So let's at least use words correctly that we as hackers made up ourselves.
We made up the word cruft? Seriously, I thought that was a pretty old slang word, like 'lop'. See, to 'lop a system on there' is to just throw up a few pipes and a muffler without regard for how well it's assembled, how long it'll last, or if it even does it's job in the first place.
Hmm, maybe I should retake my HIgh School english classes, since I obviously don't know real english anymore.
And if he worries that it might be too hot, let's just tell him he can go at night.
No good, he's from Texas, where he knows that the hottest part of the day is 9pm, 10pm in August.
Personally, I don't think he'll be worried about it being too hot precisely because he's from Texas. He'll just figure it's like going across the border to the south, just gets a little hotter.
That's not the worst of it, either. Because if you vote for the third candidate, the front runner you disliked the most is more likely to win, because had you cast your vote for a front runner, it wouldn't have been him.
Every time a third party candidate gets recognition for winning a lot of votes, the front runner that is least liked is the one that wins. I'm going to cast my vote for whoever Democrat is running because I really don't think the Democrats will put someone up who is as bad as Bush.
I'm also really hoping I'm right about that, because if the Democrats put up someone who's worse than Bush, we're screwed in a big way.
That sounds good in theory, but it seems like more than half of the posts in this article are saying "Audacity is good, but it will never replace audio editor X until it has feature Y". And in half of the cases, Audacity already does have feature Y - it just implements it in a different way.
We see that all the time. While you're right that AUdacity winds up having it if people just ask, it really irks me that people keep chanting "Not good enough until it does *insert crap*". Not good enough for what? Not good enough to save your worthless ass from tyranny? (NOt you specifically, Dominic, of course)
I sure in the hell don't recall ever reading about any Pilgrim saying "The NEw World isn't good enough until they have toilets" or some crap like that. Freedom is worth making sacrifices over. Hell, 10 years ago "Feature Y" didn't exist in any application.
Actually, I think XMMS got abandoned, if I recall correctly. We need a new media player, that's for sure. XMMS isn't that good anyway.... heh.
I think it's important to keep in mind that LInux is still a pretty young desktop platform. WE've had to replace 99% of all desktop software with Free stuff, and for many years there wasn't a lot of money in doing it, so there hasn't (until recently) been a lot of corporate support, and the corporate stuff we do have now is mostly server-based.
So, yeah, of course Linux is somewhat behind the other systems. But Windows has been under development since the early 80s, and it wasn't usable until, well, it's still not usable.:)
I think it's pretty telling that the top of the line software for audio production and desktop publishing and all kinds of crap is Apple-based with PC ports. Apple is the longest-running stable platform so far, even though they've made a few compatibility changes over the years. In any case, Mac lovers have been using macs since the mid 80s for a range of multimedia tasks, and PCs didn't get good enough to do the same stuff until the mid-90s.
SO, yeah, Linux is still a young platform by comparison.
I know, you weren't trash-talking Linux, you were just making a status report, but I think it's important to remember that Linux is still pretty young while we're looking at the status report. Means it's come a long way in a short time, and that's pretty damn good. When you consider the pace, which is accelerating, this year is shaping out to be a fine year--technologically.
Now we just need to put Blockers in front of all the WIndows machines so the lemmings will turn around and go somewhere else....;)
While you're right that there's no inherent benefit in quality, the issue is that _many_ more effects plug-ins are available as VSTs (and people forced to rely on DirectX complain about the lack of availability). Also, many people have a considerable investment in VST plug-ins, so they're understandably not too enthused about having to throw money away to move to a different platform.
Hmm, Audacity does LADSPA on all three platforms. Of course, there aren't any LADSPA plugins that run in Windows right now, don't know about Mac.;) In any case, there's so many LADSPA plugins it's unreal. Check out Steve Harris's library (I forget the URL, google for Steve harris ladspa and you'll fint it) and CMT. LADPSA.org has a page with links to known plugins, and there's tons more besides that.
Personally, Audacity's last in my chain of programs. Everything I do starts with ecasound and works its way through to Audacity, where I do the final mix-down. Multi-track is nice, but my computer is such a slow ass that I'd rather do my recording from the command line.:) Let's see a Windows app beat that....
