Sorry, time is too valuable to waste reading your crap. Noticing the volume in passing, you must have wasted several minutes of your worthless life. From your first few words it seems you have sufficient rationale to justify designating me as your foe. Of course, if my assessment of you is correct, then your stupidity may make prevent you from figuring out how to do so. Well, actually, if my assessment of your stupidity is correct, I can't understand how you remember to continue breathing.
So you can't get the joke, eh? First you have to understand the reality before you can understand the kind of reality-based humor that Colbert is doing. I've seen a number of your comments, and so far they've only convinced me that you are quite narrow-minded. Sort of the archetype of today's/. and the reason I've pretty much given up on the system.
Long, long ago,/. had many amusing comments that often called for deep understanding of the technical issues. If there was a +5 funny comment that didn't make sense to me, then it was very likely a signal of something I should learn more about.
These days/. is full of the kind of recycled old garbage that you accuse Colbert of. I wouldn't claim to be an actual fan, but I have seen enough of Colbert's show to know that he's remarkably consistent and innovative, even when he's playing with one of the old themes. The Colbert Report could be improved, but I'm increasingly convinced that/. has already teetered over the edge. I'll be sure when they start the polls on shark jumping.
In the meantime, I suppose I'll just continue fantasizing that 'the powers' might decide to fix it.
I would tell you to read my sig with attention, but if your reading disability is that severe, then it isn't worth the effort. On the other hand, if you're simply blocking sigs, let me add that you're a rude moron, too.
You've already convinced me that you are a leading part of the problem, and the greatest accomplishment you could probably accomplish in your miserable life would be to designate me as your foe. I have never suffered fools gladly, but/. has sunk far below THAT level.
So far a perfectly typical thread of/. know-nothingism.
However, I can address one counterfactual point from way back near the beginning of the branch. It is not the "r" sound that causes trouble for the Japanese, but the "l" sound. Yes, the Japanese "r" is not exactly like the English "r" sound, but it does exist in Japanese. The "l" sound is the one that has no counterpart, so their trained-from-childhood-to-ignore-"l"-like-sound ears try to map the English "l" to the closest Japanese sound, the "r". (And of course it's very hard to learn to make a new sound that you can't distinguish from a different sound that you already know how to make.)
I could approach it in more detail from a phonological perspective, but I've already wasted more time than/. deserves these years.
I'm sure you're joking--but there are some crazy folks who really like the idea.
However, the serious question from your joke is whether or not we could effectively make it impossible to cheat, perhaps partly by using open source support of radiation detection technology. What density of Geiger counters would insure that it was not possible to accumulate any unauthorized nuclear material in a region? (The "unauthorized" refers to the problem of legitimate nuclear material such as medical devices that must be tracked and distinguished from 'bad' nuclear material.)
"Comparative International Law is really simple. In England, anything that is not legally forbidden is permitted. In Germany, anything that is not legally permitted is forbidden. In Russia, everything is forbidden, even that which is permitted. In France, everything is permitted, even that which is forbidden. And in Korea, anything that is either forbidden or permitted is subject to negotiation"
However, now I think the spinning tag cloud thing on the right side is even more interesting...
With regards to the AIG resignation letter, I don't feel ANY sympathy for him. Okay, so he isn't as immoral as the rest of the bastards--but he's still a waste of oxygen. He earns a degree from MIT and that's the best use of it? He could be creating actually valuable things, but now he's crying over all those years he devoted to devising new and innovative scams for leveraging imaginary money against other imaginary money? Okay, maybe I shouldn't say "scams", since he insists he was being ethical about it.
Mostly I'm reminded about the politically incorrect joke about the different countries attitudes toward laws. In the US, it's almost always the 'everything is legal unless explicitly forbidden' category, which is enough for 'ethical' as far as he is concerned. I can't remember the details now, but there's always some country with 'everything is illegal unless explicitly permitted.'
Sounds like you're rather too old to do anything about your reading disability. Are you perhaps dyslexic? I was just doing some work for some researchers in the field, and your comprehension matches some of the problems they were addressing.
