And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no, not ALL women are the same, but a very large majority of them are. Women in general have not given sufficient feedback to be fully included in a number of areas (esp. gaming). It is a known fact that chicas tend to avoid the hard sciences and mathematics. Is it because big, bad men wont let them in? Or are there broader reasons (for instance, lack of interest in subjects that aren't perceived as "emotionally relevant")?
I think that you are right, and wrong in a sense. Certainly, looking at the set of people today it seems apparant that there is a difference between men and women.
Well certainly there are physical differences
I think that mentally, the differences are, in part at least, caused by the defining shit that gets shoved down your throat everywhere you go since the day you're born. combined with what seems to be a tendency in the average human (or at least average american, I have not had much personal experiance outside of america) to not be able to get past that same defining shit.
You know what I'm talking about - all of the advertisements, all the "be a real man, macho and masculine! be a real woman, painted and manipulative! be a real man, just care about getting your dick wet! be a real woman, just care about the size of the wallet!"....granted that was a bit hyperbolic, but that image of men like this, and that; women like that, and the other thing, that image is pushed like fucking crazy.
It's pushed partly for the reason that it's currently true - but it's also part of the reason that it is true. And really, it's pushed because it makes a profit. All the imaging, all commercials and advertisements, all people highly regarded in the public eye, all the "citizens role models" all propogate this idea that "stuff equals likability. expensive stuff is sexy, the more expensive, the more money you spend, the more sweet hot sex you are going to get from girls. the more you spend, the more the hot stud you have a crush on is going to notice you"
Almost everyone I meet pays more attention to someone looks than their mind. What a bunch of fucking bullshit.
To make things worse, the federal government gets a cut out of every dollar spent, and has the power to do whatever the fuck it wants to as long as it can keep the mass majority of people either placcid, ignorant, or both. The consumerist lifestyle works perfectly for them. When you think about it, the entire country is run on profit, and profit alone. The people in the country provide the services and the spending that provide the government with what has to be at least a large chunk of it's income.
What do you think a government that relies at least partly on it's citizens funding it? Make it impossible for them to live comfortably and legally without doing so. And all that bullshit about how we owe the government something for providing the roads and the schools and the whatnot is just that. Organazation, transportation, education, and technology are things that are independent of the government. They may have provided the means for the current set of them, but that does mean that they would not exist without them.
What's that? Yes I do have a tendency to ramble and change subjects. But seriously, I think that the government, media corporations, and consumerist lifestyle are really very closely connected and part of a very very complex problem that has more to do with people's mindset than anything else.
I want my libertarian socialism, dammit. I doubt I'll see it though.
Hey I used to be a telemarketer, so I can fill you in on a few things.
Firstly, if it is a for-profit organazation that is calling you (or that the telemarketer is calling you on behalf of) they are told to sound surprised if you say you already are on the do not call list.
If a non-profit organazation hires telemarketers to call you then the do not call list doesn't matter, as it only applies to for-profit organazations.
That said, never donate to a non-profit organazation through a telemarketer, it's pretty much just a big sham. The telemarketing company recieves a good 70% of the donations in some cases, more than half in most.
And all of what the telemarketer says is scripted. The telemarketers get to sit in a chair and read the same thing a few hundered times an hour to either a hang-up or someone cussing them out. While wearing a button-up shirt and tie because it "projects a proffesional image" in a job where what is making the profits is voice, and not image at all.
GOD THAT SHIT SUCKED.
Of course, my view on the matter is biased as I have not worked at every single telemarketing company - in fact, I have only worked at two to date, the last one a couple of years ago - and I do not plan on working at one ever again, unless I need some quick cash.
But yeah, my point was this: telling them that you're reporting their company is not going to get your name off the list, unless it is a for-profit organazation. There's NOTHING you can do to get your name off of the non-profit organazation's lists permanently, as the telemarketing companies buy the lists from a third party, and the lists get refreshed every month or so. You could get it removed for a month or so buy doing this:
1. Confirm that you are the person with whom they were wanting to speak to
2. SPECIFICALLY request to be removed from the list.
That is what we were told was required to remove your name from the list, you do that then the telemarketer marks the call as DNC and it gets processed. Until the new lists come in, and then it's probably back in.