Anyway, to prove a causal link between cigarettes and cancer, a study would have to select a random group of people and not allow them to smoke, and another group of people TO smoke, but such an experiment would be unethical to conduct. So, we are left with no scientifically provable conclusion about whether smoking causes cancer or not, but I think most people have a hunch.
Um, no. Someone slapped me down for this awhile back, but in '96 or '98 a group finally found, through experimental process (I understand it was peer-reviewed and held up, but don't know this for a fact), certain toxins in cigarette smoke specifically that cause lung cells to turn cancerous.
It's important to realize that these 'studies' with 'control groups' never prove anything. LEaving out for the moment the entire discussion of bias in the studies (which there frequently is, especially when it comes to cigarettes. Don't forget that researchers determined that nicotine can help to reduce the effects of Alzheimers, but it wasn't exactly published widely), the best a study can do is show a link between one thing and another. They can't prove a causal relationship.
Studies are a frequently mis-used method that has unfortunately degenerated to a pseudoscience. I generally disregard studies, these days.
And, for the record, I smoke American Spirit cigarettes. They taste good, they don't have any additives or preservatives, they DO have cotton filters (not the fiberglass shit you get from Marlboro), and they're made out of US stuff. American Spirits are good cigarettes. They'll probably still kill me, but at least I don't feel afflicted with an addiction while I smoke them.:) (Every Marlboro smoker wants to quit and says they can't. That means something...)
Dude, you're an idiot. First off, most principalities DO reduce car speed limits when there are pedestrians. They also hand warning signs and so forth. Or can you read street signs? Second, pedestrian travel and automobile travel are dissimilar. THird, in the time before traffic lights, they stuck a human at the corner directing traffic. They were called "Traffic Cops".
This is a waste of my time, so just fuck off. I'm through with you.
Think about what you've said. Doesn't it follow by your logic that cars should have lower speed limits than people?
Idiot. If people could move as fast as cars, we wouldn't have cars. They wouldn't have been needed. You know, horses used to have the right of way on streets for the same reasons, it's not like this is anything new.
Seems like the majority is giving everyone else the shaft (emphasis mine)
Welcome to our democracy. Good day!
I suppose you would have told Rosa Parks that her leet attitude and neo-liberalist viewpoint is[n't] going to help much. Except that her case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that segregation in transportation is unconstitutional.
Not at all. Rosa Parks was arguing that black people shouldn't be required to sit at the back of the bus. That public busses should provide the same access to everybody, and so forth. Try going to the supreme court with a case about how the rights of humans are being infringed for the sake of the cars. You know what they'll tell you?
Heh. They'd probably tell you that people have no business walking in streets anyway. They might get hit by a car. You cry safety, and I use safety as the foundation of my argument. Then you cry rights, but this isn't about rights. Maybe you don't think it's fair. Tough shit.
Here's a guy who sadly demonstrated why people shouldn't be in streets, and why cars are so dangerous to people. I don't think you fully understand the stakes, here. We're talking almost certain death if any car going faster than 30mph hits a human. You want safety? Just walk out into the middle of the street and find out how safe it is out there.
Crosswalks are a compromise. Would you rather just get rid of all cars and make people walk again?
Heh. This should be a pretty fun flame war. Your assuming that preferential treatment is what I'm after. Of course, that just makes you an ass.
I suggested a pragmatic explanation, which you asked for. When you didn't like my explanation, you decided that it was 'preferential treatment'.
Now, the basis of my explanation was twofold (look it up if you don't understand it):
Humans stop faster than cars
Cars do more damage than humans
So, of course trucks have lower speed limits than cars. Cars stop faster than trucks. Trucks do more damage than cars. Therefore, the foundation of my explanation holds true, even though you continue to want me to be seeking preferential treatment.
Note that I haven't offered what I consider an ideal solution, I've only offered explanation for why things are the way they are. Not that you care, you just want to be special. Nor would I expect you to actually ask me what I consider an ideal solution. You didn't exactly start this conversation with any semblance of respect.
