Exactly. Is it too much to ask for "the dead" to just STFU and let us get on with our ceremony?
Honestly, I'm going the cremation route because I couldn't care less about this stuff. My wife feels the same way but my mom is just outrageous in her demands. I swear you would think the woman has a Pharoh complex or something. She's got this big plan where my brother and I have her cremated and then pour various "subsets" of her ashes into the Tennessee River, Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico. This has something to do with each of the places he's lived being represented or some such conceited bullshit. She'll be dead and on top of that she won't even be a body, just a box of ashes!
These wishes will not be honored. No chance in hell of that happening. She's getting turned into ashes and then it's all going in the Gulf. That's where the rest of it empties out anyway right? Close enough. Just imagine the price of gas as we drive all over the southern U.S. trying to do this?
It's pure insanity. We love her but this is just over the top.
Can one of you Brainiacs convert this into a figure that the rest of us ordinary folks can understand like "Libraries of Congress" please? Is that too much to ask?
I can only assume that the software for keeping track of air and sunlight for taxing purposes isn't ready yet.
If California wants to make up some ground on their $8 billion dollar deficit I suggest they try spending less money and not shaking down every possible source of income they can find. Doing that is going to lead to the citizens (they know us as "consumers" or "taxpayers", they may not recognize the term "citizens") deciding to shake these leeches off. I'm not advocating anything but I wouldn't be even remotely upset to see someone put a cap in this leech's ass.
Yeah I do realize that. The man has health problems and he's vice president in an administration that's screwed the world up so badly that it will take much of the next two presidential terms to clean it up. Of course he's not seeking the presidency. LBJ chose not to run again once it became clear how badly he'd bungled his meaningless war. It doesn't surprise me that Dick Cheney won't be back for a second go-round. He's smarter than that.
Interesting. Originally I was just talking about the Kang who hangs out with the original posters candidate "Kodos" on The Simpsons.
When you mentioned the red and blue colored "Kangs" I did think of Kang the Conqueror.
I was completely unaware of the Street Gang Kangs you were talking about. I agree, the number of Kangs needs to be reduced. I will attempt to get a promise of "Strategic Kang Limitations" added to the party platform of the Democrats. The Republicans would never go for it. They're all about the military industrial complex which Kangs so often benefit from.
I think you're right but I also want to add that I don't think anyone could have predicted the scale of the damage he caused. I voted for him in 2000 and against him in 2004 because by then it was impossible to miss what a nightmare his Presidency had become. Obviously he was a lot worse than I imagined in 2000 and I'm not disputing that at all. Having said that I can't help but wonder what his term of office (be it 4 or 8 years) would have looked like without 9/11 to leverage.
You misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I knew what a bumpkin GWB was long ago. When I used the term "Bug Bubba" I was referring to "Big Brother" in 1984.
I meant "Who knew that George & Co. were going to dedicate their every waking moment to cutting out as many of our freedoms as they could before the end of their term". I swear, George is like the new Stalin (without the domestic body count admittedly)
You know, I spent a lot of time pondering that as well. Why does this candidate rub me the wrong way so badly? I didn't mind her husband as President and so I naturally started wondering if it was because of her gender. Was I being sexist without recognizing it? Ultimately I concluded that my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton was her personality and the almost palpable ambition she seems to give off. It's like the woman is just starving for power and will step over just about anybody or anything to get it. I haven't had this kind of negative feeling about a candidate or President since Nixon. Despite his actions I don't much get it from GWB. I do get a sense of it from Cheney however.
She goes into a series of primaries with agreeing to certain terms (like Florida and Michigan not counting for instance) and then when it seems like she might not get her way she starts making noises about changing those terms. She enters a primary in Texas fully aware of how the primary works in Texas (and any protests otherwise she might make border on being insulting in my opinion) and then again you start to hear rumblings from her campaign about the possibility of filing suit to have this changed because it does not favor her. She goes into debates talking about being "co-President" and trying to leverage her husbands coat tails (which I do not fault her for doing mind you) but then denies any real involvment when failures or negatives from his administration are brought up. I see this and think "You were either the co-President or you weren't so what's it gonna be?"
This is the kind of behavior that makes me just cringe at the thought of her being President of the United States.
I'd probably still vote for McCain. In fact I'm sure I would. I imagine my wife might be more willing to vote for Hillary if Obama were her running makte (seeing as my wife comes from a more Democrat-leaning history) but I couldn't bring myself to vote for her under any circumstances. If she had Jesus Christ as her running mate and he actually returned to campaign with her I'd still vote McCain.
