"So once again, which party is the 'racist' party?"
Easy: the one the South votes for.
Since I have been researching this topic since I first posted this morning, this is the dumbest quote I've heard yet.
So you're saying whomever the south votes for is automatically the 'racist' party and since they currently vote republican, the republicans are racist. Great logic.
You've brought up some good information, but I've spent all freakin' day researching this topic and I really need to get some real work done. I'll give your links a read next weekend.
by hand picking 3-4 names from a group of people you cant prove zit.
i can pick many republicans here who went into inexplicable shit during their careers, including racism.
its the actions of the republican party that makes people think they are racist. excuse me, but im turkish, but im even appalled at how new orleans was treated by your republican administration.
Care to tell my how New Orleans was 'racist'?
Was it the democratic (and black) mayor Ray Nagen (spelling?) who called New Orleans a 'chocolate city'?
What if I called my town 'white city' or 'albino city' or something equally ridiculous? I'd have a million people screaming that I was racist--but it's ok if a black man and/or a democrat does it.
Well, I wasn't alive in 1965, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on which party is more racist NOW.
I can speak from experience about which party is the 'racist' party NOW - in 2008. I know several racist people, and they are all huge GOP supporters. In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.
Unfortunately you aren't providing any facts. I could just as easily use your 'argument' in my favor without you being able to refute it.
I can speak from experience about which party is racist now. I know 10 democrats, and they are all racist. As a matter of fact, I know 50 Republicans, and none of them qualify as racist.
Ooh--refute that jumble of vague non-verifiable facts and selective statistics.
Not much on data analysis are you? The absolute numbers don't tell the story of which party and which regions are most racist. Look at the percentages and the location breakdown. Virtually all the democrats who voted against the bill were SOUTHERNERS. Many of them later switched party affiliation after this vote. Last time I checked the math 100% racist is greater than 95% racist.
So you're fine with the statistic that 100% southern republicans are racist and 93% southern democrats are racist...but totally ignoring that it's 10 republicans verses 87 democrats. Statistics like that lie. You'd think based on 100% verses 93% that the republicans are bad--until you look at the actual numbers of 10 verses 87.
Since this act passed the south has voted overwhelmingly republican. Racism had more than a little to do with that fact. The republicans reputation for being the more racist of the two parties hasn't been earned by accident.
No, it's been 'earned' by a stream of constant mis-information by the Democrat party.
Like your next quote:
Not to say there aren't racist democrats as well but the voting records *clearly* support the hypothesis that the republicans are the party with the greater percentage of racist members.
You have an odd definition of 'clearly'. After totaling the votes, we end up with 112 Democrats against the bill, and 41 Republicans against the bill.
Now, I'm no expert on which number is bigger, so I tossed it into a python to get an official computer-based answer. Here are my results:
So it seems to me based on testing using python that the number of racist democrats is grater than the number of racist republicans, and not equal to. Especially not less than as you are trying to state...
Don't try to pretend I said something I didn't. I said "the KKK crowd" rather than just "the KKK" quite deliberately; there aren't really any links between any political party and the KKK itself any more, because except for a few die-hards the KKK as an organization has been pretty much defunct for decades
You said "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party." To me, that sounds like you are saying that the KKK and the ilk that surrounds them either belong to or are controlled by the Republican party. So I asked you to show me links. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then please clarify what you meant by "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.".
-- thanks in large part to the efforts of Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and Democratic Attorneys General Kennedy, Katzenbach, and Clark.
Ahh that would be President Johnson who (as a senator) said: "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
And also: President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
And Attourney General Robert F. Kennedy who said the following before illegally wiretapping Martin Luther King's phones: "I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
By "the KKK crowd" I mean, of course, the sorts of people who would be Klansmen if it were still socially acceptable...
I see what you're saying. You're saying that IF the KKK were still around, you know who would be in it, and that it would be most Republicans. That's some great evidence there.
Meanwhile, Thurmond's and Helms' spiritual heirs go Republican in overwhelming numbers.
This sentence has me completely lost. I'm not sure what you are saying. People who once voted republican and voted for Thurmond and Helms continue to vote republican?
I'll agree with you that Thurmond was a douche. His campaigns about 'states rights' were bullshit when you look at the Declaration of Independence. Thurmond can say all he wants that it's up to the states to make decisions about slavery--except one of our founding documents says "...that all men are created equal". Which totally shoots down his argument in my opinion.
Look--I'm not arguing that the republican party is totally perfect and the democrat party is totally racist. My statement was simply that the MAJORITY of the democratic party is racist compared with a small MINORITY of republican party which is racist.
except Byrd, who nearly alone among his contemporaries had the guts not only to admit that he was wrong, but also work to do something about it.