As regards your list of accomplishments, I can trivially match and exceed you in every category, so I'm skipping that. However, I think your focal claim of not doing evil only reminded me of the famous quote about inaction.
Tell you what. Here's something really major you can do with your life. Designate me as your official/. foe so I can more easily ignore you in the future.
Destructive criticism is quite easy, isn't it? The question I posed was what do you think your life has actually contributed to society?
It's a question I sometimes wrestle with on my own behalf. Sadly, I must conclude that the answer is not very much--but that conclusion has made me somewhat more critical of criticism of the destructive sort. (I guess I should just be glad that my employer apparently thinks otherwise and that my bonuses are concrete evidence I can take to the bank.)
I acknowledge that Ellison is an extremely critical character--but I think his results are often constructive, sometimes even amazingly so. He often makes people angry--but there are some people who can only be motivated by anger. I'm not sure quite why he is that way, and it isn't really my business. It takes all kinds to make a world.
I'm trying to be polite to you insofar as you are one of the old-timers of/. who should be most aware of and even saddened by how much the system has declined over the years. Therefore even if I think you've never done anything significantly constructive in the past, can't you do anything constructive now? Go ahead, surprise me.
Congratulations. You said it first. However, the extension of my case is that all of/. has mostly become a nest of assholes these years.
I do find it rather interesting that Ellison manages to flush so many assholes into the open. I actually think he would find that especially amusing in his typically perverse sense.
However, the real reason for replying is just to thank you for designating me as your foe. I really do think one can never have too many assholes as foes, and one of the almost redeeming features of/. is that now it will be much easier to ignore your existence.
That's a laugh and a half. You're defending someone named Chris Tucker? WTF did he deserve to earn *YOUR* defense? That was my original question, remember?
As regards Ellison, at least he's sincere about it. I can respect him for his work and accomplishments even if I didn't enjoy it at all.
Reflecting upon the reactions to my comment, I can't decide whether it is a case of many morons thinking alike or pure butt licking sycophancy. I was going to say that I also dislike Ellison's attitude, but there is at least aspect I do like. He questions authority rather than worshiping it.
Scanning for humor and mostly coming up with critiques of Ellison? More shitty moderation, or am I missing the pointless/. point again?
It's not like Ellison needs the money. My main reaction to this lawsuit is "Why did he wait so long?"
Y'all should read some of the books about the wars between the Star Trek creatives and the moralistic moron censors at NBC. I still regard them as the #1 company that earned the right to go bankrupt and never managed it. Okay, maybe #2 behind Exxon?
Of course as regards Star Trek (TOS), the laugh was on NBC, since it was Paramount that harvested most of the so-called excess profits. Yeah, Paramount earned the right to go bankrupt, too, and the Star Trek franchise kept them out of bankruptcy some of the time--but at least they eventually did change the contracts as regards residuals. However, that was also because of Star Trek.
As regards Ellison's 'City on the Edge of Forever', that was actually an SF remake of an old Greek classic. I didn't like the episode that much, but I have to give Ellison credit for his transformative vision there. Yeah, he's a prick, and a professional angry old man since he was a kid, but he's also a great craftsman.
I'd be curious to the answer to the original question of "Why did he wait so long?" My guess is that it's because he is now seeing a lot of old-timers starving to death in poverty because of the lack of residuals. Even without seeing his tax returns, I'm rather sure he isn't worrying about money.
What do you think is wrong about my position? I could certainly clarify it. Just didn't seem worth the effort on/. in light of the moderator abuse you noted.
Perhaps the asinine mod was actually targeting my sig? It is clear that some of the moderators really are that stupid, cowardly, and mendacious. Yes, this paragraph actually is off topic--but more relevant and topical than the average/. moderation, and it made me feel a bit better to vent spleen at the moron.
The other side is that many companies refuse to pursue innovations unless they see parts that can be patented to lock in the monopoly returns. Lesser profits just aren't worth the trouble of pursing innovation as they see it these days.
Alternatively, they can let some small company take the risks and just snatch it up (along with its patents) AFTER the bugs have been worked out.
Re:5 - The most important reason
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
I think I'd like to say "Hear, hear", but I think I'm more fortunate never to have seen the three programs you cite. I've heard of the first two, but this is the first time I've heard of the last one.
