...based on a Congressional requirement to fund their pension *75 YEARS* into the future. They are being forced to fund a pension fund for people that won't even be born for years to come, solely to make it look like they are in trouble to people who don't bother to look at *why* they appear to have a problem funding the pension.
... and who wants idiots providing operational support down the road?
I have to assume this is a rhetorical question, based on my past experiences with situations such as this. "Down the road" is a mythical place to many people, whereas the "savings" by firing expensive people and replacing them with inexperienced dipshits occurs in real time.
Actually, when you look at the corruption scandals where politicians are being indicted for various idiocies, it's amazing how *little* it takes to bribe them. Some of these dimwits are taking a huge fall for bribes amounting to no more than $100-200k over several years.
this is why the best option is to strap the safety crate to the roof of the vehicle, and let the dog fear-poop itself while getting its fill of the 60mph scent-hurricane of highway travel.
I actually sent them a message pointing that out. I'm guessing the folks in Norway simply made a mistake, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone follows up and fixes it.
This is just FUD. Whatever the number of the eyes, they are certainly far more than open source. I have already contributed many bug reports and often fixes, would you care to elaborate how I would do that in a closed source model? Because I am *very* curious.
FUD? Sure, there are *more* eyes in open source than closed source: that's not the point. Are there *enough* eyes to prevent potentially catastrophic bugs from being exploited? I'd submit that we're seeing that there isn't. I'm not suggesting that closed source is superior, but let's not confuse some sort of moral superiority being attributed to open source as being equivalent to automatic technical superiority. In most cases, I'd agree that open source has technical superiority, but it's not automatic.
The phrase might be true, but we're seeing the effects of insufficient eyes. In reality, how many sets of eyes are actually reviewing these libraries at a source code level? I rather strongly suspect that in most cases they are simply used under the assumption that "well, everyone uses it, it must be okay".
"If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from the Bible rather than anything remotely reasonable."
We need the populace to elect different folks before the dream of the former would be true.
You're close. It should read "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions entirely from the people who bought them with campaign contributions and bribes, and will never vote to fund anything they are told by their owners not to."
How is this remotely plausible? How the heck this get moderated insightful?
How is it not plausible? Lots of people go back to school, and if he's smart with his money he could afford to take the time to become a dentist. It's not like medical school has a defined cutoff age for admissions. Yeah, he's on the older end of the scale, but so what?
Yes, because God forbid the people at the games actually, you know, watch the games instead of surfing the web, tweeting inane opinions or Facebooking their opinions of the refs. And "tragedy"? Really? If the officials at these stadia have emergency plans for disasters that depend on all the fans having cell phone access, they ought to be flogged. We've had major sporting events for a *whole* lot longer than we've had cell phones.
Disclaimer: I've worked in wireless since the early days of cellular, and I was a field tech at Cellular One in Seattle back when turning up the 20th tower in the Seattle MSA was a big deal for us. So I understand that what you are saying is correct technically, but I'm far from convinced that this is a burning issue that the FCC needs to address. I'm still further from convinced that this isn't simply more kowtowing to the wireless carriers to allow them Yet Another Revenue Stream for which they do nothing.
And I have a repeater at my house. I'm in a semi-rural area, and the signal strength at my house flat-out sucks. My little signal repeater puts out at most 1W, and my nearest neighbor is about 200 yards away. I don't think I'm likely to cause significant interference to anyone, but it improves the usability of my cell phone dramatically.
And actually every M14 except for the National Match is capable of full auto fire. Some of the issued rifles did not have the selector switch installed, and that is the only thing that limited it to semi-auto operation.
Well, technically all semi-automatics are *capable* of fully automatic operation (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) with appropriate mods. Hell, I've even seen old plans in a Guns and Ammo magazine of somebody's idea in the late 1800's to make a lever-action rifle into either a semi-auto or automatic rifle. Looked unwieldy as hell, but still.