It seems that the entire basis of your argument is that you think pedestrians should get preferential treatment. Why? Why are pedestrians so special? Is it because you're a pedestrian?
Now, go back through everything I've written and extract just one phrase that demonstrates that I have an (as you put it) opinion that I'm more important than everyone else. Just one, that's all I ask. When you fail to do that, I will go back and demonstrate how I answered your question.
So why did you even ask the question if you were just going to throw such a tantrum over the answer, anyway?
Dude, you are so elite. You know what I just absolutely love about Seattle? I just love how everybody tries to take everything as personally as possible and get offended over every thing that is ever said or done.
I'm not talking about preferential treatment to cars because they're bigger than you. I'm talking about how nimble a car is compared to a human. A human can stop on a dime compared to a car, which frequently takes 25 ft or more to stop. (We're talking most cars. I actually had to measure this when I was doing state inspections in Texas) A human also only weighs 150-200 lbs (much more than that and they're not called 'pedestrians', you know, like half the SEattle population). There are certain fancy physics calculations you can do to determine that a car will cream a person at relatively small speeds, and since a person can stop a hell of a lot quicker and easier than a car, not to mention actual response time, then it makes more sense to have the person stop more than the car and try to keep traffic moving.
Not that your leet attitude and neo-liberalist viewpoint is going to help much. Apparently I haven't achieve as much status as an armchair city engineer to satisfy your exacting credential requirements.
If your true goal was to keep people alive, instead of maximizing convenience for drivers at the expense of everyone else, you would lower speed limits, eliminate right turn on red, create four way stops, and add time for pedestrians to cross when no turns are allowed.
Hm, let's see. Lower speed limits? Nope, just means people who get stopped for speeding will pay higher fines. Around Bellevue the speed limits are usually 25, with some two-lane streets being 30. People drive 35-50 in Bellevue. Yes, I'm referring to the Bellevue that's across the lake from Seattle.;)
Create four way stops? Have you seen those circular gadgets they have? Quite a few Seattle neighborhoods have them... There's also one off I90, the Lake Sammammish exit, actually, and it works really really fuckin' well. Four way stop is just another opportunity for an impatient driver to scream through an intersection where they should be pausing instead. Keep traffic moving, that's the way to keep people alive.
I agree that adding time for pedestrians to cross when no turns are allowed is great, and all the working crosswalk buttons in the area I've seen seem to do exactly that.
Well, as a matter of fact, when the don't walk signal starts to flash, if a pedestrian suddenly stops they don't risk getting 2 tons worth of steel slamming into their rear, now do they? For that matter, if a car ignores the light and drives through anyway and hits a pedestrian, the damage done is favorable to the car and not the pedestrian. The same is true in reverse, so you don't want to be the pedestrian.
It just makes good sense to try to stop cars as little as possible and to make pedestrians look both ways before crossing the street. The consequences of a fuck-up are very serious for pedestrians, and not for cars.
Yes, my girl friend made me watch that damn show for an entire year.
I don't know what's worse. The fact that you let your girlfriend make you watch a show, or the fact that you were still with her for that entire year.
Man, oh man, I won't date a girl that watches tv. If I wanted to sit in front of the tv my whole life, never get laid, never do anything fun, etc., why bother with a girl? I think it's the whole "I don't want to feel like a loser, so I get a girl who'll obviously be a bigger loser than me, because she'll have me for a boyfriend". Heh.
This is BTW, why so many lemmings get hit by motorbikes in London. "Hmm, yes the cars are stopped so all the traffic must be stopped". You can almost see the realisation of just how wrong they are dawning as quarter of a tonne of pointy steel barrels towards them up on it's front wheel.
Can't you just put Blockers at the intersection to keep them off the street?
Yeah, I'm sure those things work great in Nottingham until some blond-haired blue-eyed twirp shoots arrows in your tires and demands that you give him your money so he can feed the poor.
I went to a movie once that I thought, by the length of the line, would fill up the theater. So I picked the row I wanted and went ahead and sat next to someone, figuring I'd fill in the empty seat and save us all a lot of trouble later on of having to move to accomodate those groups of two or more people that come in and find every other seat filled.