Good for him for standing up and admitting he was wrong and apologising.
When the bill got passed, it was after deliberations in both the house and senate, where 20% of the republicans in the house voted against it. Why did you feel it was needed to list 3 Democrats who voted against it, instead of listing the 46 that voted for it?
Why do you feel the need to list the 46 democrats who voted for it, and fail to list the 138 republicans who voted for it. The total was 96 democrats against the bill, and 34 republicans against the bill. Seems to me like 96 democrats is more than 34 republicans.
It seems like the rest of your argument about "But mommy, he did it too" gets shot down when the numbers show Democrats were the largest opponents of the bill.
It was a GREAT example of what can be accomplished when two political sides work together, and overcome two geographic sides that wont.
No argument there.
Those names you pull out with an 'R' next to their names will get as big a denouncement as the rest of them. But in the context of the Voting Rights Act, there are only 34 compared with the 96 with a 'D'.
Regardless of political affiliation though, anyone who votes against the freedom of people should be disparaged.
The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", not "all white men are created equal".
You do realize that while the name stays the same over the decades (and centuries), their views change, right? That was more 40 years ago.
The South is still full of rabid racists and various crazies. They used to vote Democrat, now they vote Republican. You will be known by the company you keep...
You are exactly right that the name stays the same, but the views change. Democrats believe whatever is popular at the moment. When slavery was an issue, they were for slavery...until it was outlawed. Then they started talking about how they were against it all along. Then there was the voting rights act. Against it. Until it passed. Now they're all for it. They'll try to get a black man to believe they were his best friend all along.
As far as the south voting Republican because they are racist--well, that's a bullshit statement. It's like the Slashdot article a while back where Canadian (iirc) police did a study of pedophiles and found they all watched Star Trek. It's not because Star Trek supports or promotes pedophilia. They watch for some other reason. Same with the Republican party. Who cares if a bunch of racists vote Republican. I don't see any Republicans in the house or senate that are trying to pass bills to bring back slavery, or to oppress blacks, or to oppress minorities, etc...so they must be voting for some other non-racist reason. Maybe they all share a common trait of not believing in global warming. Who knows.
Check the vote breakdown by party and region. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.
However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.
So you own link to wikipedia shows that more democrats were against the bill than republicans. (Although there are significant numbers from both parties.)
Next you are trying to say that a few SOUTHERN democrats voted for the act, but no SOUTHERN republicans did. Well, let's look at the skewed statistics:
Democrats For: 4
Democrats Against: 87
Democrats Total: 91
Republicans For: 0
Republicans Against: 10
Republicans Total: 10
Wow. 10 Republicans (out of 10) voted against, while 87 Democrats (out of 91) voted against. That's more Democrats voting against the bill than Republicans.
Now don't get me wrong, those Republicans who voted against the bill are shameful, dishonest people. They are voting for (probably) their own business/wealth than what is right, and what the party stands for.
And immediately right after LBJ (Democrat) worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 he told his advisors that he signed the South to Republicans. Ever since, the South has been voting Republican. So yes, they are still racist.
You have a few facts messed up:
You're telling me that the South suddenly switched from voting Democrat to Republican. It appears (at least to me) that you are trying to link the switch to racism--i.e. that the Republicans were all for slavery, oppressing blacks, etc... and that's why the south started voting for them.
The problem with that is that when it came to a vote, 40% of the House Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, compared with the 80% of Republicans that supported it. Support from Republicans in the Senate was even higher.Republican support in the Senate was even higher.
So you're telling me that after that vote, the south switched to voting republican?
Or maybe you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Oops--probably not. Republican support was 82% in the house and 94% in the senate.
Let's not forget a quote from LBJ (democrat): "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
Sounds like another racist Democrat.
Digging around my research notes, I came across this gem--which I'm sorry I failed to write down the attribution: "Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960â(TM)s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing."
So once again, which party is the 'racist' party? Even your own examples don't stand up to research and history...
You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?
You do realize that's bullshit, right? I can call myself a democrat and in the same breath say that I'm for drilling domestically, love the war, and support bush--but that doesn't make me a democrat. Same thing goes for people who say they are republican. What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.
and they will go the way of all obstructive technology.
..straight to the top of the popularity charts, thus ruining it for a whole new generation of web developers...?
It would be great if IE8 was released for Vista only. It's be a race to see how fast IE8 gets adopted via Windows Update--you know, by the 50 or so Vista users out there...
Also, keep in mind that fingers do get larger during the normal course of life, so you will need to resize it anyway at some point in the future.