Having said that, I didn't realize that M-14's were initially designed to be selective fire between semi-auto and full auto. You learn something new every day.:-)
I'm pretty sure he meant M-14. The M-14 is a semi-automatic.30 caliber rifle, not fully automatic by default except for specialized models. I shot one regularly when I was in the Navy.
I've always thought the M-14 with a synthetic stock was a fine weapon. They're accurate, rugged and have considerably more power that any 5.56mm round. You could use an M-14 as a tent peg and then run over it with a truck and it would still work.
+1 for referencing A Canticle for Leibowitz. Brilliant, dark post-apocalyptic novel. Like Harper Lee, Miller seems to have had just that one novel (discounting a couple of shorter stories), but it's a great one.
I saw the "flocked" car in a parade when I was a kid, and actually got to touch it after the parade when they were getting ready to transport it to its next destination. I'm not sure who brought it out, but the guy told me that they had originally painted it black but the glossy finish made it very difficult to film correctly due to reflections, flashes, etc. Therefore, the whole car was covered with a sort of velvet material. Very cool,but I'm sure it was a pain to take care of, and I imagine it wouldn't have handled rain/snow/whatever very well.:-)
Okay, so is it okay to say "We pay less for blacks, Jews and other undesirables"? Answer the question.
And if health care for employees is a scam, what else fits in your definition? Food safety laws? Child labor laws? Any regulation at all? Or is it just that smart/rich/connected people "deserve" health care, and poor/uneducated/unlucky people should suffer and die if they "choose" to get sick? How is it a scam?
I don't know you, but your posts seem to indicate that you like or approve of the idea that health is reserved to those who can afford it, and that we as a society have no interest in trying to insure that our citizens have access to basic health care. I believe that everyone should have access to such basic items as prescriptions, emergency care (already in place in the U.S.), necessary continuing care like physical therapy and chemotherapy, and access to transplant lists, etc. Reconstructive surgery for accident/burn victims, or those scarred by disease. And of course preventative care. Lack of free preventative care is the #1 cause of rising health care costs. It's like code: the earlier you find and fix the problem, the less it costs.
Botox, breast implants (excepting cases like mastectomies), other cosmetic items - buy it yourself if you want it that badly. Not greatly enthused by lap-band and other bariatric costs, but will to pay them if it means less medical costs down the road. Some things like gender reassignment surgery are harder to call: one the one hand, it seems elective, on the other I can't imagine someone without a serious psychological need for it ever pursuing such a radical option. In any event, it's rare enough that the costs disappear into the noise.
I still don't get this. The employer offered health plan is basically an incentive to work somewhere. Not liking your work health plan is like not liking your salary. If you want a better healthplan work somewhere else.
If they have a religious objection to offering health care to Jews, black people and liberals (however they choose to define them), you still okay with it? I mean hey, they can always choose to work somewhere else, right?
Being part of a free society under democratically elected government (another argument, not to digress) means having to play by the same rules as everyone else. You don't get a free pass just by waving a and saying you want to opt out. No one ever said the employees have to take them up on it, and I would assume the truly devout practitioners of would not, but they have to cover it like everyone else.
Note: I strongly suspect, based on available evidence, that "truly devout" covers a single-digit percentage of the congregation for most religions in America. I cite the fact that the average Catholic family size in the U.S. is 2.6 people, the same as the overall average. http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/us-catholic-parishes-growing-size-and-diversity You can claim a lot of things, but claiming a organization called the National Catholic Reporter is biased against Catholics seems to be a stretch to me.:-)
Obviously this isn't strictly children, but overall family size. But if you are assuming devoutness, we have to assume no or few divorced parents, and statistically speaking few widows/widowers. I'm not seeing the 5-7 children more normal in Catholic societies outside the U.S. So unless we're drastically less fertile than average, it looks like birth control is pretty widely used by Catholics. Mainstream Protestants are even more relaxed about birth control. Evangelicals are all over the map, so it's hard to characterize their views briefly.
"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.
Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.
Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.
Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?