You'd think they'd hit bottom, crash, and then go away. But look at/. in it's increasingly bleak dregs. (Can you recommend a website that still has what/. lost?)
Re:5 - The most important reason
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
Hear, hear. Only mention of "suicide" in the entire large thread.
Why am I not surprised to see no "insightful" mods?
Anyway, I think you should have offered some examples of awful shows. I think I'd have to point at Gilligan's Island, but there are SO many awful shows to choose from.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled suicide of the/. SNS.
I really can't tell whether or not you're dull or whether we are mostly in agreement. You certainly don't read very carefully. For example, I am not also the son of an immigrant because my post clearly stated that I was the grandson of an immigrant to America, and less clearly that I am an emigrant from America. At least that's how I think these days and I'm not really expecting to go back.
And yes, I did just fly over to a country with relatively closed immigration policies and highly protectionist trade policies. Those were some of the things I was especially curious about. I had to jump through various hoops, there were times I was skating on the edge, but I kept struggling, and I can say that my ultimate situation now is quite a bit better than my situation in America ever was.
With regards to the main substance of your post, you didn't really make any strong argument about why or how American jobs should be defended. I suggested tax policies, and at this point I suggest you read that book about the flat world (Friedman?), though I mostly disagree with the author. However, he certainly addresses your perspective.
What your posts (and many of the other posts in this discussion) mostly reminded me of was a book I read about the history of immigration in America. It was called "Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints". Historically, the most interesting aspect was how noisily each wave of immigrants argued against permitting the next wave to come in. The specific excuses were usually somewhat different each time, but the general attitude was always like yours. My particular race was regarded as racially inferior and very poorly educated.
My take is that greed is not intrinsically bad, but selfish and mindless greed is usually harmful all around, even to the greedy bastard himself in the sufficiently long run. Just dying with the most toys is not sufficient recompense. I mostly think that America has benefited from the sustained long-term influx of ambitious people, and to a lesser degree from the influx of aggressive people. However, there is certainly such a thing as too many aggressive people in the same place.
This is a test to see whether or not you are an idiot.
Did it occur to you that YOU could go to some other country and get a job? If you're qualified to do anything useful, that is.
Okay, that's off on the wrong foot, but it matches the tone of your comment--at least from the perspective of someone whose grandparents were immigrants to America and who is now a long-term resident of a different country.
How about if national tax policies be designed and structured to encourage and support those businesses that act to strengthen the nation? As it actually works now, businesses with the most money bribe the politicians to write tax policies that primarily focus on helping them make more money, often while weakening the nation.
Gee, you'd think those slimy foreigners could love us for something besides our money, eh? Damn those socialists, and give my regards to your wife. Maybe she loved you for something besides your money, eh? We can always hope.
Yes, that's an insult, but I can't yet decide how stupid you are. Would you be worth having as a/. foe?
Just in case you aren't an idiot, I'm curious why you are so desperate for money? I currently earn about three times my expenses, and I've become rather spendthrift these years. I really can't imagine what I'd do with more money, and I don't think I would work any harder or better if I was making somewhat more or less money. Now when you get up to the level around $1 million/year, it just seems ridiculous to me. I actually think most people would find that downright demotivating and just quit working.
Or maybe the key factor ("problem" from your perspective?) is that I enjoy my work and I'm in no hurry to retire, even though I can see that age coming up pretty quickly...
Sorry, haven't been bored enough to visit/. lately. Which sniveling little coward are you, and have you designated me as your foe yet? (The first part of that question was rhetorical, and I couldn't care less.) However, designating me as your foe really is the only purpose you have in your miserable life. You would already have figured that out, if you weren't so stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, time is too valuable to waste reading your crap. Noticing the volume in passing, you must have wasted several minutes of your worthless life. From your first few words it seems you have sufficient rationale to justify designating me as your foe. Of course, if my assessment of you is correct, then your stupidity may make prevent you from figuring out how to do so. Well, actually, if my assessment of your stupidity is correct, I can't understand how you remember to continue breathing.
You must be new here.
