. My point is that when two opposing political (read: flawed) op
So, you're yet another person who thinks there's some arbitrary divide in politics in which half of the country must stand on one side, the other half on the opposite, and every media outlet must give equal weight to the views an opinions of either of these sides, regardless of the facts, lest they be "unfair"? The left/right divide is a construction that, as Jon often notes, only serves the ruling duopoly. You should watch the crossfire interview that basically got the show cancelled. It's very telling of what Jon is out to do.
For the record, I'm neither a democrat nor republican, but I can't say I'm equally disgusted with both sides here. In fact, that would be statistically very unlikely, and to say that both of these parties, who represent billions of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit. I think it's pretty clear which side has been *more* disgusting lately, but I also don't think it's terribly relevant. And for the record, everything the democrats have done to piss me off lately has been lampooned on the daily show.
You can't be in Jon's position without having some sort of opinion. How else can you make something out to be ridiculous without a baseline comparison? Jon makes a stand on gay marriage, for instance, but it's one I happen to agree with. I also happen to think you're a fucking asshole if you want to ban gay marriage just because it makes you and your friends uncomfortable. It's not because I'm a *liberal*, it's just because I care about the welfare of other people, regardless of how different they are, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
If you don't agree with the politics of the daily show, that's one thing, but to say it needs to be some bland, whitewashed, crossfire reincarnation is asinine.
it concerns net neutrality because it shows that AT&T cannot be trusted with power over the internet. This is a case of them abusing such power. It's not the same power they would have if they could determine what gets to flow through their pipes, but it all comes back to whether or not we can trust them with that power. This is why people would talk about net neutrality during all the wire-tapping shenanigans.
no... they'll mod it "funny" because he was making a *joke*, and pretty much every lame joke gets modded funny on this site.
BTW, you can chill out, because despite about 50 bagillion submissions (mine being one), the story about AT&T censoring pearl jam's anti-bush lyrics never made it onto slashdot (at least, I haven't been able to find it anywhere), despite it concerning net neutrality and webcasts, and despite it being on the front page of google news for 3 days straight. Things aren't quite as slanted as you percieve htem.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately I haven't had as good of luck as you yet. Both songs that I've been wanting lately didn't show up at amazon. I hope they have a larger collection at their official launch.
what's the point of paying for mp3's you wont legally own? You might as well just pirate them for free.
Yeah, in the newly released Corruption Perceptions Index, Uzbekistan was tied for the 4th most corrupt country in the world. Of course, Kazakhstan wasn't too far behind. Maybe next year they'll beat out Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, or the Republic of the Congo :)
You should seriously consider returning you.
I'm not 100% sure we're talking about the same incident, do you have a reference? Strangely, I haven't been able to find one on the incident I mentioned (I looked before I posted), so though I recall it more as I described, I may have been misinformed, but I also know that things like this happened more than once (though, with the riots, surely many were justified). I don't remember hearing about her losing an eye at all, so I'm wondering if it might have been a different case.
You obviously didn't watch the video. The moment his mic gets cut off, the cops are behind him, grabbing him.
Imagining is fun for you people, isn't it?
You're right, they have meetings every tuesday. Osama bin Laden brings the punch and pie.
It's not difficult to see how we keep ending up in this mess when there's so many people in this country who think the way you do. I suppose you were a big fan of the vietnam war, too, since you're so concerned with saving us from communists. As long as you're blaming things on "the libs" and "commies", you might want to remember who it was in the middle east that we armed to fight against the commies, and what they've been up to in the last 10 years.
Are you positing that we've made it a better place? Because, if you can even compare more than 20 years of brutal dictatorship by none other than Saddam Hussein to 4-5 years of occupation by the USA... there's a major problem there.
I've always been all for making places like Iraq a better place, but if you don't recall, that is *not* why we went there, and it's certainly not what we achieved.
oops, sorry, I misread the portion of your post that I copied and pasted and conflated it with some of the others I read this morning. This is what happens when you stop drinking coffee....
civil? Are you shooting for irony?
So, immediately grabbing, forcing to the ground, and tasering is OK for someone who is asking a long question in a "civil" forum, so long as the guy is kind of annoying? What the hell kind of protocol for a "civil" debate is that? Next time one of my friends doesn't shut up, I'll just kick his ass and tell him that's slashdot's idea of civility.
You're sure? Why? Because he's a dick? Maybe you haven't noticed that this isn't the first occurrence of this sort of thing, and not all of them are on youtube. A couple years ago at OSU (columbus, OH), the city finally settled with a student who had been shot in the head with a wooden bullet. She had been unfortunate enough to walk near a party that was too large. As she was walking by, the police shot her in the head with a wooden bullet, giving her brain damage. She wasn't even on the same side of the street as the party.
And this is no shocker. Friends of mine have been maced for the horrific crime of leaving a concert. That's right. There was no altercation, just a croud of people leaving a concert. Apperantly the croud was large enough and the music weird enough to warrant a riot force to be waiting outside the venue, mace at hand. This sort of thing happened on a weekly or monthly basis in columbus.