I pointed out to my manager that it would be possible for us to keep a black list of numbers of people that didn't want to get called (we had a few cases of the same person getting called multiple times in a day after requesting to be removed) and was given the response that it doesn't matter if the person doesn't want to get called or not, if it's a non-profit organazation - which makes a certain kind of sense. Or at least it would make sense if it was the organazation calling you, and not the for-profit telemarketing company that is taking most of the non-profit's donations.
Anyhow, most of the employees that I worked with that actually enjoyed the job were greedy, self-important stuck-up assholes. Everyone else hated it, but either couldn't find another job, or couldnt afford to take a job with lower pay. Then again, this was in west virginia, land of low-income, so again my view is biased.
How then would you respond to the question of user elitism? Do you think that web developers should make sure that their site renders in every single browser, regardless of complacency with standards? Aren't the developers the reasons for their being anything on the web for users to see?
Alright, I don't want to try to stretch this analogy any more, but I think you make a good point, analogous to one that I was going to make, so this is a good place for my comment.
I do think that AOL are scum, not just because they advertise one thing and fail to provide it, but because they advertise something - if not directly, than indirectly - that is not attainable. They directly advertise "safe internet chatrooms," but indirectly, and possibly purposefully, they advertise the notion of a free from things that some or most parents do not want their child experiencing online experiance.
They may not be directly advertising it, but most non tech-savvy people I've talked to think that it is entirely possible for AOL to stop certain content from getting on their kids screen.
AOL are fuckheads because they have to know this. These are practically the only type of people that subscribe to their service.
The parents are fuckheads for not knowing about the technology that their children are using. Any parent should know what their child is going to be exposed to, and the parents should also know enough about the internet to know that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to have a "my kid is what I would consider safe browsing the internet when I am not around" ISP.
In this case, soecifically dealing with the safe, moderated chatrooms (I have no idea how they are moderated, or what is and is not possible on them, I have never been in one) AOL is certainly at fault for letting one of it's employees try to entice a younger female into a meet, (although I do not know what they could do about this, maybe not allow the watchers to interact in the chatrooms, only ban, kick, and so on. of course this would only eliminate stalkings done on company time) and the parents are also at fault, a larger fault, for allowing their kid on the internet to begin with.
I guess this whole issue really just smacks of human stufuckingpidity.
If you had decent reading comprehension, you would have noticed that he didn't say anything derogatory towards "black people" at all. It's more like he called the CIA racist, which the government as a whole most certainly is.
Freaking out when someone mentions anything that could possibly be related to someone whose skin color is dark due to their ancestors living closer to the equator than someone else's ancestors does more to propogate racism, and the idea that there is any real difference between humans of any race other than history, and cultures that were held in certain, static areas of the globs due to lack of instantaneous global communication, and differing natural resources.
While I do not deny that it is possible for an entity to make a 25 billion dollar profit per year while retaining value and integrity, I can not think of a single real-life example.
It seems to me that in order to acquire such massive profits while retaining "value and integrity" one would have to have a very good product, "value and integrity," and the desire to profit.
In an area like desktop computing, I don't see how there could be such a giant gap between the profits of competing companies in what is supposed to be an open market, without the companty on the good end of the gap not really caring about keeping the market open.
I mean what do you use a computer for? Is there any service that microsoft provides that is not equally providable through another company (barring proprietary file formats)?
Apple, Linux, Windows, BSD, OSX, etc. All of these are just wrappers that enable you to interact with your computers hardware. That's it. They vary in the degree of interaction required, and the amount of interaction you are capable of.
They are all pretty much equally capable of preforming the same tasks, they can all access the internet, they can all do word processing, etc etc everything your average person needs to do.
A major part of the reason that windows is so huge is that microsoft got it to be the default install on just about any pre-built computer.
