Ya know, the whole Roland thing has been kicking around for a few years, and I'm starting forget why I was ever annoyed with him. I mean, really, how is what Roland does different from what Slashdot itself does? He's finding content and pointing it out to us. Slashdot does the same thing. He gets ad profit from hits. So does/. Big deal.
So, what is the big deal? Sure, someone did something similar last year. I'll clue you in to something: someone has always done something similar last year. It's called science. It's mostly evolutionary, not revolutionary. And do you really have to dis what the Purdue folks have done just because you're annoyed with Piquepaille? That's kinda petty, bubba.
...for what Microsoft has been trying to do for the past few months: make them and Yahoo ONE COMPANY. For them to argue that Yahoo and Google cooperating on one deal is worse than them wanting to cooperate with Yahoo on everything would be ludicrous. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it'll never fly.
As a slasdot poster I assume you know what an "order of magnitude" is.
The current email scandal is several orders of magnitude worse than Travelgate. Comparing the two is just silly, like saying Warren Buffet and I are the same because we both own stock...
Personally I prefer a black background, large (14+ point) bold font, and syntax coloring with every color of the rainbow above #999999. The colors and contrast help keep my eyes interested on the average 11+ hours per day in front of the (LCD only) screen. The black background helps prevent eyestrain.
The last Republican congress spent like drunken sailors (and we didn't call them on it)
Democrats couldn't call them on it. They had no power to do so. Republicans only stick to their rhetoric when it causes political pain to Democrats. Yes, Democrats want to put the government in charge of everything, and that's why Republicans need to hold the purse strings. (But only when they're kept honest by wanting to stick it to Democrats.)
See, it's a balance held in check by the desire of both sides to politically hurt the other. However, neither side can be allowed to get too much power, otherwise we have the situations like 2000-2006.
If John Kerry had been elected in '04 we'd be out by now and they would have won, as you suggest.
Nah, if Kerry had been elected we'd have twice the troop presence we have now because he wouldn't want to be perceived as weak on terror, and we'd still be losing. It's taken this extra four years to break the "Republicans fight terror better" myth. (and also the "Republicans manage the economy better" myth)
Too bad we're nowhere near what I see as the ideal government configuration: Democrat president, Republican house of representatives, and [who_the_fuck_cares] senate. It's best when there's a divided government, Republicans hold the purse strings, (and are kept honest by actually having to do what they say they want...i.e. no waste and balanced budgets) and Democrats hold the moral rudder towards a more civil society. (and are likewise kept honest by the Republicans and governmental power is kept in check...ON ALL SIDES.)
And, here is the contradiction: if gun advocates really think that a well armed populace can hold off the US military, then they also should think we ought to get out of Iraq NOW.
We'll never be able to subdue a well armed insurgency, right?
They'll fight to the end and win, right?
They have to believe these things, otherwise their main reason for having a "well armed militia" to defend against government oppression is just a bunch of hoo-ha.
Awesome. Thanks for passing on the link for that speech. Just goes to show how much Heston was blinded by the "culture war" and failed to see that those hyping it were busy taking away our real rights, like habeas corpus and the right to avoid arbitrary search and seizure.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, but you should have just said RAHOWA and gotten it over with.
Ya know, the whole Roland thing has been kicking around for a few years, and I'm starting forget why I was ever annoyed with him. I mean, really, how is what Roland does different from what Slashdot itself does? He's finding content and pointing it out to us. Slashdot does the same thing. He gets ad profit from hits. So does /. Big deal.
So, what is the big deal? Sure, someone did something similar last year. I'll clue you in to something: someone has always done something similar last year. It's called science. It's mostly evolutionary, not revolutionary. And do you really have to dis what the Purdue folks have done just because you're annoyed with Piquepaille? That's kinda petty, bubba.
This sounds a lot like Acovea
Yes, you're right.
Greenland.
You fucking idiot.
Did you know that people who speak publicly in a racist manner are 90% more likely to perform a hate crime?
Maybe you should be profiled and watched closely.
No, bitch. Mine.
...for what Microsoft has been trying to do for the past few months: make them and Yahoo ONE COMPANY. For them to argue that Yahoo and Google cooperating on one deal is worse than them wanting to cooperate with Yahoo on everything would be ludicrous. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it'll never fly.
Urban warfare and population suppression 2.0 is ready for export from Iraq. Just in time!
It's called chunking
As a slasdot poster I assume you know what an "order of magnitude" is.
The current email scandal is several orders of magnitude worse than Travelgate. Comparing the two is just silly, like saying Warren Buffet and I are the same because we both own stock...
Donald Knuth said, "Get off my lawn!"
...not as I extend!
Then, what should I say?
You're a fucking idiot?
Get off my goddamn lawn, btw.
Personally I prefer a black background, large (14+ point) bold font, and syntax coloring with every color of the rainbow above #999999. The colors and contrast help keep my eyes interested on the average 11+ hours per day in front of the (LCD only) screen. The black background helps prevent eyestrain.
Man, I don't usually reply to my own comments, but I just had to post the moderation that's been done to this one. It's like a mini culture war. :)
A user has moderated your comment "Offtopic" (-1).
It is currently scored Offtopic (0).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
It is currently scored Troll (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Underrated" (+1).
It is currently scored Troll (0).
A user has moderated your comment "Underrated" (+1).
It is currently scored Troll (1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
It is currently scored Troll (0).
A user has moderated your comment "Interesting" (+1).
It is currently scored Troll (1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
eom
So, this means you can control your ruthless behavior.
Maybe if you had a short AVPR1a you couldn't.
Your personal anecdotes do not invalidate the study.
Democrats couldn't call them on it. They had no power to do so. Republicans only stick to their rhetoric when it causes political pain to Democrats. Yes, Democrats want to put the government in charge of everything, and that's why Republicans need to hold the purse strings. (But only when they're kept honest by wanting to stick it to Democrats.)
See, it's a balance held in check by the desire of both sides to politically hurt the other. However, neither side can be allowed to get too much power, otherwise we have the situations like 2000-2006.
Nah, if Kerry had been elected we'd have twice the troop presence we have now because he wouldn't want to be perceived as weak on terror, and we'd still be losing. It's taken this extra four years to break the "Republicans fight terror better" myth. (and also the "Republicans manage the economy better" myth)
Too bad we're nowhere near what I see as the ideal government configuration: Democrat president, Republican house of representatives, and [who_the_fuck_cares] senate. It's best when there's a divided government, Republicans hold the purse strings, (and are kept honest by actually having to do what they say they want...i.e. no waste and balanced budgets) and Democrats hold the moral rudder towards a more civil society. (and are likewise kept honest by the Republicans and governmental power is kept in check...ON ALL SIDES.)
And, here is the contradiction: if gun advocates really think that a well armed populace can hold off the US military, then they also should think we ought to get out of Iraq NOW.
We'll never be able to subdue a well armed insurgency, right?
They'll fight to the end and win, right?
They have to believe these things, otherwise their main reason for having a "well armed militia" to defend against government oppression is just a bunch of hoo-ha.
Awesome. Thanks for passing on the link for that speech. Just goes to show how much Heston was blinded by the "culture war" and failed to see that those hyping it were busy taking away our real rights, like habeas corpus and the right to avoid arbitrary search and seizure.
I was wondering when you'd get to the "I know what you are, but what am I" argument.
And how can it not be nihilism to talk of manipulating people into killing each other?
Done with hating, on to feelings of smug nihilistic superiority?
I suppose it's a start.
Yes, but you know the path, and you know that I'm behind you, and you know the way ahead.
Plainly.
It's self evident, no?