Wake up. Just because this guy was an annoying prick doesn't mean that the cops don't taser these fucks for shits and giggles. Please don't tell me that the 4 of them didn't have his ass under control.
That should totally be the tag :)
dude, was that intentional?
Hey Jack,
Aren't you a little too busy to be posting on slashdot right now?
I'd agree with you if it was a mistake. This was intentional, and because it was intentional, the only way to prevent future offenses is to detur them with some sort of punishment. In most cases involving the police, that comes in the form of a civil suit.
You're forgetting the "legal fees" part of the lawsuit. Anyone can hire a lawyer who is willing to work for them, and in this case, IMHO, it seems like a good bet.
I had similar problems, and am thus running the 32 bit version. No problems with this version. I don't plan to upgrade until I'm sure it's worth it.
If I was as much of a douchebag as you, I'd point out that there are quite a bit fewer than 7 billion humans alive (in fact, you're also off by nearly a billion; you're about 700 million away from being able to round up to the nearest *billion* to your estimate). Did 7 just sound a lot cooler to you? Anyway, apart from the hypocrisy, this is just as irrelevant as your reply, so onward to more fun...
First off, I'm not talking about a percentage of the world population, so this is irrelevant. Jesus, man, all I'm trying to say is that these two parties are large. That's it. Anyway, your phrase "would in fact be" implies that my point was that (or was predicated by): "democrats and replublicans are the only political parties worth mentioning". This is also irrelevant, in that it is already assumed in the sort of ideas I was attempting to argue against (see below). Furthermore, it's true according to your definition, in that I'm only referring to the US anyway. What I'm talking about is the odds that a shitload of people can be evenly divided into two differing political opinions, equal in soundness of opinion, virtue, etc... (this is what I meant by *equal*).
Oops, you seem to have replaced my word "represented" with your phrase "represented in close approximation the beliefs of". It sure does make your "rhetoric" sound a lot better tho, eh? ...and helps me to start understanding what rabit hole you fell down. Republicans and Democrats both represent more than a hundred million people, in that more than a hundred million people have voted for them. This is what the word "represent" means in a political context. I'm not sure if a political party could "represent" more than 20 people were the word to have your meaning in this context.
In case you forgot it through all of this, here's my previous partial-sentence (which you say has changed "quite a bit" due to my error): "to say that both of these parties, who represent billions of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit."
Following the natural generalization that most non-autistic people follow, the argument might read: "to say that both of these parties, who represent a shitload of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit."
In fact, this prepositional phrase is so unimportant, I might as well have not even included it. I could have just said "large" before parties and had the same logical impact. My point is that when two opposing political (read: flawed) op
eh, divide by 10. That changes my point?
So, you're yet another person who thinks there's some arbitrary divide in politics in which half of the country must stand on one side, the other half on the opposite, and every media outlet must give equal weight to the views an opinions of either of these sides, regardless of the facts, lest they be "unfair"? The left/right divide is a construction that, as Jon often notes, only serves the ruling duopoly. You should watch the crossfire interview that basically got the show cancelled. It's very telling of what Jon is out to do.
For the record, I'm neither a democrat nor republican, but I can't say I'm equally disgusted with both sides here. In fact, that would be statistically very unlikely, and to say that both of these parties, who represent billions of people, are *equal* is pretty much admitting that you're full of shit. I think it's pretty clear which side has been *more* disgusting lately, but I also don't think it's terribly relevant. And for the record, everything the democrats have done to piss me off lately has been lampooned on the daily show.
You can't be in Jon's position without having some sort of opinion. How else can you make something out to be ridiculous without a baseline comparison? Jon makes a stand on gay marriage, for instance, but it's one I happen to agree with. I also happen to think you're a fucking asshole if you want to ban gay marriage just because it makes you and your friends uncomfortable. It's not because I'm a *liberal*, it's just because I care about the welfare of other people, regardless of how different they are, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
If you don't agree with the politics of the daily show, that's one thing, but to say it needs to be some bland, whitewashed, crossfire reincarnation is asinine.
I'm guessing you're not startving and not working at walmart. I conclude that must not be your best argument.
yes, these sound fairly reasonable. Were you trying to make these people sound foolish?
it concerns net neutrality because it shows that AT&T cannot be trusted with power over the internet. This is a case of them abusing such power. It's not the same power they would have if they could determine what gets to flow through their pipes, but it all comes back to whether or not we can trust them with that power. This is why people would talk about net neutrality during all the wire-tapping shenanigans.
no... they'll mod it "funny" because he was making a *joke*, and pretty much every lame joke gets modded funny on this site.
BTW, you can chill out, because despite about 50 bagillion submissions (mine being one), the story about AT&T censoring pearl jam's anti-bush lyrics never made it onto slashdot (at least, I haven't been able to find it anywhere), despite it concerning net neutrality and webcasts, and despite it being on the front page of google news for 3 days straight. Things aren't quite as slanted as you percieve htem.