So you can't get the joke, eh? First you have to understand the reality before you can understand the kind of reality-based humor that Colbert is doing. I've seen a number of your comments, and so far they've only convinced me that you are quite narrow-minded. Sort of the archetype of today's /. and the reason I've pretty much given up on the system.
Long, long ago, /. had many amusing comments that often called for deep understanding of the technical issues. If there was a +5 funny comment that didn't make sense to me, then it was very likely a signal of something I should learn more about.
These days /. is full of the kind of recycled old garbage that you accuse Colbert of. I wouldn't claim to be an actual fan, but I have seen enough of Colbert's show to know that he's remarkably consistent and innovative, even when he's playing with one of the old themes. The Colbert Report could be improved, but I'm increasingly convinced that /. has already teetered over the edge. I'll be sure when they start the polls on shark jumping.
In the meantime, I suppose I'll just continue fantasizing that 'the powers' might decide to fix it.
I would tell you to read my sig with attention, but if your reading disability is that severe, then it isn't worth the effort. On the other hand, if you're simply blocking sigs, let me add that you're a rude moron, too.
You've already convinced me that you are a leading part of the problem, and the greatest accomplishment you could probably accomplish in your miserable life would be to designate me as your foe. I have never suffered fools gladly, but /. has sunk far below THAT level.
So far a perfectly typical thread of /. know-nothingism.
However, I can address one counterfactual point from way back near the beginning of the branch. It is not the "r" sound that causes trouble for the Japanese, but the "l" sound. Yes, the Japanese "r" is not exactly like the English "r" sound, but it does exist in Japanese. The "l" sound is the one that has no counterpart, so their trained-from-childhood-to-ignore-"l"-like-sound ears try to map the English "l" to the closest Japanese sound, the "r". (And of course it's very hard to learn to make a new sound that you can't distinguish from a different sound that you already know how to make.)
I could approach it in more detail from a phonological perspective, but I've already wasted more time than /. deserves these years.
I'm sure you're joking--but there are some crazy folks who really like the idea.
However, the serious question from your joke is whether or not we could effectively make it impossible to cheat, perhaps partly by using open source support of radiation detection technology. What density of Geiger counters would insure that it was not possible to accumulate any unauthorized nuclear material in a region? (The "unauthorized" refers to the problem of legitimate nuclear material such as medical devices that must be tracked and distinguished from 'bad' nuclear material.)
http://www.mstrum.com/onmywaytokorea/2009/02/09/negotiating-business-mbik-10/
This page has a good version of the joke:
"Comparative International Law is really simple. In England, anything that is not legally forbidden is permitted. In Germany, anything that is not legally permitted is forbidden. In Russia, everything is forbidden, even that which is permitted. In France, everything is permitted, even that which is forbidden. And in Korea, anything that is either forbidden or permitted is subject to negotiation"
However, now I think the spinning tag cloud thing on the right side is even more interesting...
With regards to the AIG resignation letter, I don't feel ANY sympathy for him. Okay, so he isn't as immoral as the rest of the bastards--but he's still a waste of oxygen. He earns a degree from MIT and that's the best use of it? He could be creating actually valuable things, but now he's crying over all those years he devoted to devising new and innovative scams for leveraging imaginary money against other imaginary money? Okay, maybe I shouldn't say "scams", since he insists he was being ethical about it.
Mostly I'm reminded about the politically incorrect joke about the different countries attitudes toward laws. In the US, it's almost always the 'everything is legal unless explicitly forbidden' category, which is enough for 'ethical' as far as he is concerned. I can't remember the details now, but there's always some country with 'everything is illegal unless explicitly permitted.'
I don't waste time arguing with /. fools and morons--at least once I am certain that's what they are. I simply ask them to designate me as their foe.
Come on dickhead, do your business. Or do you need a detailed explanation of how to click on things?
Sounds like you're rather too old to do anything about your reading disability. Are you perhaps dyslexic? I was just doing some work for some researchers in the field, and your comprehension matches some of the problems they were addressing.
As regards your list of accomplishments, I can trivially match and exceed you in every category, so I'm skipping that. However, I think your focal claim of not doing evil only reminded me of the famous quote about inaction.