Really want to make a free market for desktop computing? Require that hardware and operating systems are sold seperately, or that the end user at least has a choice of what to have installed on a pre-built computer.
Force the user to make a choice. And require documentation on what you can do and how you can do it with the operating system freely available.
There you go, free market for desktops influenced only by people's preference, (this is assuming a group of people entirely new to the concept of desktop computing, not the set of people we have now who are ingrained in windows) willingness to learn, and affordability of the OS.
Note that I am not arguing with you, your comment is just what started my typing, I've been rambling without much aim ever since.
Anarchy/Anarchism Socialism Facism (still a bad thing, IMO but still not what most people think it is) Democracy (although it is more of the reverse case: attribute a word with positive connotations, ascribe it to something you like, and watch people associate)
Now, to dig a bit deeper, let us reason as to why this works so well. You've got average joe. Joe went to school, went to college. Now Joe works a 9-5 job. Joe works, comes home, watches some TV and sleeps, that's really about it for most days.
Joe watches the news. The newspeople use the word anarchy to describe chaos, and violence, facism is often used to mean nazi (I can't think of any recent news-usings of the word facist but then I don't watch the news much, and the connotation does exist, I'd imagine it was used more during WWII)
Joe, having no other frame of reference for the definition of these words, associates them with their use. This makes sense - for instance, when I'm reading a book and I run into a word I don't know I can normally glean it's meaning from context, it's the same thing really. Joe is gleaning the definition of the words from the context they are used in.
The problem is that the words do not actually mean what they are used to convey. I suppose for all intents and purposes, or at least for Joe, that they do....but the actual definition - what the words were intended to mean is different.
The best example I can think of this is anarchy. The word is ascribed to violent third-world countries ruled by packs of people with guns.
The word anarchy, however was never intended to mean anything to do with violence, or chaos (political chaos, but that's different). It means, for all intents and purposes, chaos - at least for Joe, because that's all he's seen it used to mean. How else is he going to learn what a word means, other than how other people define it?
Another problem is that average joe trusts the news as an actual-factual source of information. Which it may very well be in some cases, certainly not in others. But the newspeople certainly know what they are talking about right? If they use a word in a context, I can be assured that it means what they say it means. They're the news. They're experts, educated and worldly.
BAH.
On an ironic (OR IS IT?) note, I recently ordered a copy of "God and the State" by Bakunin, and recieved a book about John Paul Jones, founder of the American Navy.
It's a joke, a pun. It's funny because you don't expect it, you expect something like "sweet and creamy" or "black and strong" or "white and steaming hot" but instead you get dead people.
If that doesn't make you laugh the first time you hear it, get a fucking sense of humor. I, for one, would never actually grind up a woman, or actually verify that the difference between children and pizza is that pizza doesn't scream after it's been in the oven for a bit, but I find such things, especially the coffee pun quite humourous.
What's even funnier is the people getting all offended and stuck-up about them because they are offensive to them, or god forbid they might offend someone. Christ, you're on the internet. ON FUCKING SLASHDOT. You should be used to "offensive" comments by now.
You know what would be offensive? If he was serious. If he actually liked his women ground up and boiled. That would be offensive.
Something's degree of offensiveness should be determined by intent, and not by content.
What you can't get XFCE installed on Ubuntu for some reason?
I don't know about XFCE, but I installed fluxbox perfectly fine on Ubuntu. It's not like they're forcing you to use gnome or kde, you can change the window manager if you want. What's the point in including all the window managers on a distro anyhow? Gnome and KDE are certainly the most popular ones.
That is the best thing about linux distros - even if you don't like what they give you, you can change it to pretty much whatever you want to, depending on your knowledge of the filestructure and shell, which is free for the learning.
If you don't want to do a little learning you just have to stick with what they give you.
I tend to browse in one window as well. When I find a site that I'm going to be opening a hell of a lot of tabs for, I'll generally open it in a new window though. For instance I might have a few forum sites that I'm currently active in in one window, and the tabs will span across the screen.
