Come on! If I wanna make something standards compliant, I can.
Only not quite.
Sorta.
Kinda.
When the stars align in the heavens just so...
...ish
And now Microsoft has given us a new wrinkle^H^H^H^OPTION...option! Yet another way of almost (but not quite...sorta...kinda...YOU GET THE IDEA!) emulating IE7! A most wonderful *COUGH*, stable *COUGH!*, standards comp...AW FUCK! WHO AM I KIDDING?
Yup. Just another pooch-screw waiting to be exploited in some particularly nasty manner!
SCO: We need all your paperwork. IBM: You don't really mean that do you? *SMIRK* SCO: Yes! ALL OF IT! ALL! ALL! ALL! MWAHAHAHA!
*BEEP!*BEEP!*BEEP!*BEEP!*
SCO: Uh, what are these semitrailers doing here? IBM: Well, these ten are the first of 50 loads with all the paperwork. SCO: Uhh... IBM: And we'll be billing you for the time it took to compile, and the costs necessary to deliver it. SCO: But... IBM: Yes, we know you barely have enough to buy stuff on the value menu at Wendy's. The term used in Russia is "Toughski shitski". SCO: DARL! FROTH AT THE MOUTH SOME MORE!
The president's DHS pick has brought on board a liason from Symantec. Now everything will STILL be insecure, but run twice as slow, cost even MORE "way too much", and bitch, moan and cry about being renewed every year.
The logic if both is incomparable, it's just a blatant emotional appeal with nothing behind it.
If it makes you happy to think about it that way, knock yourself out.
A nuclearized terrorist attack has as little to do with actually killing people as rape has to do with getting the attacker laid.
It's about forcibly demonstrating "control" over another entity. If you don't understand this tenet, you probably shouldn't be talking about terrorism at all.
Again, at no point did I say we should start leaving multiple countries as smoking, glowing craters to "get the badguys". I simply disagree with the sentiment that we should "do nothing".
No, it's not equivalent. It's nowhere NEAR the same thing.
Really? Neither are really about the overt reference (sex in the case of rape, killing people in the case of nuclear attack). They're both about control and the ability to exert it over others. The only difference in this case is scale.
A rape victim gets raped by one person or multiple people. DNA is sometimes left behind or the victim is able to identify their attackers based on a combination of identifiable markings, voice, etc.
With nuclear material, debris is left behind, some of it identifiable back to the facilities that manufactured the material in the first place. This enables authorities to trace such weapons back at LEAST to the point of creation.
I don't think you quite understood what the parent was saying.
No, I understood it fine. Again, my objection was not to the idea that we shouldn't randomly flatten a country in anger. My objection was to the term "do NOTHING".
Yet again. Someone who can't understand the difference between "full out nuclear retaliation" and "not doing *nothing*" in response to a nuclear terrorism attack.
But thanks for your angry, reactionary screed anyhow.
Because I didn't suggest we go nuke another country (or countries) back beyond the Stone Age. Merely that I don't feel that "we should do NOTHING" is an appropriate response to a nuclear terrorist attack.
I think if you want to survive, as a nation, the best thing to do in response to a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization would be to STFU and fucking NOT retaliate.
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No.
On second thought, HELL NO.
You, sir/madam, are an imbecile.
As to the rest of the manure you're shoveling about the world being a better place if the US disappeared? Well, that really doesn't require an answer, now does it?
> In my experience (hi there, female type person here, yes we do read this stuff), that's not at all necessary.
No. You just lead the poor, socially maldjusted geek guys to BELIEVE you MIGHT. Then your power over them is complete. Even if you never so much as look at them again.
So the "company" founders spend 30 years raising money, and incidentally driving lots of high-priced cars and eating lots of expensive meals and buying lots of property for their McMansions. Then, one day, they're off to another country with no extradition treaty with whatever money's left, and the project dies.
It's like the whole internet business plan thing.
"We going to sell useless widgets." "What? Why the hell should we finance this?" "On the internet..." "...where's my checkbook?"
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is the successor for City of Heroes.
Actually, no it's not. It's a competing product that just happens to be built on a newer version of the same engine.
The album STILL sucked dong.
Happy to be of service!
3.1415926
March 14th, 26 seconds past 1:59 AM!
I could rip it all the way down to picoseconds, but I'm fscking lazy. DO YOUR OWN DAMN MATH!
Come on! If I wanna make something standards compliant, I can.
Only not quite.
Sorta.
Kinda.
When the stars align in the heavens just so...
...ish
And now Microsoft has given us a new wrinkle^H^H^H^OPTION...option! Yet another way of almost (but not quite...sorta...kinda...YOU GET THE IDEA!) emulating IE7! A most wonderful *COUGH*, stable *COUGH!*, standards comp...AW FUCK! WHO AM I KIDDING?
Yup. Just another pooch-screw waiting to be exploited in some particularly nasty manner!
Status quo!
I'm sure they'll eventually try something even dumber...like legislating that Pluto is a planet...