Tell you what. Here's something really major you can do with your life. Designate me as your official /. foe so I can more easily ignore you in the future.
My question was about YOU, not Ellison. I already know full well what sort of character he is--and I still respect him much more than YOU.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. I like some surprises.
Destructive criticism is quite easy, isn't it? The question I posed was what do you think your life has actually contributed to society?
It's a question I sometimes wrestle with on my own behalf. Sadly, I must conclude that the answer is not very much--but that conclusion has made me somewhat more critical of criticism of the destructive sort. (I guess I should just be glad that my employer apparently thinks otherwise and that my bonuses are concrete evidence I can take to the bank.)
I acknowledge that Ellison is an extremely critical character--but I think his results are often constructive, sometimes even amazingly so. He often makes people angry--but there are some people who can only be motivated by anger. I'm not sure quite why he is that way, and it isn't really my business. It takes all kinds to make a world.
I'm trying to be polite to you insofar as you are one of the old-timers of /. who should be most aware of and even saddened by how much the system has declined over the years. Therefore even if I think you've never done anything significantly constructive in the past, can't you do anything constructive now? Go ahead, surprise me.
Congratulations. You said it first. However, the extension of my case is that all of /. has mostly become a nest of assholes these years.
I do find it rather interesting that Ellison manages to flush so many assholes into the open. I actually think he would find that especially amusing in his typically perverse sense.
However, the real reason for replying is just to thank you for designating me as your foe. I really do think one can never have too many assholes as foes, and one of the almost redeeming features of /. is that now it will be much easier to ignore your existence.
That's a laugh and a half. You're defending someone named Chris Tucker? WTF did he deserve to earn *YOUR* defense? That was my original question, remember?
As regards Ellison, at least he's sincere about it. I can respect him for his work and accomplishments even if I didn't enjoy it at all.
Reflecting upon the reactions to my comment, I can't decide whether it is a case of many morons thinking alike or pure butt licking sycophancy. I was going to say that I also dislike Ellison's attitude, but there is at least aspect I do like. He questions authority rather than worshiping it.
Scanning for humor and mostly coming up with critiques of Ellison? More shitty moderation, or am I missing the pointless /. point again?
It's not like Ellison needs the money. My main reaction to this lawsuit is "Why did he wait so long?"
Y'all should read some of the books about the wars between the Star Trek creatives and the moralistic moron censors at NBC. I still regard them as the #1 company that earned the right to go bankrupt and never managed it. Okay, maybe #2 behind Exxon?
Of course as regards Star Trek (TOS), the laugh was on NBC, since it was Paramount that harvested most of the so-called excess profits. Yeah, Paramount earned the right to go bankrupt, too, and the Star Trek franchise kept them out of bankruptcy some of the time--but at least they eventually did change the contracts as regards residuals. However, that was also because of Star Trek.
As regards Ellison's 'City on the Edge of Forever', that was actually an SF remake of an old Greek classic. I didn't like the episode that much, but I have to give Ellison credit for his transformative vision there. Yeah, he's a prick, and a professional angry old man since he was a kid, but he's also a great craftsman.
I'd be curious to the answer to the original question of "Why did he wait so long?" My guess is that it's because he is now seeing a lot of old-timers starving to death in poverty because of the lack of residuals. Even without seeing his tax returns, I'm rather sure he isn't worrying about money.
No, I don't like Ellison's stuff and I'm not a fan. Too macabre for my taste. However, I certainly respect him more than you.
So what have you [Chris Tucker] accomplished with your life. I'm betting you're a worthless piece of shit.
I would suggest some corrective reading, but I've already wasted more words than you're worth.
What? You can't ftp from a command shell?
What do you think is wrong about my position? I could certainly clarify it. Just didn't seem worth the effort on /. in light of the moderator abuse you noted.
Perhaps the asinine mod was actually targeting my sig? It is clear that some of the moderators really are that stupid, cowardly, and mendacious. Yes, this paragraph actually is off topic--but more relevant and topical than the average /. moderation, and it made me feel a bit better to vent spleen at the moron.