To run one, you need qualified staff (supposedly Three-Mile was hiring high-school students (or someone equally unqualified) to run their plant, at the time of the incident, I imagine as a cost-cutting measure)
Friend, I'm as much of a critic of ignorant cost-cutting by corporations as anyone, but if you believe this, you're an idiot.
My dad was a Reactor Operation at a civilian nuclear plant, and my brother was an RO in the Navy. Even if they wanted to do something that stupid (doubtful), the NRC would have crucified them, and there's zero chance that the NRC wouldn't have found out. You honestly believe they'd have untrained high school graduates running a nuclear reactor? Take off the tinfoil, it's not working.
Here's free clue: when you start a comment with "supposedly", you're very likely to be talking shit.
Empathy and idolization are not synonyms, you know. It's mindboggling that people get seriously upset about some soewhat silly and negative comments about a dead person, yet are first to call the living posters of such comments all sorts of names. Apparently plenty of people have the dead higher on their priority list. Now that's an interesting observation. Thinking "less" of a dead person because that person was an MCE or whatnot is taboo, but classifying plenty of alive-and-feeling-it posters somehow inhumane just because they dare talk down a dead person is fine and dandy? The fuck? Do they deserve less empathy simply for being apparently wrong and alive? How dare they, right?
I'm not arguing that most of the talking-down posts are borderline trolling or flamebaiting, but the visceral response they elicit is truly uncalled for. I know empathy allright and I dare say you don't know me enough to know otherwise (a few posts is not enough). Yet the visceral trigger-happy speakers-for-the-dead are demonstrably confused about demonstrating theirs. Just to make it clear: it doesn't work that way.
Just to make it clear: yes, it does. Empathy isn't all-or-nothing (few things are). We have empathy and compassion for the unfortunate loss of a young girl, more so because she showed such potential in life. Strictly speaking, our empathy is for her family and the wrenching sense of loss that they are most probably feeling, as is our compassion.
I, at least, have empathy for idiots who troll around casting rude aspersions on her. I think I have a pretty good grasp as to how they feel. They're still insensitive assholes with a sort of keyboards-only version of Tourette's and an incredible sense of entitlement to spout gibberish that comes from anonymity. I'm all for internet anonymity, but do you think any of these dipshits would have the nerve to show up at the funeral and tell random mourners that the deceased wasn't that smart, it's only a Microsoft certification, blah, blah, blah? I don't, although I'd pay damn good money plus airfare to good and watch if it were to happen.
And, fyi, the posts were begging for a visceral response. That's why they were posted in the first place. Having gotten exactly that, I'm curious as to how it could possibly be "uncalled for"?
That's because attacking the defenseless is repugnant to most people, and a dead teenager is about as defenseless as it gets.
Most people, to a greater or lesser extent, base their self-image partially on being a "good" person. Definitions of "good" are almost as varied as the number of people in the world, but certain basic tendencies tend to be common. One of them is that a good person doesn't hurt others simply for amusement, like pulling the wings off of a fly. I love a good snark as much as the next guy (maybe more so), but I'm not indiscriminate as to targets. I favor the pompous, the arrogant, the hypocritical, the non-believers in science, the obnoxiously religious, and people who simply lack any degree of empathy with others and take pride in that lack. (Hint: you're in that last group, as far as I can tell from your postings.)
It's not that she's dead; it's that she died young, before she had a chance to fulfill her early promise. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe she'd have ended up designing a killer robot that destroyed the last dolphins and ran on ground-up puppies. But that's not likely, more likely she's have been a successful and more-or-less decent person, like many of the rest of us. The loss of that potential is what we mourn.
So, be amused if you must. No doubt in your mind you're superior to all of us who think it's unfortunate that she died, because you only feel amusement at others who think this is tragic. To reiterate: you're an asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
...based on a Congressional requirement to fund their pension *75 YEARS* into the future. They are being forced to fund a pension fund for people that won't even be born for years to come, solely to make it look like they are in trouble to people who don't bother to look at *why* they appear to have a problem funding the pension.
... and who wants idiots providing operational support down the road?