You see, my beliefs cannot be neatly packed into labels of "conservative" and "liberal". I'm extremely conservative about some things and extremely liberal about others. In short I have "core beliefs" but they straddle the two ideologies that you appear to be capable of seeing. Your use of the term "socialist" to describe Obama tells me that you have a typical American grasp of what that word means and so I don't see any point in discussing it with you.
Where I work I've spoken to 6 different dedicated Republicans who said they also voted for Clinton on the Democrate side. They all agreed that they did so for no other reason than that they'd rather face her than Obama in the general election.
I usually vote Republican but after the last 8 years under GWB (I confess that I voted for him the first time. Who knew he was going to turn into "Big Bubba" on us?) I am so disappointed in the right that I'm actively searching for a Democrat to support. I like Obama and I'm voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't I'm going to go ahead and throw my vote behind McCain. I know several people who feel the same way I do, in particular my wife. She's a lifetime Democrat but she swears that if Hillary gets the nomination she's voting for McCain.
I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. She's the one candidate that the Republicans will pull together to keep out of the White House. Obama's pulling in Independents and liberal minded Republicans (yes, we exist). Hillary will send us all into McCain's camp.
That was almost unreadable. It was like a thought just came apart somewhere between my head and the keyboard. I meant to ask if the guy you responded to was talking about the car Max was driving or the car that Max was chasing in that scene. Instead it came out all wrong. Sorry about that.
True that. Was he talking about what the that Max was chasing was driving? I honestly don't remember what it was so either he was wrong about Max's car or he knows far more about these movies than I ever took the time to learn.
Either way I love my Monaro. I've actually been thinking of trying to pick up a second one to store for the future. These cars are just entirely too much fun.
I'm sticking with my 2006 GTO with the 6.0 V8 engine. Yeah it gets lousy mileage but I figure that if I go places really, really fast then I'm not polluting for as long as all those other people. Plus I'm helping to get rid of all that messy oil. As soon as that stuff is all used up we'll see real progress towards an alternative.
You're right of course and I don't want to imply that I don't agree with you when I say that the consequences of such enforcement, a wide scale would be devastating for the ISP that "went first". Now if all of them did so at once they would be within their rights to do so and they could probably head off the kind of subscriber exodus that a single ISP would face.
The only problem with that is of course that they rarely work together well. Somebody is always waiting to pick up the monthly subscribers you're going to lose by enforcing the rules. Their own greed is usually enough to prevent them from working together.
You have a good point and so does the fellow you're talking to. I can't help but feel like there is no perfect answer to this however and I find myself thinking of the age old sequence of events where a relative few screw things up for everybody. A handful of people own the laws now and when it no longer suits their purpose they buy extensions on existing laws or sometimes entirely new ones. We may not be able to afford to keep helping those starving artists you speak of. The few may have broken the system beyond repair and the many may just need to get a day job (or keep the one they have).
I'd like to let the starving artists have control of their work during their lifetime because that just seems like a good thing to do. At the same time I don't see a lot of people lining up to exploit the work of artists who are themselves "starving" (so to speak). If you're not making any money off of your work then what's the point of giving you 70 years to "not" make money off of your work?
I'd like to see a system where works enter the public domain relatively quickly (the 14 years being tossed around sounds about right. I'm thinking 15-20 though) and then entire a halfway-public state with a graduated and decreasing scale of revenue going towards the copyright holder. Say for instance I invent a cute cartoon rat when I'm 20 years old and copyright it. It takes off and I make some money off of my rat. We'll call him Ricky Rat or "RR" for conversations sake. At 15 years RR becomes "semi-public domain" and anyone who wants to can use him for whatever they like. If they're making money off of him however they have to pay me a percentage of the profits to use him. That percentage decreases as the next decade or two goes by until I no longer get to leech off of other peoples work. I think that would be more than fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows performed in the past? When did that happen?
I must have blinked. Did anyone get a screenshot?
Exactly. Is it too much to ask for "the dead" to just STFU and let us get on with our ceremony?
Honestly, I'm going the cremation route because I couldn't care less about this stuff. My wife feels the same way but my mom is just outrageous in her demands. I swear you would think the woman has a Pharoh complex or something. She's got this big plan where my brother and I have her cremated and then pour various "subsets" of her ashes into the Tennessee River, Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico. This has something to do with each of the places he's lived being represented or some such conceited bullshit. She'll be dead and on top of that she won't even be a body, just a box of ashes!