The movie started and the theater was only half full. I felt like a dork, but decided that feeling like a dork wasn't a good enough reason to move.
After the movie was over, the guy sitting next to me was standing outside waiting for his girlfriend, and I was just smoking, getting ready to leave. His girlfriend arrives and I manage to hear him say "That creepy guy that was sitting next to me in the theater is over there, let's hurry."
The one that always gets me shaking my head is when someone turns a thermostat fully to the max (or min) position, presumably to make the temperature change more quickly.
Man oh man, how my heart hurts at that.
I live in a house that was formerly rented out as two residences, one upstairs and one downstairs (we're renting the whole house now). One of the previous upstairs residents, which is where the thermostat is, would turn the heater all the way up when it was cold, and all the way down when she got hot. In the meantime, we're going through more extremes in temperature than she is. Psycho. I told her repeatedly that turning it up higher would not heat the place up any faster, but she didn't listen. I even opened the thermostat and showed her how it worked. She refused to understand.
So I just turned the heater off, since we have a switch for it downstairs, where the central unit is located.:) We got electric heaters for ourselves and turned the master unit off. After a few cold days, the lady upstairs asked us if we knew why the heater wasn't turning on. I 'suddenly remembered' that I had turned it off because she left it on really high and we got too hot.
She still didn't learn, but she moved out soon after that. The next lady learned through the same process. Gladly. Now we have the whole house to ourselves, so the problem is gone.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So let's at least use words correctly that we as hackers made up ourselves.
We made up the word cruft? Seriously, I thought that was a pretty old slang word, like 'lop'. See, to 'lop a system on there' is to just throw up a few pipes and a muffler without regard for how well it's assembled, how long it'll last, or if it even does it's job in the first place.
Hmm, maybe I should retake my HIgh School english classes, since I obviously don't know real english anymore.
And if he worries that it might be too hot, let's just tell him he can go at night.
No good, he's from Texas, where he knows that the hottest part of the day is 9pm, 10pm in August.
Personally, I don't think he'll be worried about it being too hot precisely because he's from Texas. He'll just figure it's like going across the border to the south, just gets a little hotter.
That's not the worst of it, either. Because if you vote for the third candidate, the front runner you disliked the most is more likely to win, because had you cast your vote for a front runner, it wouldn't have been him.
Every time a third party candidate gets recognition for winning a lot of votes, the front runner that is least liked is the one that wins. I'm going to cast my vote for whoever Democrat is running because I really don't think the Democrats will put someone up who is as bad as Bush.
I'm also really hoping I'm right about that, because if the Democrats put up someone who's worse than Bush, we're screwed in a big way.
I actually put this to the test. Did you, or are you just blowing smoke?
We just got E-Pubs and with it pages of documentation on how to burn a CD using WinXP. If they went to Linux we'd have major problems.
That's not pages and pages of instructions. :)
Well, as a Sun shareholder, I'd like to see them open source Java. :) (Although I admit I bought Sun shares because I'm hoping IBM will buy them out)
This is completely off-topic, but here's a link to an article that resulted from a previous discussion we had.
Windows vs Linux, which is easier to Install?
I'm not ready for a slashdotting, so please, nobody submit this unless you can get it mirrored on a big site that can take the slashdotting.
That sounds good in theory, but it seems like more than half of the posts in this article are saying "Audacity is good, but it will never replace audio editor X until it has feature Y". And in half of the cases, Audacity already does have feature Y - it just implements it in a different way.
We see that all the time. While you're right that AUdacity winds up having it if people just ask, it really irks me that people keep chanting "Not good enough until it does *insert crap*". Not good enough for what? Not good enough to save your worthless ass from tyranny? (NOt you specifically, Dominic, of course)
I sure in the hell don't recall ever reading about any Pilgrim saying "The NEw World isn't good enough until they have toilets" or some crap like that. Freedom is worth making sacrifices over. Hell, 10 years ago "Feature Y" didn't exist in any application.