Like...here...in Illinois...
DOH!
I know. It was merely meant as a humorous illustration.
SCO: We need all your paperwork.
IBM: You don't really mean that do you? *SMIRK*
SCO: Yes! ALL OF IT! ALL! ALL! ALL! MWAHAHAHA!
*BEEP!*BEEP!*BEEP!*BEEP!*
SCO: Uh, what are these semitrailers doing here?
IBM: Well, these ten are the first of 50 loads with all the paperwork.
SCO: Uhh...
IBM: And we'll be billing you for the time it took to compile, and the costs necessary to deliver it.
SCO: But...
IBM: Yes, we know you barely have enough to buy stuff on the value menu at Wendy's. The term used in Russia is "Toughski shitski".
SCO: DARL! FROTH AT THE MOUTH SOME MORE!
The president's DHS pick has brought on board a liason from Symantec. Now everything will STILL be insecure, but run twice as slow, cost even MORE "way too much", and bitch, moan and cry about being renewed every year.
If we could achieve with nuclear fusion what we have achieved with DHS
What? A parasitic reaction that just consumes and consumes and consumes, is more of a hindrance than a help, and wastes tons of money in the process?
So are you saying it's OK to END A LIFE over a nebulous concept like virginity?
Rape is not about sex. It's about control. Try again buddy.
Do I think it's okay to kill a rapist to avoid or stop a rape?
Let me think abouHELL FUCKING YES!!!
The logic if both is incomparable, it's just a blatant emotional appeal with nothing behind it.
If it makes you happy to think about it that way, knock yourself out.
A nuclearized terrorist attack has as little to do with actually killing people as rape has to do with getting the attacker laid.
It's about forcibly demonstrating "control" over another entity. If you don't understand this tenet, you probably shouldn't be talking about terrorism at all.
Again, at no point did I say we should start leaving multiple countries as smoking, glowing craters to "get the badguys". I simply disagree with the sentiment that we should "do nothing".
No, it's not equivalent. It's nowhere NEAR the same thing.
Really? Neither are really about the overt reference (sex in the case of rape, killing people in the case of nuclear attack). They're both about control and the ability to exert it over others. The only difference in this case is scale.
A rape victim gets raped by one person or multiple people. DNA is sometimes left behind or the victim is able to identify their attackers based on a combination of identifiable markings, voice, etc.
With nuclear material, debris is left behind, some of it identifiable back to the facilities that manufactured the material in the first place. This enables authorities to trace such weapons back at LEAST to the point of creation.
I don't think you quite understood what the parent was saying.
No, I understood it fine. Again, my objection was not to the idea that we shouldn't randomly flatten a country in anger. My objection was to the term "do NOTHING".
Yet again. Someone who can't understand the difference between "full out nuclear retaliation" and "not doing *nothing*" in response to a nuclear terrorism attack.
But thanks for your angry, reactionary screed anyhow.
Because I didn't suggest we go nuke another country (or countries) back beyond the Stone Age. Merely that I don't feel that "we should do NOTHING" is an appropriate response to a nuclear terrorist attack.
You're reading way WAY too much into my response.
Feeling Vichy this morning?
Re-read the original post. The operative term I object to is "do nothing".
I didn't say we should go out and just indiscriminately turn several possibly innocent countries into self-lighting trinitite-glass parking lots.
Some people here need to learn that certain arguments aren't quite so polar as they wish to believe.
Spoken (or typed in this case) like someone who's completely misunderstood the security process and thinks that [Insert Buzzword] = Security
I think if you want to survive, as a nation, the best thing to do in response to a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization would be to STFU and fucking NOT retaliate.
This is the equivallent of telling a rape victim to lay back and enjoy it.
No.
On second thought, HELL NO.
You, sir/madam, are an imbecile.
As to the rest of the manure you're shoveling about the world being a better place if the US disappeared? Well, that really doesn't require an answer, now does it?
Like I said....
I disavow any responsibility for the stupid fucknuts in Illinois government.
Also for developing countries it's a way to cook without using any natural resources.
Except...sunlight...and the materials consumed to make the stove in the first place...
I think you meant to say "non-renewable".
Whoops! Opened my mouth again...
> >2. Put out.
> In my experience (hi there, female type person here, yes we do read this stuff), that's not at all necessary.
No. You just lead the poor, socially maldjusted geek guys to BELIEVE you MIGHT. Then your power over them is complete. Even if you never so much as look at them again.
Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!
The four words that tip you off?
"rock solid business platform"
So the "company" founders spend 30 years raising money, and incidentally driving lots of high-priced cars and eating lots of expensive meals and buying lots of property for their McMansions. Then, one day, they're off to another country with no extradition treaty with whatever money's left, and the project dies.
It's like the whole internet business plan thing.
"We going to sell useless widgets."
"What? Why the hell should we finance this?"
"On the internet..."
"...where's my checkbook?"
Cynical? Moi?
YOU DAMN BETCHA BUNKIE!
Yup! Server: DEAD!