I have to assume this is a rhetorical question, based on my past experiences with situations such as this. "Down the road" is a mythical place to many people, whereas the "savings" by firing expensive people and replacing them with inexperienced dipshits occurs in real time.
Actually, when you look at the corruption scandals where politicians are being indicted for various idiocies, it's amazing how *little* it takes to bribe them. Some of these dimwits are taking a huge fall for bribes amounting to no more than $100-200k over several years.
this is why the best option is to strap the safety crate to the roof of the vehicle, and let the dog fear-poop itself while getting its fill of the 60mph scent-hurricane of highway travel.
Mitt, is that you?
I actually sent them a message pointing that out. I'm guessing the folks in Norway simply made a mistake, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone follows up and fixes it.
This is just FUD. Whatever the number of the eyes, they are certainly far more than open source. I have already contributed many bug reports and often fixes, would you care to elaborate how I would do that in a closed source model? Because I am *very* curious.
FUD? Sure, there are *more* eyes in open source than closed source: that's not the point. Are there *enough* eyes to prevent potentially catastrophic bugs from being exploited? I'd submit that we're seeing that there isn't. I'm not suggesting that closed source is superior, but let's not confuse some sort of moral superiority being attributed to open source as being equivalent to automatic technical superiority. In most cases, I'd agree that open source has technical superiority, but it's not automatic.
The phrase might be true, but we're seeing the effects of insufficient eyes. In reality, how many sets of eyes are actually reviewing these libraries at a source code level? I rather strongly suspect that in most cases they are simply used under the assumption that "well, everyone uses it, it must be okay".
"If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from the Bible rather than anything remotely reasonable."
We need the populace to elect different folks before the dream of the former would be true.
You're close. It should read "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions entirely from the people who bought them with campaign contributions and bribes, and will never vote to fund anything they are told by their owners not to."
When I turned 42...
Now I am a dentist
How is this remotely plausible? How the heck this get moderated insightful?
How is it not plausible? Lots of people go back to school, and if he's smart with his money he could afford to take the time to become a dentist. It's not like medical school has a defined cutoff age for admissions. Yeah, he's on the older end of the scale, but so what?
Yes, because God forbid the people at the games actually, you know, watch the games instead of surfing the web, tweeting inane opinions or Facebooking their opinions of the refs. And "tragedy"? Really? If the officials at these stadia have emergency plans for disasters that depend on all the fans having cell phone access, they ought to be flogged. We've had major sporting events for a *whole* lot longer than we've had cell phones.
Disclaimer: I've worked in wireless since the early days of cellular, and I was a field tech at Cellular One in Seattle back when turning up the 20th tower in the Seattle MSA was a big deal for us. So I understand that what you are saying is correct technically, but I'm far from convinced that this is a burning issue that the FCC needs to address. I'm still further from convinced that this isn't simply more kowtowing to the wireless carriers to allow them Yet Another Revenue Stream for which they do nothing.
And I have a repeater at my house. I'm in a semi-rural area, and the signal strength at my house flat-out sucks. My little signal repeater puts out at most 1W, and my nearest neighbor is about 200 yards away. I don't think I'm likely to cause significant interference to anyone, but it improves the usability of my cell phone dramatically.
Wish I had mod points. My favorite line from that movie:
"Did you know he measures his sanity with a stopwatch?"
"What do you measure yours with, a dipstick?"
And actually every M14 except for the National Match is capable of full auto fire. Some of the issued rifles did not have the selector switch installed, and that is the only thing that limited it to semi-auto operation.
Well, technically all semi-automatics are *capable* of fully automatic operation (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) with appropriate mods. Hell, I've even seen old plans in a Guns and Ammo magazine of somebody's idea in the late 1800's to make a lever-action rifle into either a semi-auto or automatic rifle. Looked unwieldy as hell, but still.
Having said that, I didn't realize that M-14's were initially designed to be selective fire between semi-auto and full auto. You learn something new every day. :-)
I'm pretty sure he meant M-14. The M-14 is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle, not fully automatic by default except for specialized models. I shot one regularly when I was in the Navy.