Now let's say I go to wikipedia to look up something. Wikipedia has a tendency to suck me in, and I'll have literally dozens of tabs open to read through. It can get annoying trying to check up on the discussions once in a while while having all those wikipedia tabs open, so I generally open up wikipedia in a new window.
However, I do not like having multiple windows open as it clutters up the screen, like you said. I would like to be able to have more than one row of tabs. For instance - I would open up wikipedia in a new tab row, and all the links I clicked to open in new tabs from wikipedia would open in that new row, while my slashdot tabs would stay open above it with slashdot links opening in new tabs in it's row.
Has this been done? Either way, I'm going to start trying to learn what I need to learn to write the extension myself now.
Here's something funny - I have firefox installed on my family's computer, I suggested that they use it, and they do, unless they need to go to an IE specifc website. Yesterday, I walked by the computer, and there's my sister sitting there with a good 10-15 firefox windows open.
I say "Hey, you know you could open all those sites in one window?"
She says "Oh in tabs? I'd rather use seperate windows"
That said, does anyone know of an extension that would allow me to organize tabs in multiple rows based on the site they were from? I'm willing to write one myself, but it's going to take me a little while to learn how to.
If the computers were transmitting data that could lead to someone commiting identity theft, or using your billing/insurance info for something devious then there would be a problem.
If it's just your medical records....well then what exactly would you lose other than privacy as far as to what has ailed you in the past? Why should a hospital have to have your explicit consent to send your medical history to another hospital, or to a network of hospitals - assuming of course that they are only exchanging your medical history...not anything that could be used against you, except maybe for embarassment.
I would think that hospitals already do this, and it would seem to be a good idea - if someone at one hospital is unsure about a diagnosis, and they know of a doctor at another hospital that could confirm their opinions then they send them the data and ask about it. The problem with this would be that doctors don't seem to like working for free.
I would guess that a doctor that was a doctor for the sake of helping people, and not for the sake of making money would be a better doctor overall anyhow, as well as willing to help other doctors with their diagnosis. Diagnosii. Diagnosises...I don't know the plural...oh well.
It would seem that such doctors are few and far between though - at least from my experiences.
Hmm...I had a point there somewhere but I lost it in all my rambling. Oh well.
Oh yes! I was wondering...exactly what objection do you have to your medical data being sent out without your consent, other than "it's my personal data and I want to know who knows about it." By medical data I mean your medical history - allergies, broken bones, surgeries, whether or not you have cancer (etc,etc), not your insurance info/billing info/street adress (I can see why you would object to thost)
I agree with you for the most part. I would say that religion and science are the same thing in one way at the least - they are both attempts at explanation of previously unexplained things.
The difference between religion and science, is that religions (specifically christianity, I honestly do not know much about other religions) tend to just come up with some idea that cannot be proven wrong, and then stubbornly believe in it just because it can not be proven false, while science attempts to explain something...and then prove that they are correct.
Science admits when it makes a mistake, and when a new idea is proved true that conflicts with an older idea that was not proved false due to not having enough data, or the means to acquire said data, science accepts the new idea. This is a good thing.
Religions tend to be static, science is dynamic. They are both attempts to explain things humans don't understand....but science constantly revises itself, and thanks to it we now do understand a lot more about the world than we would have without it.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no, not ALL women are the same, but a very large majority of them are. Women in general have not given sufficient feedback to be fully included in a number of areas (esp. gaming). It is a known fact that chicas tend to avoid the hard sciences and mathematics. Is it because big, bad men wont let them in? Or are there broader reasons (for instance, lack of interest in subjects that aren't perceived as "emotionally relevant")?
I think that you are right, and wrong in a sense. Certainly, looking at the set of people today it seems apparant that there is a difference between men and women.