These wishes will not be honored. No chance in hell of that happening. She's getting turned into ashes and then it's all going in the Gulf. That's where the rest of it empties out anyway right? Close enough. Just imagine the price of gas as we drive all over the southern U.S. trying to do this?
It's pure insanity. We love her but this is just over the top.
Can one of you Brainiacs convert this into a figure that the rest of us ordinary folks can understand like "Libraries of Congress" please? Is that too much to ask?
They're slowly dying out like the giant sloth (in more ways than one).
"So to sum it up, he wants to tax information."
I can only assume that the software for keeping track of air and sunlight for taxing purposes isn't ready yet.
If California wants to make up some ground on their $8 billion dollar deficit I suggest they try spending less money and not shaking down every possible source of income they can find. Doing that is going to lead to the citizens (they know us as "consumers" or "taxpayers", they may not recognize the term "citizens") deciding to shake these leeches off. I'm not advocating anything but I wouldn't be even remotely upset to see someone put a cap in this leech's ass.
Hey! Just one damn minute!
Technically speaking that's a pair of 4x8's held together with deck screws. One 4x8 ain't gonna do shit in an accident.
Then it would be like 911 times a thousand!
That's right. 911,000!
Yeah I do realize that. The man has health problems and he's vice president in an administration that's screwed the world up so badly that it will take much of the next two presidential terms to clean it up. Of course he's not seeking the presidency. LBJ chose not to run again once it became clear how badly he'd bungled his meaningless war. It doesn't surprise me that Dick Cheney won't be back for a second go-round. He's smarter than that.
Interesting. Originally I was just talking about the Kang who hangs out with the original posters candidate "Kodos" on The Simpsons.
When you mentioned the red and blue colored "Kangs" I did think of Kang the Conqueror.
I was completely unaware of the Street Gang Kangs you were talking about. I agree, the number of Kangs needs to be reduced. I will attempt to get a promise of "Strategic Kang Limitations" added to the party platform of the Democrats. The Republicans would never go for it. They're all about the military industrial complex which Kangs so often benefit from.
I think you're right but I also want to add that I don't think anyone could have predicted the scale of the damage he caused. I voted for him in 2000 and against him in 2004 because by then it was impossible to miss what a nightmare his Presidency had become. Obviously he was a lot worse than I imagined in 2000 and I'm not disputing that at all. Having said that I can't help but wonder what his term of office (be it 4 or 8 years) would have looked like without 9/11 to leverage.
You misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I knew what a bumpkin GWB was long ago. When I used the term "Bug Bubba" I was referring to "Big Brother" in 1984.
I meant "Who knew that George & Co. were going to dedicate their every waking moment to cutting out as many of our freedoms as they could before the end of their term". I swear, George is like the new Stalin (without the domestic body count admittedly)
That depends on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. Kang has provided a candidate for both parties. VOTE KANG!
You know, I spent a lot of time pondering that as well. Why does this candidate rub me the wrong way so badly? I didn't mind her husband as President and so I naturally started wondering if it was because of her gender. Was I being sexist without recognizing it? Ultimately I concluded that my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton was her personality and the almost palpable ambition she seems to give off. It's like the woman is just starving for power and will step over just about anybody or anything to get it. I haven't had this kind of negative feeling about a candidate or President since Nixon. Despite his actions I don't much get it from GWB. I do get a sense of it from Cheney however.
She goes into a series of primaries with agreeing to certain terms (like Florida and Michigan not counting for instance) and then when it seems like she might not get her way she starts making noises about changing those terms. She enters a primary in Texas fully aware of how the primary works in Texas (and any protests otherwise she might make border on being insulting in my opinion) and then again you start to hear rumblings from her campaign about the possibility of filing suit to have this changed because it does not favor her. She goes into debates talking about being "co-President" and trying to leverage her husbands coat tails (which I do not fault her for doing mind you) but then denies any real involvment when failures or negatives from his administration are brought up. I see this and think "You were either the co-President or you weren't so what's it gonna be?"
This is the kind of behavior that makes me just cringe at the thought of her being President of the United States.