Anyway, good work and so forth. ;)
Actually, I think XMMS got abandoned, if I recall correctly. We need a new media player, that's for sure. XMMS isn't that good anyway.... heh.
I think it's important to keep in mind that LInux is still a pretty young desktop platform. WE've had to replace 99% of all desktop software with Free stuff, and for many years there wasn't a lot of money in doing it, so there hasn't (until recently) been a lot of corporate support, and the corporate stuff we do have now is mostly server-based.
So, yeah, of course Linux is somewhat behind the other systems. But Windows has been under development since the early 80s, and it wasn't usable until, well, it's still not usable. :)
I think it's pretty telling that the top of the line software for audio production and desktop publishing and all kinds of crap is Apple-based with PC ports. Apple is the longest-running stable platform so far, even though they've made a few compatibility changes over the years. In any case, Mac lovers have been using macs since the mid 80s for a range of multimedia tasks, and PCs didn't get good enough to do the same stuff until the mid-90s.
SO, yeah, Linux is still a young platform by comparison.
I know, you weren't trash-talking Linux, you were just making a status report, but I think it's important to remember that Linux is still pretty young while we're looking at the status report. Means it's come a long way in a short time, and that's pretty damn good. When you consider the pace, which is accelerating, this year is shaping out to be a fine year--technologically.
Now we just need to put Blockers in front of all the WIndows machines so the lemmings will turn around and go somewhere else.... ;)
Hmm, you're a musician and you can't tell the difference between an F# and a C? ;) You must be one of those new-fangled alternative rockers...
While you're right that there's no inherent benefit in quality, the issue is that _many_ more effects plug-ins are available as VSTs (and people forced to rely on DirectX complain about the lack of availability). Also, many people have a considerable investment in VST plug-ins, so they're understandably not too enthused about having to throw money away to move to a different platform.
Hmm, Audacity does LADSPA on all three platforms. Of course, there aren't any LADSPA plugins that run in Windows right now, don't know about Mac. ;) In any case, there's so many LADSPA plugins it's unreal. Check out Steve Harris's library (I forget the URL, google for Steve harris ladspa and you'll fint it) and CMT. LADPSA.org has a page with links to known plugins, and there's tons more besides that.
Personally, Audacity's last in my chain of programs. Everything I do starts with ecasound and works its way through to Audacity, where I do the final mix-down. Multi-track is nice, but my computer is such a slow ass that I'd rather do my recording from the command line. :) Let's see a Windows app beat that....
Anyway, to prove a causal link between cigarettes and cancer, a study would have to select a random group of people and not allow them to smoke, and another group of people TO smoke, but such an experiment would be unethical to conduct. So, we are left with no scientifically provable conclusion about whether smoking causes cancer or not, but I think most people have a hunch.
Um, no. Someone slapped me down for this awhile back, but in '96 or '98 a group finally found, through experimental process (I understand it was peer-reviewed and held up, but don't know this for a fact), certain toxins in cigarette smoke specifically that cause lung cells to turn cancerous.
It's important to realize that these 'studies' with 'control groups' never prove anything. LEaving out for the moment the entire discussion of bias in the studies (which there frequently is, especially when it comes to cigarettes. Don't forget that researchers determined that nicotine can help to reduce the effects of Alzheimers, but it wasn't exactly published widely), the best a study can do is show a link between one thing and another. They can't prove a causal relationship.
Studies are a frequently mis-used method that has unfortunately degenerated to a pseudoscience. I generally disregard studies, these days.
And, for the record, I smoke American Spirit cigarettes. They taste good, they don't have any additives or preservatives, they DO have cotton filters (not the fiberglass shit you get from Marlboro), and they're made out of US stuff. American Spirits are good cigarettes. They'll probably still kill me, but at least I don't feel afflicted with an addiction while I smoke them. :) (Every Marlboro smoker wants to quit and says they can't. That means something...)
Dude, you're an idiot. First off, most principalities DO reduce car speed limits when there are pedestrians. They also hand warning signs and so forth. Or can you read street signs? Second, pedestrian travel and automobile travel are dissimilar. THird, in the time before traffic lights, they stuck a human at the corner directing traffic. They were called "Traffic Cops".