I've always thought the M-14 with a synthetic stock was a fine weapon. They're accurate, rugged and have considerably more power that any 5.56mm round. You could use an M-14 as a tent peg and then run over it with a truck and it would still work.
In no particular order:
The Oatmeal http://theoatmeal.com/comics
Schlock Mercenary http://www.schlockmercenary.com/
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal http://www.smbc-comics.com/
Girl Genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php
+1 for referencing A Canticle for Leibowitz. Brilliant, dark post-apocalyptic novel. Like Harper Lee, Miller seems to have had just that one novel (discounting a couple of shorter stories), but it's a great one.
I saw the "flocked" car in a parade when I was a kid, and actually got to touch it after the parade when they were getting ready to transport it to its next destination. I'm not sure who brought it out, but the guy told me that they had originally painted it black but the glossy finish made it very difficult to film correctly due to reflections, flashes, etc. Therefore, the whole car was covered with a sort of velvet material. Very cool,but I'm sure it was a pain to take care of, and I imagine it wouldn't have handled rain/snow/whatever very well. :-)
Here, I made one. Probably not the most cleverly written but hey.
Singed up just so I could vote for this. Thanks!
I submit Arnold Rimmer as new leader of Sealand! :-)
Okay, so is it okay to say "We pay less for blacks, Jews and other undesirables"? Answer the question.
And if health care for employees is a scam, what else fits in your definition? Food safety laws? Child labor laws? Any regulation at all? Or is it just that smart/rich/connected people "deserve" health care, and poor/uneducated/unlucky people should suffer and die if they "choose" to get sick? How is it a scam?
I don't know you, but your posts seem to indicate that you like or approve of the idea that health is reserved to those who can afford it, and that we as a society have no interest in trying to insure that our citizens have access to basic health care. I believe that everyone should have access to such basic items as prescriptions, emergency care (already in place in the U.S.), necessary continuing care like physical therapy and chemotherapy, and access to transplant lists, etc. Reconstructive surgery for accident/burn victims, or those scarred by disease. And of course preventative care. Lack of free preventative care is the #1 cause of rising health care costs. It's like code: the earlier you find and fix the problem, the less it costs.
Botox, breast implants (excepting cases like mastectomies), other cosmetic items - buy it yourself if you want it that badly. Not greatly enthused by lap-band and other bariatric costs, but will to pay them if it means less medical costs down the road. Some things like gender reassignment surgery are harder to call: one the one hand, it seems elective, on the other I can't imagine someone without a serious psychological need for it ever pursuing such a radical option. In any event, it's rare enough that the costs disappear into the noise.
I still don't get this. The employer offered health plan is basically an incentive to work somewhere. Not liking your work health plan is like not liking your salary. If you want a better healthplan work somewhere else.
If they have a religious objection to offering health care to Jews, black people and liberals (however they choose to define them), you still okay with it? I mean hey, they can always choose to work somewhere else, right?
Being part of a free society under democratically elected government (another argument, not to digress) means having to play by the same rules as everyone else. You don't get a free pass just by waving a and saying you want to opt out. No one ever said the employees have to take them up on it, and I would assume the truly devout practitioners of would not, but they have to cover it like everyone else.
Note: I strongly suspect, based on available evidence, that "truly devout" covers a single-digit percentage of the congregation for most religions in America. I cite the fact that the average Catholic family size in the U.S. is 2.6 people, the same as the overall average. http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/us-catholic-parishes-growing-size-and-diversity You can claim a lot of things, but claiming a organization called the National Catholic Reporter is biased against Catholics seems to be a stretch to me. :-)
Obviously this isn't strictly children, but overall family size. But if you are assuming devoutness, we have to assume no or few divorced parents, and statistically speaking few widows/widowers. I'm not seeing the 5-7 children more normal in Catholic societies outside the U.S. So unless we're drastically less fertile than average, it looks like birth control is pretty widely used by Catholics. Mainstream Protestants are even more relaxed about birth control. Evangelicals are all over the map, so it's hard to characterize their views briefly.