Well certainly there are physical differences
I think that mentally, the differences are, in part at least, caused by the defining shit that gets shoved down your throat everywhere you go since the day you're born. combined with what seems to be a tendency in the average human (or at least average american, I have not had much personal experiance outside of america) to not be able to get past that same defining shit.You know what I'm talking about - all of the advertisements, all the "be a real man, macho and masculine! be a real woman, painted and manipulative! be a real man, just care about getting your dick wet! be a real woman, just care about the size of the wallet!"....granted that was a bit hyperbolic, but that image of men like this, and that; women like that, and the other thing, that image is pushed like fucking crazy.
It's pushed partly for the reason that it's currently true - but it's also part of the reason that it is true. And really, it's pushed because it makes a profit. All the imaging, all commercials and advertisements, all people highly regarded in the public eye, all the "citizens role models" all propogate this idea that "stuff equals likability. expensive stuff is sexy, the more expensive, the more money you spend, the more sweet hot sex you are going to get from girls. the more you spend, the more the hot stud you have a crush on is going to notice you"
Almost everyone I meet pays more attention to someone looks than their mind. What a bunch of fucking bullshit.
To make things worse, the federal government gets a cut out of every dollar spent, and has the power to do whatever the fuck it wants to as long as it can keep the mass majority of people either placcid, ignorant, or both. The consumerist lifestyle works perfectly for them. When you think about it, the entire country is run on profit, and profit alone. The people in the country provide the services and the spending that provide the government with what has to be at least a large chunk of it's income.
What do you think a government that relies at least partly on it's citizens funding it? Make it impossible for them to live comfortably and legally without doing so. And all that bullshit about how we owe the government something for providing the roads and the schools and the whatnot is just that. Organazation, transportation, education, and technology are things that are independent of the government. They may have provided the means for the current set of them, but that does mean that they would not exist without them.
What's that? Yes I do have a tendency to ramble and change subjects. But seriously, I think that the government, media corporations, and consumerist lifestyle are really very closely connected and part of a very very complex problem that has more to do with people's mindset than anything else.
I want my libertarian socialism, dammit. I doubt I'll see it though.
Hey I used to be a telemarketer, so I can fill you in on a few things.
Firstly, if it is a for-profit organazation that is calling you (or that the telemarketer is calling you on behalf of) they are told to sound surprised if you say you already are on the do not call list.
If a non-profit organazation hires telemarketers to call you then the do not call list doesn't matter, as it only applies to for-profit organazations.
That said, never donate to a non-profit organazation through a telemarketer, it's pretty much just a big sham. The telemarketing company recieves a good 70% of the donations in some cases, more than half in most.
And all of what the telemarketer says is scripted. The telemarketers get to sit in a chair and read the same thing a few hundered times an hour to either a hang-up or someone cussing them out. While wearing a button-up shirt and tie because it "projects a proffesional image" in a job where what is making the profits is voice, and not image at all.
GOD THAT SHIT SUCKED.
Of course, my view on the matter is biased as I have not worked at every single telemarketing company - in fact, I have only worked at two to date, the last one a couple of years ago - and I do not plan on working at one ever again, unless I need some quick cash.
But yeah, my point was this: telling them that you're reporting their company is not going to get your name off the list, unless it is a for-profit organazation. There's NOTHING you can do to get your name off of the non-profit organazation's lists permanently, as the telemarketing companies buy the lists from a third party, and the lists get refreshed every month or so. You could get it removed for a month or so buy doing this:
1. Confirm that you are the person with whom they were wanting to speak to
2. SPECIFICALLY request to be removed from the list.
That is what we were told was required to remove your name from the list, you do that then the telemarketer marks the call as DNC and it gets processed. Until the new lists come in, and then it's probably back in.
I pointed out to my manager that it would be possible for us to keep a black list of numbers of people that didn't want to get called (we had a few cases of the same person getting called multiple times in a day after requesting to be removed) and was given the response that it doesn't matter if the person doesn't want to get called or not, if it's a non-profit organazation - which makes a certain kind of sense. Or at least it would make sense if it was the organazation calling you, and not the for-profit telemarketing company that is taking most of the non-profit's donations.