This is a waste of my time, so just fuck off. I'm through with you.
Think about what you've said. Doesn't it follow by your logic that cars should have lower speed limits than people?
Idiot. If people could move as fast as cars, we wouldn't have cars. They wouldn't have been needed. You know, horses used to have the right of way on streets for the same reasons, it's not like this is anything new.
Seems like the majority is giving everyone else the shaft (emphasis mine)
Welcome to our democracy. Good day!
I suppose you would have told Rosa Parks that her leet attitude and neo-liberalist viewpoint is[n't] going to help much. Except that her case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that segregation in transportation is unconstitutional.
Not at all. Rosa Parks was arguing that black people shouldn't be required to sit at the back of the bus. That public busses should provide the same access to everybody, and so forth. Try going to the supreme court with a case about how the rights of humans are being infringed for the sake of the cars. You know what they'll tell you?
Heh. They'd probably tell you that people have no business walking in streets anyway. They might get hit by a car. You cry safety, and I use safety as the foundation of my argument. Then you cry rights, but this isn't about rights. Maybe you don't think it's fair. Tough shit.
Here's a guy who sadly demonstrated why people shouldn't be in streets, and why cars are so dangerous to people. I don't think you fully understand the stakes, here. We're talking almost certain death if any car going faster than 30mph hits a human. You want safety? Just walk out into the middle of the street and find out how safe it is out there.
Crosswalks are a compromise. Would you rather just get rid of all cars and make people walk again?
Heh. This should be a pretty fun flame war. Your assuming that preferential treatment is what I'm after. Of course, that just makes you an ass.
I suggested a pragmatic explanation, which you asked for. When you didn't like my explanation, you decided that it was 'preferential treatment'.
Now, the basis of my explanation was twofold (look it up if you don't understand it):
So, of course trucks have lower speed limits than cars. Cars stop faster than trucks. Trucks do more damage than cars. Therefore, the foundation of my explanation holds true, even though you continue to want me to be seeking preferential treatment.
Note that I haven't offered what I consider an ideal solution, I've only offered explanation for why things are the way they are. Not that you care, you just want to be special. Nor would I expect you to actually ask me what I consider an ideal solution. You didn't exactly start this conversation with any semblance of respect.
It seems that the entire basis of your argument is that you think pedestrians should get preferential treatment. Why? Why are pedestrians so special? Is it because you're a pedestrian?
Now, go back through everything I've written and extract just one phrase that demonstrates that I have an (as you put it) opinion that I'm more important than everyone else. Just one, that's all I ask. When you fail to do that, I will go back and demonstrate how I answered your question.
So why did you even ask the question if you were just going to throw such a tantrum over the answer, anyway?
Dude, you are so elite. You know what I just absolutely love about Seattle? I just love how everybody tries to take everything as personally as possible and get offended over every thing that is ever said or done.
I'm not talking about preferential treatment to cars because they're bigger than you. I'm talking about how nimble a car is compared to a human. A human can stop on a dime compared to a car, which frequently takes 25 ft or more to stop. (We're talking most cars. I actually had to measure this when I was doing state inspections in Texas) A human also only weighs 150-200 lbs (much more than that and they're not called 'pedestrians', you know, like half the SEattle population). There are certain fancy physics calculations you can do to determine that a car will cream a person at relatively small speeds, and since a person can stop a hell of a lot quicker and easier than a car, not to mention actual response time, then it makes more sense to have the person stop more than the car and try to keep traffic moving.
Not that your leet attitude and neo-liberalist viewpoint is going to help much. Apparently I haven't achieve as much status as an armchair city engineer to satisfy your exacting credential requirements.
If your true goal was to keep people alive, instead of maximizing convenience for drivers at the expense of everyone else, you would lower speed limits, eliminate right turn on red, create four way stops, and add time for pedestrians to cross when no turns are allowed.