Don't take this wrong, but you're a fool.
"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.
Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.
Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.
Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?
To run one, you need qualified staff (supposedly Three-Mile was hiring high-school students (or someone equally unqualified) to run their plant, at the time of the incident, I imagine as a cost-cutting measure)
Friend, I'm as much of a critic of ignorant cost-cutting by corporations as anyone, but if you believe this, you're an idiot.
My dad was a Reactor Operation at a civilian nuclear plant, and my brother was an RO in the Navy. Even if they wanted to do something that stupid (doubtful), the NRC would have crucified them, and there's zero chance that the NRC wouldn't have found out. You honestly believe they'd have untrained high school graduates running a nuclear reactor? Take off the tinfoil, it's not working.
Here's free clue: when you start a comment with "supposedly", you're very likely to be talking shit.
Mea maxima culpa. *I* think you're an asshole. Better?
Empathy and idolization are not synonyms, you know. It's mindboggling that people get seriously upset about some soewhat silly and negative comments about a dead person, yet are first to call the living posters of such comments all sorts of names. Apparently plenty of people have the dead higher on their priority list. Now that's an interesting observation. Thinking "less" of a dead person because that person was an MCE or whatnot is taboo, but classifying plenty of alive-and-feeling-it posters somehow inhumane just because they dare talk down a dead person is fine and dandy? The fuck? Do they deserve less empathy simply for being apparently wrong and alive? How dare they, right?
I'm not arguing that most of the talking-down posts are borderline trolling or flamebaiting, but the visceral response they elicit is truly uncalled for. I know empathy allright and I dare say you don't know me enough to know otherwise (a few posts is not enough). Yet the visceral trigger-happy speakers-for-the-dead are demonstrably confused about demonstrating theirs. Just to make it clear: it doesn't work that way.
Just to make it clear: yes, it does. Empathy isn't all-or-nothing (few things are). We have empathy and compassion for the unfortunate loss of a young girl, more so because she showed such potential in life. Strictly speaking, our empathy is for her family and the wrenching sense of loss that they are most probably feeling, as is our compassion.
I, at least, have empathy for idiots who troll around casting rude aspersions on her. I think I have a pretty good grasp as to how they feel. They're still insensitive assholes with a sort of keyboards-only version of Tourette's and an incredible sense of entitlement to spout gibberish that comes from anonymity. I'm all for internet anonymity, but do you think any of these dipshits would have the nerve to show up at the funeral and tell random mourners that the deceased wasn't that smart, it's only a Microsoft certification, blah, blah, blah? I don't, although I'd pay damn good money plus airfare to good and watch if it were to happen.
And, fyi, the posts were begging for a visceral response. That's why they were posted in the first place. Having gotten exactly that, I'm curious as to how it could possibly be "uncalled for"?
That's because attacking the defenseless is repugnant to most people, and a dead teenager is about as defenseless as it gets.
Most people, to a greater or lesser extent, base their self-image partially on being a "good" person. Definitions of "good" are almost as varied as the number of people in the world, but certain basic tendencies tend to be common. One of them is that a good person doesn't hurt others simply for amusement, like pulling the wings off of a fly. I love a good snark as much as the next guy (maybe more so), but I'm not indiscriminate as to targets. I favor the pompous, the arrogant, the hypocritical, the non-believers in science, the obnoxiously religious, and people who simply lack any degree of empathy with others and take pride in that lack. (Hint: you're in that last group, as far as I can tell from your postings.)
It's not that she's dead; it's that she died young, before she had a chance to fulfill her early promise. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe she'd have ended up designing a killer robot that destroyed the last dolphins and ran on ground-up puppies. But that's not likely, more likely she's have been a successful and more-or-less decent person, like many of the rest of us. The loss of that potential is what we mourn.
So, be amused if you must. No doubt in your mind you're superior to all of us who think it's unfortunate that she died, because you only feel amusement at others who think this is tragic. To reiterate: you're an asshole.