Sorry, but you're using a strawman argument. I never said that all parades are like that. So the rest of your comment is false.
I said that parades, where a group of people is raised out, and paraded as being something "different" (not just normal people) does exactly that: Show that "they/we are different, and not normal". At least that was the purpose of every gay parade I have seen.
The funny thing is: Even most gay people don't like those "extremist" gays who always think they have to put themselves in the spotlight and attack people for not being "tolerant" enough.* (In reality, those types often themselves are not very tolerant.) At least that is how a lesbian woman explained it to me. But as we know, there are annoying extremists in every community. ^^ Well, as long as one doesn't prejudice a group by the behavior of its loudest idiots, that should not be a problem.:)
___ * Be aware that I obviously am completely aware that there were and partially are still people that are treating gays bad for no reason, and that that is bad. I'm just saying, as I pointed out in my original comment, that the other side of the extreme also exists, and is just as bad.:)
Actually, I think it's more true than you think it is...
I worked in companies like that. And that "we heard complaints from 0.00001% of our customers, who were complete and utter retards, so we have to adapt our products to that, even though we know that that will create even bigger idiots" concept, is exactly the mentality that is used in dying companies. Because they are desperate and try to get every last customer possible. They get slaves to the wishes of the loudest idiots. Which usually makes it even worse, because the intelligent people, who are now massively annoyed, don't complain. They just move elsewhere.
Look for it. There are more companies out there doing that, than you ever thought.:) You can even use it for manipulation. Just remember the trigger topics. (Like wanting it simpler. Act too dumb to doubt yourself.)
The funny think is, that it's actually not politicizing. Because the difference between "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right" and all that shit is all just a illusion of a theater play anyway. Real politics are looong gone from the US government. Today it's a shop for companies. You buy the world to your way.
Exactly. The problem is, that the line got lost. The line that should be drawn between treating people equally, and preferring a specific group.
The whole concept of making people who are different "special" is the exact opposite of equality. (equality is zero, "special" is positive infinity). It's just as bad as treating people badly. (negative infinity) Also. As the scale is not absolute but relative, treating someone better, means treating everyone else worse. Depends on your standpoint.
The only difference? Preferring people with disadvantages, is preferring disadvantages for society. Not a wise move...
I wish to be treated for *exactly* what I am. (If the person is able to know what I am.) If I am bad at something, don't fuckin' say it is OK! It is NOT! I have to work on that, to be successful in evolution! Period. And if someone is better than me, I don't call him an ass because he says so. If he is right, he has all rights to say so! I can be proud, because he makes humanity as a whole better. Everything else would just be pathetic jealousy of someone with a low self-esteem.
Hawking is a great example. I am better at moving than he is. And I can say that. He is a total genius in physics. And I don't think he has a urge to have a low self-esteem because of his disadvantages. Just as I don't have low self-esteem because of mine.
Conclusion: That's the funny thing: - You can measure the integration of black people in America by the amount of talk that still is needed to mention equality (as something special). - Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away. - Feminism only will have reached its final goal, when it stops existing. - Etc, etc, etc. Because not the other extreme is the goal. A loose swinging around the origin between the extremes is.:)
Aaahh... a bit of German makes every scientific topic cool. We only lack a "färbottenärr Krruppstahl Gammastrrahlänn-Krriegsmaschinenapparraturrr" in there somewhere. Jawohl!;)
You act as if that would exclude it from being a possibility that one could check.
Sure, it makes it a very unlikely possibility. But should we just never ever check the unlikely possibilities? That would not get us very far, would it?
Remember: In science, NEVER be arrogant, or too convinced of your theories. Because that is usually when someone comes up with proof that you are wrong, and everybody starts to laugh at you. ^^ (Optionally after some decades of denial.)
...because in the eyes of the uneducated masses, that is still seen as "not real" and "just imaginary hurting". Despite modern neurology having proven, that the brain literally can't distinguish between those types of pains. (So a broken heart really actually hurts! And hurting you feelings creates real actual physical pain.) Also, it is much harder to heal a fucked up mind, that a fucked up body. (From what is seen as "equally bad".)
But hey: It's invisible, so it can't be real. Any don't be a pussy anyway! Stop crying! He didn't beat you. It's just words. Right??
Hmm... That would make it a very successful strategy, to use a dummy as your lawyer: A blowup doll, Bush, your dog, or just do it yourself.