Hm, let's see. Lower speed limits? Nope, just means people who get stopped for speeding will pay higher fines. Around Bellevue the speed limits are usually 25, with some two-lane streets being 30. People drive 35-50 in Bellevue. Yes, I'm referring to the Bellevue that's across the lake from Seattle. ;)
Create four way stops? Have you seen those circular gadgets they have? Quite a few Seattle neighborhoods have them... There's also one off I90, the Lake Sammammish exit, actually, and it works really really fuckin' well. Four way stop is just another opportunity for an impatient driver to scream through an intersection where they should be pausing instead. Keep traffic moving, that's the way to keep people alive.
I agree that adding time for pedestrians to cross when no turns are allowed is great, and all the working crosswalk buttons in the area I've seen seem to do exactly that.
Well, as a matter of fact, when the don't walk signal starts to flash, if a pedestrian suddenly stops they don't risk getting 2 tons worth of steel slamming into their rear, now do they? For that matter, if a car ignores the light and drives through anyway and hits a pedestrian, the damage done is favorable to the car and not the pedestrian. The same is true in reverse, so you don't want to be the pedestrian.
It just makes good sense to try to stop cars as little as possible and to make pedestrians look both ways before crossing the street. The consequences of a fuck-up are very serious for pedestrians, and not for cars.
Yes, my girl friend made me watch that damn show for an entire year.
I don't know what's worse. The fact that you let your girlfriend make you watch a show, or the fact that you were still with her for that entire year.
Man, oh man, I won't date a girl that watches tv. If I wanted to sit in front of the tv my whole life, never get laid, never do anything fun, etc., why bother with a girl? I think it's the whole "I don't want to feel like a loser, so I get a girl who'll obviously be a bigger loser than me, because she'll have me for a boyfriend". Heh.
I'm from the UK, and went on holiday to Boston in the summer
That's odd, I've heard such wonderful things about the UK, but if Boston is your idea of 'holiday'...
This is BTW, why so many lemmings get hit by motorbikes in London. "Hmm, yes the cars are stopped so all the traffic must be stopped". You can almost see the realisation of just how wrong they are dawning as quarter of a tonne of pointy steel barrels towards them up on it's front wheel.
Can't you just put Blockers at the intersection to keep them off the street?
Yeah, I'm sure those things work great in Nottingham until some blond-haired blue-eyed twirp shoots arrows in your tires and demands that you give him your money so he can feed the poor.
Nottingham sucks. I'd never go there. ;)
I went to a movie once that I thought, by the length of the line, would fill up the theater. So I picked the row I wanted and went ahead and sat next to someone, figuring I'd fill in the empty seat and save us all a lot of trouble later on of having to move to accomodate those groups of two or more people that come in and find every other seat filled.
The movie started and the theater was only half full. I felt like a dork, but decided that feeling like a dork wasn't a good enough reason to move.
After the movie was over, the guy sitting next to me was standing outside waiting for his girlfriend, and I was just smoking, getting ready to leave. His girlfriend arrives and I manage to hear him say "That creepy guy that was sitting next to me in the theater is over there, let's hurry."
The one that always gets me shaking my head is when someone turns a thermostat fully to the max (or min) position, presumably to make the temperature change more quickly.
Man oh man, how my heart hurts at that.
I live in a house that was formerly rented out as two residences, one upstairs and one downstairs (we're renting the whole house now). One of the previous upstairs residents, which is where the thermostat is, would turn the heater all the way up when it was cold, and all the way down when she got hot. In the meantime, we're going through more extremes in temperature than she is. Psycho. I told her repeatedly that turning it up higher would not heat the place up any faster, but she didn't listen. I even opened the thermostat and showed her how it worked. She refused to understand.
So I just turned the heater off, since we have a switch for it downstairs, where the central unit is located. :) We got electric heaters for ourselves and turned the master unit off. After a few cold days, the lady upstairs asked us if we knew why the heater wasn't turning on. I 'suddenly remembered' that I had turned it off because she left it on really high and we got too hot.
She still didn't learn, but she moved out soon after that. The next lady learned through the same process. Gladly. Now we have the whole house to ourselves, so the problem is gone. :)
Well, at least Tulsa's on the top ten for something. So they're not complete losers after all.