Anyhow, most of the employees that I worked with that actually enjoyed the job were greedy, self-important stuck-up assholes. Everyone else hated it, but either couldn't find another job, or couldnt afford to take a job with lower pay. Then again, this was in west virginia, land of low-income, so again my view is biased.
How then would you respond to the question of user elitism? Do you think that web developers should make sure that their site renders in every single browser, regardless of complacency with standards? Aren't the developers the reasons for their being anything on the web for users to see?
Alright, I don't want to try to stretch this analogy any more, but I think you make a good point, analogous to one that I was going to make, so this is a good place for my comment.
I do think that AOL are scum, not just because they advertise one thing and fail to provide it, but because they advertise something - if not directly, than indirectly - that is not attainable. They directly advertise "safe internet chatrooms," but indirectly, and possibly purposefully, they advertise the notion of a free from things that some or most parents do not want their child experiencing online experiance.
They may not be directly advertising it, but most non tech-savvy people I've talked to think that it is entirely possible for AOL to stop certain content from getting on their kids screen.
AOL are fuckheads because they have to know this. These are practically the only type of people that subscribe to their service.
The parents are fuckheads for not knowing about the technology that their children are using. Any parent should know what their child is going to be exposed to, and the parents should also know enough about the internet to know that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to have a "my kid is what I would consider safe browsing the internet when I am not around" ISP.
In this case, soecifically dealing with the safe, moderated chatrooms (I have no idea how they are moderated, or what is and is not possible on them, I have never been in one) AOL is certainly at fault for letting one of it's employees try to entice a younger female into a meet, (although I do not know what they could do about this, maybe not allow the watchers to interact in the chatrooms, only ban, kick, and so on. of course this would only eliminate stalkings done on company time) and the parents are also at fault, a larger fault, for allowing their kid on the internet to begin with.
I guess this whole issue really just smacks of human stufuckingpidity.
Ha ha it's not a troll.
I was continuing the lyrics from the song the parent started.
It's by mindless self indulgence, first track on frankenstein girls will seem strangely sexy.
to continue.
PAINT all the people you love
in a river of blood
and don't forget the guns,
you're gonna need them to
DESTROOYYYYYY!
ALWAYS DESTROY!
GO GO GO GO
KIIIILLLL yourself
motherfucker go
KIIIIIILLL yourself
motherfucker go
KIIIILLLL yourself
motherfucker go
KILL.
YOURSELF.
go KILL.
yourSELF.
If you had decent reading comprehension, you would have noticed that he didn't say anything derogatory towards "black people" at all. It's more like he called the CIA racist, which the government as a whole most certainly is.
Freaking out when someone mentions anything that could possibly be related to someone whose skin color is dark due to their ancestors living closer to the equator than someone else's ancestors does more to propogate racism, and the idea that there is any real difference between humans of any race other than history, and cultures that were held in certain, static areas of the globs due to lack of instantaneous global communication, and differing natural resources.
Christ.
mostOfTheTime = (allTheTime/2)+1
Adequacy.org?
While I do not deny that it is possible for an entity to make a 25 billion dollar profit per year while retaining value and integrity, I can not think of a single real-life example.
It seems to me that in order to acquire such massive profits while retaining "value and integrity" one would have to have a very good product, "value and integrity," and the desire to profit.
In an area like desktop computing, I don't see how there could be such a giant gap between the profits of competing companies in what is supposed to be an open market, without the companty on the good end of the gap not really caring about keeping the market open.
I mean what do you use a computer for? Is there any service that microsoft provides that is not equally providable through another company (barring proprietary file formats)?
Apple, Linux, Windows, BSD, OSX, etc. All of these are just wrappers that enable you to interact with your computers hardware. That's it. They vary in the degree of interaction required, and the amount of interaction you are capable of.
They are all pretty much equally capable of preforming the same tasks, they can all access the internet, they can all do word processing, etc etc everything your average person needs to do.