I'd probably still vote for McCain. In fact I'm sure I would. I imagine my wife might be more willing to vote for Hillary if Obama were her running makte (seeing as my wife comes from a more Democrat-leaning history) but I couldn't bring myself to vote for her under any circumstances. If she had Jesus Christ as her running mate and he actually returned to campaign with her I'd still vote McCain.
You see, my beliefs cannot be neatly packed into labels of "conservative" and "liberal". I'm extremely conservative about some things and extremely liberal about others. In short I have "core beliefs" but they straddle the two ideologies that you appear to be capable of seeing. Your use of the term "socialist" to describe Obama tells me that you have a typical American grasp of what that word means and so I don't see any point in discussing it with you.
Vote KANG! Only KANG!
Where I work I've spoken to 6 different dedicated Republicans who said they also voted for Clinton on the Democrate side. They all agreed that they did so for no other reason than that they'd rather face her than Obama in the general election.
I usually vote Republican but after the last 8 years under GWB (I confess that I voted for him the first time. Who knew he was going to turn into "Big Bubba" on us?) I am so disappointed in the right that I'm actively searching for a Democrat to support. I like Obama and I'm voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't I'm going to go ahead and throw my vote behind McCain. I know several people who feel the same way I do, in particular my wife. She's a lifetime Democrat but she swears that if Hillary gets the nomination she's voting for McCain.
I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. She's the one candidate that the Republicans will pull together to keep out of the White House. Obama's pulling in Independents and liberal minded Republicans (yes, we exist). Hillary will send us all into McCain's camp.
That was almost unreadable. It was like a thought just came apart somewhere between my head and the keyboard. I meant to ask if the guy you responded to was talking about the car Max was driving or the car that Max was chasing in that scene. Instead it came out all wrong. Sorry about that.
True that. Was he talking about what the that Max was chasing was driving? I honestly don't remember what it was so either he was wrong about Max's car or he knows far more about these movies than I ever took the time to learn.
Either way I love my Monaro. I've actually been thinking of trying to pick up a second one to store for the future. These cars are just entirely too much fun.
I'm sticking with my 2006 GTO with the 6.0 V8 engine. Yeah it gets lousy mileage but I figure that if I go places really, really fast then I'm not polluting for as long as all those other people. Plus I'm helping to get rid of all that messy oil. As soon as that stuff is all used up we'll see real progress towards an alternative.
I'm doing it FOR the planet.
You're right of course and I don't want to imply that I don't agree with you when I say that the consequences of such enforcement, a wide scale would be devastating for the ISP that "went first". Now if all of them did so at once they would be within their rights to do so and they could probably head off the kind of subscriber exodus that a single ISP would face.
The only problem with that is of course that they rarely work together well. Somebody is always waiting to pick up the monthly subscribers you're going to lose by enforcing the rules. Their own greed is usually enough to prevent them from working together.
Please, c'mon. "Troll" maybe but "Flamebait"? I protest!
That couldn't be fixed in 10-15 minutes with a roofing hammer and a waterboard.
I'm not doubting you or anything but for me at least Stage6 worked like a charm. I don't think ever once had any trouble with it.
Obviously results varied.
You have a good point and so does the fellow you're talking to. I can't help but feel like there is no perfect answer to this however and I find myself thinking of the age old sequence of events where a relative few screw things up for everybody. A handful of people own the laws now and when it no longer suits their purpose they buy extensions on existing laws or sometimes entirely new ones. We may not be able to afford to keep helping those starving artists you speak of. The few may have broken the system beyond repair and the many may just need to get a day job (or keep the one they have).
I'd like to let the starving artists have control of their work during their lifetime because that just seems like a good thing to do. At the same time I don't see a lot of people lining up to exploit the work of artists who are themselves "starving" (so to speak). If you're not making any money off of your work then what's the point of giving you 70 years to "not" make money off of your work?
I'd like to see a system where works enter the public domain relatively quickly (the 14 years being tossed around sounds about right. I'm thinking 15-20 though) and then entire a halfway-public state with a graduated and decreasing scale of revenue going towards the copyright holder. Say for instance I invent a cute cartoon rat when I'm 20 years old and copyright it. It takes off and I make some money off of my rat. We'll call him Ricky Rat or "RR" for conversations sake. At 15 years RR becomes "semi-public domain" and anyone who wants to can use him for whatever they like. If they're making money off of him however they have to pay me a percentage of the profits to use him. That percentage decreases as the next decade or two goes by until I no longer get to leech off of other peoples work. I think that would be more than fair.