As a former EMT who has had to cut rings off people's fingers because of damage, swelling, etc...get something that can be cut by a normal ring cutter, or come to terms with the possibility of losing your finger.
If you get something that is much stronger than Gold, we can't cut it off if there's a problem. It will act like a tourniquet and cut off all blood flow....then you lose your finger.
...but eventually, all the 31337 hax0rs get caught.
And how exactly do we know this?;-)
I was referring to the guy who committed the not-so-random ssh key generation bug. (I was actually trying to be funny, but failed miserably. I read my comment again and am ashamed as the lack of quality control)
You mean real h4x0rz like Sam Hocevar, who ran Debian last, put predictable pseudo-random number generators in their SSH packages.
Yeah--that was pretty 31337. Seriously--how many boxes could that dude have potentially hacked. That almost in the level of that unix login bug that was buried in the C compiler....but eventually, all the 31337 hax0rs get caught.
You know, they say that serial killers lack the ability to differentiate between moral and non-moral actions...this guy is sorta the same, except he can't recognize sarcasm. I suppose that makes him a serial bore.
I see your point, then then again it was an example. In fact, I do believe that the summary referred to the complainant as a "customer", which infers pretty strongly that some money HAD in fact changed hands at some point.
Like I said before--some slashdotters don't even bother to read the summary...like me apparently.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Did you just call Java fast and clean?
Really?
I'm sure he means 'compared to the .NET framework'.
If you want to know how a party leans, don't look in the history books. Look at its members.
Agreed. However I still fail to find very many racist Republicans in the part--today, or 60 years ago.
"So once again, which party is the 'racist' party?"
Easy: the one the South votes for.
Since I have been researching this topic since I first posted this morning, this is the dumbest quote I've heard yet.
So you're saying whomever the south votes for is automatically the 'racist' party and since they currently vote republican, the republicans are racist. Great logic.
You've brought up some good information, but I've spent all freakin' day researching this topic and I really need to get some real work done. I'll give your links a read next weekend.
by hand picking 3-4 names from a group of people you cant prove zit. i can pick many republicans here who went into inexplicable shit during their careers, including racism. its the actions of the republican party that makes people think they are racist. excuse me, but im turkish, but im even appalled at how new orleans was treated by your republican administration.
Care to tell my how New Orleans was 'racist'?
Was it the democratic (and black) mayor Ray Nagen (spelling?) who called New Orleans a 'chocolate city'?
What if I called my town 'white city' or 'albino city' or something equally ridiculous? I'd have a million people screaming that I was racist--but it's ok if a black man and/or a democrat does it.
So tell me. How is New Orleans racist?
Well, I wasn't alive in 1965, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on which party is more racist NOW.
I can speak from experience about which party is the 'racist' party NOW - in 2008. I know several racist people, and they are all huge GOP supporters. In fact, I don't know any people that I would qualify as racist that support the democratic party.
Unfortunately you aren't providing any facts. I could just as easily use your 'argument' in my favor without you being able to refute it.
I can speak from experience about which party is racist now. I know 10 democrats, and they are all racist. As a matter of fact, I know 50 Republicans, and none of them qualify as racist.
Ooh--refute that jumble of vague non-verifiable facts and selective statistics.
Not much on data analysis are you? The absolute numbers don't tell the story of which party and which regions are most racist. Look at the percentages and the location breakdown. Virtually all the democrats who voted against the bill were SOUTHERNERS. Many of them later switched party affiliation after this vote. Last time I checked the math 100% racist is greater than 95% racist.
So you're fine with the statistic that 100% southern republicans are racist and 93% southern democrats are racist...but totally ignoring that it's 10 republicans verses 87 democrats. Statistics like that lie. You'd think based on 100% verses 93% that the republicans are bad--until you look at the actual numbers of 10 verses 87.
Since this act passed the south has voted overwhelmingly republican. Racism had more than a little to do with that fact. The republicans reputation for being the more racist of the two parties hasn't been earned by accident.
No, it's been 'earned' by a stream of constant mis-information by the Democrat party.
Like your next quote:
Not to say there aren't racist democrats as well but the voting records *clearly* support the hypothesis that the republicans are the party with the greater percentage of racist members.
You have an odd definition of 'clearly'. After totaling the votes, we end up with 112 Democrats against the bill, and 41 Republicans against the bill.
Now, I'm no expert on which number is bigger, so I tossed it into a python to get an official computer-based answer. Here are my results:
So it seems to me based on testing using python that the number of racist democrats is grater than the number of racist republicans, and not equal to. Especially not less than as you are trying to state...