As long as it's free, of course. Just bleed them dry by creating huge and expensive delays, or forcing the lawyers to bill them for reading thousands of pages of random shit. ^^ Anyone care to invent a pledge generator that can spit out 1000-page speeches?
The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack.
Or "That rule would never be used. It's only there for extreme emergencies. Don't worry!" To which I answer with a quote:
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.” cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (Weimar Germany)... — meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
Well, I know, that Spain for a long time, had the same password on every local Internet distributor node box in the country. One that was breakable with a normal overnight dictionary attack. All you needed to do, was to buy a triangular standard key from the hardware store, open it, connect your laptop to the serial port inside, put the laptop inside, and let it run overnight. The next morning you could tweak the bandwidth distribution in your favor. ^^
Uuum, have you ever tried Portage, and its descendants?
We have something called "slots". Meaning that if at all possible, you can install multiple versions at the same time. Including automatic versioning of libraries. I could never go back to something else.
I think it's way simpler to just compile one version for each architecture and put it on the package mirror. Less download time, smaller installation media, less disk space used for no reason, faster startup times...
The idea of a multi-arch binary makes sense for closed source that does not allow re-compilation only. And even there, you can offer different binaries for different architectures.
Hell if you *have* to get a "universal binary, just bzip all the different binaries into one executable archive that runs whichever binary inside fits the architecture.
But I see not point in it, would just unpack all the binaries for my arch on the first run, and be done with it.
Oh, there *is* a real reason! And there is no such thing as a president or government that is not following it. Since somewhere in the 18th century.
Look at who profits from this. A deficit is always something, where you gave all your money away, and now have to lend the money you need from someone else.
And who might that be?
There is a theory, that banks create unnecessary wars, so the country has to lend money from them, and so the banks get power over the country. Because now if the banks say no, the country goes tits up. Which means the banks own and control the country. Same thing with your personal loan: They own you. And that's the idea, according to the theory.
It certainly makes sense. Since every time the government starts to get out of of debt, somehow a large war starts for no reason. You can track this all the way back trough the centuries. Does anyone remember, how in the Clinton era, the news was full of "we'll finally be out of the debt" for a short time? Well, and what happened next?
I can imagine that you're now saying: But what about the dying banks? Well, they were dummy banks, supposed to die. For profit of the others. Look, it worked like this: You have two banks. You move all the bad credit stuff to one, and all the good stuff to the other. Then you let the "bad" bank die. And ask for huge sums of "bailout" money from the government. Who itself has to lend that money from your "good" bank. Then your good bank buys the "bad" bank with all that bailout money. Tadaa! You just shifted a huge sum of money to yourself. And made the government depend on you because of them owing you money. Time for some new laws! Isn't it? First let's throw away the designated scapegoat president, and put our own employee/friend into its place, who will be received with open arms, because he will use the old lies-before-election/truth-after-election method, and supported by an even worse dummy candidate of whichever was the scapegoat party this time. And then the fun starts.
Wait for this bailout only being the beginning. We can still work much harder for them, in our hamster wheels, to pay up a debt that can never be payed back, by the basic rules of physics. (Because if you lend 100 people $100, with 1% interest, then after 1 year, there will be $10100 to pay back. But still only be $10000 in existence. Which means one guy has to be left with no money, so they others can pay their $101 back. The only ones who could create that money out of nowhere, are the banks themselves.
Obviously, I'm not saying that any of this is proven to be true. I'm just saying that it makes a hell of a lot of sense. And that some things, like the wars right when we could be free, are more than telling. (The gold-based (and thereby not usable for creating artificial debts) dollar that got killed off by the federal reserve, through a nasty trick, is another good example.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but you're using a strawman argument. I never said that all parades are like that. So the rest of your comment is false.
I said that parades, where a group of people is raised out, and paraded as being something "different" (not just normal people) does exactly that: Show that "they/we are different, and not normal". At least that was the purpose of every gay parade I have seen.
The funny thing is: Even most gay people don't like those "extremist" gays who always think they have to put themselves in the spotlight and attack people for not being "tolerant" enough.* (In reality, those types often themselves are not very tolerant.) At least that is how a lesbian woman explained it to me. :)
But as we know, there are annoying extremists in every community. ^^
Well, as long as one doesn't prejudice a group by the behavior of its loudest idiots, that should not be a problem.