The other side is that many companies refuse to pursue innovations unless they see parts that can be patented to lock in the monopoly returns. Lesser profits just aren't worth the trouble of pursing innovation as they see it these days.
Alternatively, they can let some small company take the risks and just snatch it up (along with its patents) AFTER the bugs have been worked out.
I think I'd like to say "Hear, hear", but I think I'm more fortunate never to have seen the three programs you cite. I've heard of the first two, but this is the first time I've heard of the last one.
You'd think they'd hit bottom, crash, and then go away. But look at /. in it's increasingly bleak dregs. (Can you recommend a website that still has what /. lost?)
Hear, hear. Only mention of "suicide" in the entire large thread.
Why am I not surprised to see no "insightful" mods?
Anyway, I think you should have offered some examples of awful shows. I think I'd have to point at Gilligan's Island, but there are SO many awful shows to choose from.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled suicide of the /. SNS.
I really can't tell whether or not you're dull or whether we are mostly in agreement. You certainly don't read very carefully. For example, I am not also the son of an immigrant because my post clearly stated that I was the grandson of an immigrant to America, and less clearly that I am an emigrant from America. At least that's how I think these days and I'm not really expecting to go back.
And yes, I did just fly over to a country with relatively closed immigration policies and highly protectionist trade policies. Those were some of the things I was especially curious about. I had to jump through various hoops, there were times I was skating on the edge, but I kept struggling, and I can say that my ultimate situation now is quite a bit better than my situation in America ever was.
With regards to the main substance of your post, you didn't really make any strong argument about why or how American jobs should be defended. I suggested tax policies, and at this point I suggest you read that book about the flat world (Friedman?), though I mostly disagree with the author. However, he certainly addresses your perspective.
What your posts (and many of the other posts in this discussion) mostly reminded me of was a book I read about the history of immigration in America. It was called "Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints". Historically, the most interesting aspect was how noisily each wave of immigrants argued against permitting the next wave to come in. The specific excuses were usually somewhat different each time, but the general attitude was always like yours. My particular race was regarded as racially inferior and very poorly educated.
My take is that greed is not intrinsically bad, but selfish and mindless greed is usually harmful all around, even to the greedy bastard himself in the sufficiently long run. Just dying with the most toys is not sufficient recompense. I mostly think that America has benefited from the sustained long-term influx of ambitious people, and to a lesser degree from the influx of aggressive people. However, there is certainly such a thing as too many aggressive people in the same place.
This is a test to see whether or not you are an idiot.
Did it occur to you that YOU could go to some other country and get a job? If you're qualified to do anything useful, that is.
Okay, that's off on the wrong foot, but it matches the tone of your comment--at least from the perspective of someone whose grandparents were immigrants to America and who is now a long-term resident of a different country.
How about if national tax policies be designed and structured to encourage and support those businesses that act to strengthen the nation? As it actually works now, businesses with the most money bribe the politicians to write tax policies that primarily focus on helping them make more money, often while weakening the nation.
Exxon. Citibank. Enron.
Want more examples?
Gee, you'd think those slimy foreigners could love us for something besides our money, eh? Damn those socialists, and give my regards to your wife. Maybe she loved you for something besides your money, eh? We can always hope.
Yes, that's an insult, but I can't yet decide how stupid you are. Would you be worth having as a /. foe?
Just in case you aren't an idiot, I'm curious why you are so desperate for money? I currently earn about three times my expenses, and I've become rather spendthrift these years. I really can't imagine what I'd do with more money, and I don't think I would work any harder or better if I was making somewhat more or less money. Now when you get up to the level around $1 million/year, it just seems ridiculous to me. I actually think most people would find that downright demotivating and just quit working.
Or maybe the key factor ("problem" from your perspective?) is that I enjoy my work and I'm in no hurry to retire, even though I can see that age coming up pretty quickly...
Sorry, haven't been bored enough to visit /. lately. Which sniveling little coward are you, and have you designated me as your foe yet? (The first part of that question was rhetorical, and I couldn't care less.) However, designating me as your foe really is the only purpose you have in your miserable life. You would already have figured that out, if you weren't so stupid.