Don't try to pretend I said something I didn't. I said "the KKK crowd" rather than just "the KKK" quite deliberately; there aren't really any links between any political party and the KKK itself any more, because except for a few die-hards the KKK as an organization has been pretty much defunct for decades
You said "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party." To me, that sounds like you are saying that the KKK and the ilk that surrounds them either belong to or are controlled by the Republican party. So I asked you to show me links. If I misunderstood what you were saying, then please clarify what you meant by "For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.".
-- thanks in large part to the efforts of Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and Democratic Attorneys General Kennedy, Katzenbach, and Clark.
Ahh that would be President Johnson who (as a senator) said: .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
And also:
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. .
And Attourney General Robert F. Kennedy who said the following before illegally wiretapping Martin Luther King's phones:
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
By "the KKK crowd" I mean, of course, the sorts of people who would be Klansmen if it were still socially acceptable ...
I see what you're saying. You're saying that IF the KKK were still around, you know who would be in it, and that it would be most Republicans. That's some great evidence there.
Meanwhile, Thurmond's and Helms' spiritual heirs go Republican in overwhelming numbers.
This sentence has me completely lost. I'm not sure what you are saying. People who once voted republican and voted for Thurmond and Helms continue to vote republican?
I'll agree with you that Thurmond was a douche. His campaigns about 'states rights' were bullshit when you look at the Declaration of Independence. Thurmond can say all he wants that it's up to the states to make decisions about slavery--except one of our founding documents says "...that all men are created equal". Which totally shoots down his argument in my opinion.
Look--I'm not arguing that the republican party is totally perfect and the democrat party is totally racist. My statement was simply that the MAJORITY of the democratic party is racist compared with a small MINORITY of republican party which is racist.
except Byrd, who nearly alone among his contemporaries had the guts not only to admit that he was wrong, but also work to do something about it.
Good for him for standing up and admitting he was wrong and apologising.
When the bill got passed, it was after deliberations in both the house and senate, where 20% of the republicans in the house voted against it. Why did you feel it was needed to list 3 Democrats who voted against it, instead of listing the 46 that voted for it?
Why do you feel the need to list the 46 democrats who voted for it, and fail to list the 138 republicans who voted for it. The total was 96 democrats against the bill, and 34 republicans against the bill. Seems to me like 96 democrats is more than 34 republicans.
It seems like the rest of your argument about "But mommy, he did it too" gets shot down when the numbers show Democrats were the largest opponents of the bill.
It was a GREAT example of what can be accomplished when two political sides work together, and overcome two geographic sides that wont.
No argument there.
Those names you pull out with an 'R' next to their names will get as big a denouncement as the rest of them. But in the context of the Voting Rights Act, there are only 34 compared with the 96 with a 'D'.
Regardless of political affiliation though, anyone who votes against the freedom of people should be disparaged.
The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", not "all white men are created equal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party
You do realize that while the name stays the same over the decades (and centuries), their views change, right? That was more 40 years ago.
The South is still full of rabid racists and various crazies. They used to vote Democrat, now they vote Republican. You will be known by the company you keep...
You are exactly right that the name stays the same, but the views change. Democrats believe whatever is popular at the moment. When slavery was an issue, they were for slavery...until it was outlawed. Then they started talking about how they were against it all along. Then there was the voting rights act. Against it. Until it passed. Now they're all for it. They'll try to get a black man to believe they were his best friend all along.
As far as the south voting Republican because they are racist--well, that's a bullshit statement. It's like the Slashdot article a while back where Canadian (iirc) police did a study of pedophiles and found they all watched Star Trek. It's not because Star Trek supports or promotes pedophilia. They watch for some other reason. Same with the Republican party. Who cares if a bunch of racists vote Republican. I don't see any Republicans in the house or senate that are trying to pass bills to bring back slavery, or to oppress blacks, or to oppress minorities, etc...so they must be voting for some other non-racist reason. Maybe they all share a common trait of not believing in global warming. Who knows.
Check the vote breakdown by party and region. It was predominantly SOUTHERNERS of BOTH parties who opposed the bill. Remember them? They were the folks who started a civil war to keep slavery around. The vote breakdown was very clearly along regional lines not party lines.
However if you insist on defending the republicans on this issue, a few southern democrats actually voted for the act - no southern republicans did. Furthermore most of the northerners who voted against the act were republicans. So yeah, in general if someone was racist in 1964 odds were better that they were republican than democrat. Odds also tell us they were likely from the south regardless of party affiliation.
So you own link to wikipedia shows that more democrats were against the bill than republicans. (Although there are significant numbers from both parties.)