___ :)
* Be aware that I obviously am completely aware that there were and partially are still people that are treating gays bad for no reason, and that that is bad. I'm just saying, as I pointed out in my original comment, that the other side of the extreme also exists, and is just as bad.
Pfff... I thought Americans like German hard sounding words.
Either you have never player Wolfenstein, or that was way over your head. ^^
Actually, I think it's more true than you think it is...
I worked in companies like that. And that "we heard complaints from 0.00001% of our customers, who were complete and utter retards, so we have to adapt our products to that, even though we know that that will create even bigger idiots" concept, is exactly the mentality that is used in dying companies. Because they are desperate and try to get every last customer possible. They get slaves to the wishes of the loudest idiots. Which usually makes it even worse, because the intelligent people, who are now massively annoyed, don't complain. They just move elsewhere.
Look for it. There are more companies out there doing that, than you ever thought. :)
You can even use it for manipulation. Just remember the trigger topics. (Like wanting it simpler. Act too dumb to doubt yourself.)
You know that there was this great invention called "glasses", some 725 years ago, do you? ^^
The funny think is, that it's actually not politicizing. Because the difference between "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right" and all that shit is all just a illusion of a theater play anyway. Real politics are looong gone from the US government. Today it's a shop for companies. You buy the world to your way.
Exactly. The problem is, that the line got lost. The line that should be drawn between treating people equally, and preferring a specific group.
The whole concept of making people who are different "special" is the exact opposite of equality. (equality is zero, "special" is positive infinity). It's just as bad as treating people badly. (negative infinity)
Also. As the scale is not absolute but relative, treating someone better, means treating everyone else worse. Depends on your standpoint.
The only difference? Preferring people with disadvantages, is preferring disadvantages for society. Not a wise move...
I wish to be treated for *exactly* what I am. (If the person is able to know what I am.) If I am bad at something, don't fuckin' say it is OK! It is NOT! I have to work on that, to be successful in evolution! Period. And if someone is better than me, I don't call him an ass because he says so. If he is right, he has all rights to say so! I can be proud, because he makes humanity as a whole better. Everything else would just be pathetic jealousy of someone with a low self-esteem.
Hawking is a great example. I am better at moving than he is. And I can say that. He is a total genius in physics. And I don't think he has a urge to have a low self-esteem because of his disadvantages. Just as I don't have low self-esteem because of mine.
Conclusion: That's the funny thing: :)
- You can measure the integration of black people in America by the amount of talk that still is needed to mention equality (as something special).
- Gays only will become normal parts of society, when the need for a "we are so special" parade goes away.
- Feminism only will have reached its final goal, when it stops existing.
- Etc, etc, etc.
Because not the other extreme is the goal. A loose swinging around the origin between the extremes is.
... not the eyes are impared. But the "processing center" behind it.
Only in America... :/
And just as most plasmoids, it's a completely useless piece of decoration.
But at least the UI is simple. And that is all that counts, right? ;)
reversal schmersal
the Schwinger Effect
Aaahh... a bit of German makes every scientific topic cool. ;)
We only lack a "färbottenärr Krruppstahl Gammastrrahlänn-Krriegsmaschinenapparraturrr" in there somewhere. Jawohl!
Wundabar! Jahaha!
You act as if that would exclude it from being a possibility that one could check.
Sure, it makes it a very unlikely possibility. But should we just never ever check the unlikely possibilities? That would not get us very far, would it?
Remember: In science, NEVER be arrogant, or too convinced of your theories. Because that is usually when someone comes up with proof that you are wrong, and everybody starts to laugh at you. ^^
(Optionally after some decades of denial.)
...because in the eyes of the uneducated masses, that is still seen as "not real" and "just imaginary hurting". Despite modern neurology having proven, that the brain literally can't distinguish between those types of pains. (So a broken heart really actually hurts! And hurting you feelings creates real actual physical pain.)
Also, it is much harder to heal a fucked up mind, that a fucked up body. (From what is seen as "equally bad".)
But hey: It's invisible, so it can't be real. Any don't be a pussy anyway! Stop crying! He didn't beat you. It's just words. Right??
Welcome to the dark ages. You never left them.
...you know:
- MS Bob
- Star Wars Christmas Special
- Power Glove
- OpenOffice Mouse
- And this
Have you looked into what they planned for the Unreal 4 engine? It looks really great. Unreal 3 is now nearing its EOL anyway.