A major part of the reason that windows is so huge is that microsoft got it to be the default install on just about any pre-built computer.
Really want to make a free market for desktop computing? Require that hardware and operating systems are sold seperately, or that the end user at least has a choice of what to have installed on a pre-built computer.
Force the user to make a choice. And require documentation on what you can do and how you can do it with the operating system freely available.
There you go, free market for desktops influenced only by people's preference, (this is assuming a group of people entirely new to the concept of desktop computing, not the set of people we have now who are ingrained in windows) willingness to learn, and affordability of the OS.
Note that I am not arguing with you, your comment is just what started my typing, I've been rambling without much aim ever since.
No such thing as Left Over Crack
Prime examples:
Anarchy/Anarchism
Socialism
Facism (still a bad thing, IMO but still not what most people think it is)
Democracy (although it is more of the reverse case: attribute a word with positive connotations, ascribe it to something you like, and watch people associate)
Now, to dig a bit deeper, let us reason as to why this works so well. You've got average joe. Joe went to school, went to college. Now Joe works a 9-5 job. Joe works, comes home, watches some TV and sleeps, that's really about it for most days.
Joe watches the news. The newspeople use the word anarchy to describe chaos, and violence, facism is often used to mean nazi (I can't think of any recent news-usings of the word facist but then I don't watch the news much, and the connotation does exist, I'd imagine it was used more during WWII)
Joe, having no other frame of reference for the definition of these words, associates them with their use. This makes sense - for instance, when I'm reading a book and I run into a word I don't know I can normally glean it's meaning from context, it's the same thing really. Joe is gleaning the definition of the words from the context they are used in.
The problem is that the words do not actually mean what they are used to convey. I suppose for all intents and purposes, or at least for Joe, that they do....but the actual definition - what the words were intended to mean is different.
The best example I can think of this is anarchy. The word is ascribed to violent third-world countries ruled by packs of people with guns.
The word anarchy, however was never intended to mean anything to do with violence, or chaos (political chaos, but that's different). It means, for all intents and purposes, chaos - at least for Joe, because that's all he's seen it used to mean. How else is he going to learn what a word means, other than how other people define it?
Another problem is that average joe trusts the news as an actual-factual source of information. Which it may very well be in some cases, certainly not in others. But the newspeople certainly know what they are talking about right? If they use a word in a context, I can be assured that it means what they say it means. They're the news. They're experts, educated and worldly.
BAH.
On an ironic (OR IS IT?) note, I recently ordered a copy of "God and the State" by Bakunin, and recieved a book about John Paul Jones, founder of the American Navy.
I agree. Ground up and boiled is funnier.
It's a joke, a pun. It's funny because you don't expect it, you expect something like "sweet and creamy" or "black and strong" or "white and steaming hot" but instead you get dead people.
If that doesn't make you laugh the first time you hear it, get a fucking sense of humor. I, for one, would never actually grind up a woman, or actually verify that the difference between children and pizza is that pizza doesn't scream after it's been in the oven for a bit, but I find such things, especially the coffee pun quite humourous.
What's even funnier is the people getting all offended and stuck-up about them because they are offensive to them, or god forbid they might offend someone. Christ, you're on the internet. ON FUCKING SLASHDOT. You should be used to "offensive" comments by now.
You know what would be offensive? If he was serious. If he actually liked his women ground up and boiled. That would be offensive.
Something's degree of offensiveness should be determined by intent, and not by content.
What you can't get XFCE installed on Ubuntu for some reason?
I don't know about XFCE, but I installed fluxbox perfectly fine on Ubuntu. It's not like they're forcing you to use gnome or kde, you can change the window manager if you want. What's the point in including all the window managers on a distro anyhow? Gnome and KDE are certainly the most popular ones.
That is the best thing about linux distros - even if you don't like what they give you, you can change it to pretty much whatever you want to, depending on your knowledge of the filestructure and shell, which is free for the learning.
If you don't want to do a little learning you just have to stick with what they give you.
Or learn enough to use apt-get.