Next you are trying to say that a few SOUTHERN democrats voted for the act, but no SOUTHERN republicans did. Well, let's look at the skewed statistics:
Democrats For: 4
Democrats Against: 87
Democrats Total: 91
Republicans For: 0
Republicans Against: 10
Republicans Total: 10
Wow. 10 Republicans (out of 10) voted against, while 87 Democrats (out of 91) voted against. That's more Democrats voting against the bill than Republicans.
Now don't get me wrong, those Republicans who voted against the bill are shameful, dishonest people. They are voting for (probably) their own business/wealth than what is right, and what the party stands for.
And immediately right after LBJ (Democrat) worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 he told his advisors that he signed the South to Republicans. Ever since, the South has been voting Republican. So yes, they are still racist.
You have a few facts messed up:
You're telling me that the South suddenly switched from voting Democrat to Republican. It appears (at least to me) that you are trying to link the switch to racism--i.e. that the Republicans were all for slavery, oppressing blacks, etc... and that's why the south started voting for them.
The problem with that is that when it came to a vote, 40% of the House Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, compared with the 80% of Republicans that supported it. Support from Republicans in the Senate was even higher.Republican support in the Senate was even higher.
So you're telling me that after that vote, the south switched to voting republican?
Or maybe you are talking about the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Oops--probably not. Republican support was 82% in the house and 94% in the senate.
Let's not forget a quote from LBJ (democrat): "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
Sounds like another racist Democrat.
Digging around my research notes, I came across this gem--which I'm sorry I failed to write down the attribution: "Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960â(TM)s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing."
So once again, which party is the 'racist' party? Even your own examples don't stand up to research and history...
You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?
You do realize that's bullshit, right? I can call myself a democrat and in the same breath say that I'm for drilling domestically, love the war, and support bush--but that doesn't make me a democrat. Same thing goes for people who say they are republican. What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.
For decades now, the KKK crowd has been the property of the Republican Party.
Care to cite the links between the KKK and the Republican party. Apparently I'm uneducated since I failed to find any.
Since the 1960s, yes, this is true.
[citation needed]
Ah, you must be a Republican. How charming.
Right--because it's the republicans who are racist.
...and guess what. All democrats. Learn your history. Stop being a drone.
Hmm...who blocked the schoolhouse steps and had to be removed by the national guard....democrat.
Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act? Hmm--that would be Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was a former member of the KKK.
It would be great if IE8 was released for Vista only. It's be a race to see how fast IE8 gets adopted via Windows Update--you know, by the 50 or so Vista users out there...
Also, keep in mind that fingers do get larger during the normal course of life, so you will need to resize it anyway at some point in the future.
As a former EMT who has had to cut rings off people's fingers because of damage, swelling, etc...get something that can be cut by a normal ring cutter, or come to terms with the possibility of losing your finger.
...then you lose your finger.
If you get something that is much stronger than Gold, we can't cut it off if there's a problem. It will act like a tourniquet and cut off all blood flow.
To the moderators : i was joking.
It's from Warcraft 3 : "Death to all who oppose the horde" .
To the parent: "Maybe it wasn't that funny"
That f*cking disgusting.
(Video is of some chick giving a guy in an ET mask a BJ.)
Still, they offer some helpful tips for dealing with what is expected to be a category-three hurricane
Tip 1: Time to bolt the racks down
And how exactly do we know this? ;-)
I was referring to the guy who committed the not-so-random ssh key generation bug. (I was actually trying to be funny, but failed miserably. I read my comment again and am ashamed as the lack of quality control)
You mean real h4x0rz like Sam Hocevar, who ran Debian last, put predictable pseudo-random number generators in their SSH packages.
Yeah--that was pretty 31337. Seriously--how many boxes could that dude have potentially hacked. That almost in the level of that unix login bug that was buried in the C compiler. ...but eventually, all the 31337 hax0rs get caught.
You have issues with sarcasm :) For example.
You know, they say that serial killers lack the ability to differentiate between moral and non-moral actions...this guy is sorta the same, except he can't recognize sarcasm. I suppose that makes him a serial bore.
Hmm... I see. So you're saying "companies can do whatever they want, except when they can't".
In other words, you were saying nothing useful at all.
It's a reminder to all the idiots out there that think companies are supposed to do what they want, and not what the company wants.
I see your point, then then again it was an example. In fact, I do believe that the summary referred to the complainant as a "customer", which infers pretty strongly that some money HAD in fact changed hands at some point.
Like I said before--some slashdotters don't even bother to read the summary...like me apparently. ;)