Seconded. I don't know how it's in the most recent engines. But Doom 3's level editor was a real piece of shit.
While i really liked the Unreal ones.
Pff... put a fire under a pot, and catch the steam in a glass funnel. now you only have to sprinkle some minerals in it... A caveman could do it...
</sacrasm>
Hmm... That would make it a very successful strategy, to use a dummy as your lawyer: A blowup doll, Bush, your dog, or just do it yourself.
As long as it's free, of course. Just bleed them dry by creating huge and expensive delays, or forcing the lawyers to bill them for reading thousands of pages of random shit. ^^
Anyone care to invent a pledge generator that can spit out 1000-page speeches?
The urgency clause means that a computer can be disconnected if it is part of an ongoing DDoS attack.
Or "That rule would never be used. It's only there for extreme emergencies. Don't worry!"
To which I answer with a quote:
“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (Weimar Germany)...
— meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
As a human, you will soon follow. ^^
Or a worker at a secret government research facility. Which is really the same.
Well, ask the people in your local church(s). ^^
Well, I know, that Spain for a long time, had the same password on every local Internet distributor node box in the country. One that was breakable with a normal overnight dictionary attack. All you needed to do, was to buy a triangular standard key from the hardware store, open it, connect your laptop to the serial port inside, put the laptop inside, and let it run overnight. The next morning you could tweak the bandwidth distribution in your favor. ^^
Uuum, have you ever tried Portage, and its descendants?
We have something called "slots". Meaning that if at all possible, you can install multiple versions at the same time. Including automatic versioning of libraries. I could never go back to something else.
I mean despite the obvious bloat.
I think it's way simpler to just compile one version for each architecture and put it on the package mirror. Less download time, smaller installation media, less disk space used for no reason, faster startup times...
The idea of a multi-arch binary makes sense for closed source that does not allow re-compilation only. And even there, you can offer different binaries for different architectures.
Hell if you *have* to get a "universal binary, just bzip all the different binaries into one executable archive that runs whichever binary inside fits the architecture.
But I see not point in it, would just unpack all the binaries for my arch on the first run, and be done with it.
It it opposite day again? Or what is the -1 Overrated for?
Oh, there *is* a real reason! And there is no such thing as a president or government that is not following it. Since somewhere in the 18th century.
Look at who profits from this. A deficit is always something, where you gave all your money away, and now have to lend the money you need from someone else.
And who might that be?
There is a theory, that banks create unnecessary wars, so the country has to lend money from them, and so the banks get power over the country. Because now if the banks say no, the country goes tits up. Which means the banks own and control the country. Same thing with your personal loan: They own you. And that's the idea, according to the theory.
It certainly makes sense. Since every time the government starts to get out of of debt, somehow a large war starts for no reason. You can track this all the way back trough the centuries.
Does anyone remember, how in the Clinton era, the news was full of "we'll finally be out of the debt" for a short time? Well, and what happened next?
I can imagine that you're now saying: But what about the dying banks?
Well, they were dummy banks, supposed to die. For profit of the others. Look, it worked like this:
You have two banks. You move all the bad credit stuff to one, and all the good stuff to the other.
Then you let the "bad" bank die. And ask for huge sums of "bailout" money from the government.
Who itself has to lend that money from your "good" bank.
Then your good bank buys the "bad" bank with all that bailout money.
Tadaa! You just shifted a huge sum of money to yourself. And made the government depend on you because of them owing you money.
Time for some new laws! Isn't it?
First let's throw away the designated scapegoat president, and put our own employee/friend into its place, who will be received with open arms, because he will use the old lies-before-election/truth-after-election method, and supported by an even worse dummy candidate of whichever was the scapegoat party this time.
And then the fun starts.
Wait for this bailout only being the beginning. We can still work much harder for them, in our hamster wheels, to pay up a debt that can never be payed back, by the basic rules of physics. (Because if you lend 100 people $100, with 1% interest, then after 1 year, there will be $10100 to pay back. But still only be $10000 in existence. Which means one guy has to be left with no money, so they others can pay their $101 back. The only ones who could create that money out of nowhere, are the banks themselves.
Obviously, I'm not saying that any of this is proven to be true. I'm just saying that it makes a hell of a lot of sense. And that some things, like the wars right when we could be free, are more than telling. (The gold-based (and thereby not usable for creating artificial debts) dollar that got killed off by the federal reserve, through a nasty trick, is another good example.)