Yeah the sales pitch is annoying as fuck though.
+1 FLAGGR wants to be in this joke.
MOD FIRSTBORN CHILD OF PARENT DOWN
-1 kaens made a lame moderation joke.
More like comes more than once every other day.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet, it's free for anyone who wants to look for it.
amen to that
Why in the world would you want to make vaginas invisible?
I heard something about the specials getting back together/doing another tour. Know anything about this?
Also do you like madness?
Hell, ask mc chris these questions as well
www.plastic.com
I tend to browse in one window as well. When I find a site that I'm going to be opening a hell of a lot of tabs for, I'll generally open it in a new window though. For instance I might have a few forum sites that I'm currently active in in one window, and the tabs will span across the screen.
Now let's say I go to wikipedia to look up something. Wikipedia has a tendency to suck me in, and I'll have literally dozens of tabs open to read through. It can get annoying trying to check up on the discussions once in a while while having all those wikipedia tabs open, so I generally open up wikipedia in a new window.
However, I do not like having multiple windows open as it clutters up the screen, like you said. I would like to be able to have more than one row of tabs. For instance - I would open up wikipedia in a new tab row, and all the links I clicked to open in new tabs from wikipedia would open in that new row, while my slashdot tabs would stay open above it with slashdot links opening in new tabs in it's row.
Has this been done? Either way, I'm going to start trying to learn what I need to learn to write the extension myself now.
Here's something funny - I have firefox installed on my family's computer, I suggested that they use it, and they do, unless they need to go to an IE specifc website. Yesterday, I walked by the computer, and there's my sister sitting there with a good 10-15 firefox windows open.
I say "Hey, you know you could open all those sites in one window?"
She says "Oh in tabs? I'd rather use seperate windows"
That said, does anyone know of an extension that would allow me to organize tabs in multiple rows based on the site they were from? I'm willing to write one myself, but it's going to take me a little while to learn how to.
If the computers were transmitting data that could lead to someone commiting identity theft, or using your billing/insurance info for something devious then there would be a problem.
If it's just your medical records....well then what exactly would you lose other than privacy as far as to what has ailed you in the past? Why should a hospital have to have your explicit consent to send your medical history to another hospital, or to a network of hospitals - assuming of course that they are only exchanging your medical history...not anything that could be used against you, except maybe for embarassment.
I would think that hospitals already do this, and it would seem to be a good idea - if someone at one hospital is unsure about a diagnosis, and they know of a doctor at another hospital that could confirm their opinions then they send them the data and ask about it. The problem with this would be that doctors don't seem to like working for free.
I would guess that a doctor that was a doctor for the sake of helping people, and not for the sake of making money would be a better doctor overall anyhow, as well as willing to help other doctors with their diagnosis. Diagnosii. Diagnosises...I don't know the plural...oh well.
It would seem that such doctors are few and far between though - at least from my experiences.
Hmm...I had a point there somewhere but I lost it in all my rambling. Oh well.
Oh yes! I was wondering...exactly what objection do you have to your medical data being sent out without your consent, other than "it's my personal data and I want to know who knows about it." By medical data I mean your medical history - allergies, broken bones, surgeries, whether or not you have cancer (etc,etc), not your insurance info/billing info/street adress (I can see why you would object to thost)
I agree with you for the most part. I would say that religion and science are the same thing in one way at the least - they are both attempts at explanation of previously unexplained things.
The difference between religion and science, is that religions (specifically christianity, I honestly do not know much about other religions) tend to just come up with some idea that cannot be proven wrong, and then stubbornly believe in it just because it can not be proven false, while science attempts to explain something...and then prove that they are correct.
Science admits when it makes a mistake, and when a new idea is proved true that conflicts with an older idea that was not proved false due to not having enough data, or the means to acquire said data, science accepts the new idea. This is a good thing.
Religions tend to be static, science is dynamic. They are both attempts to explain things humans don't understand....but science constantly revises itself, and thanks to it we now do understand a lot more about the world than we would have without it.