Re:Start by banning plastics for consumables
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Well, gee now. I'd say that suddenly running out of an oil supply for one reason or another would be pretty catastrophic for our current society, now wouldn't it?
But, if you'd really like to be that pedantic about a single post on/. , here:
potentially catastrophic
Re:These are all lies
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 0, Troll
So, you're theory here is that because lots of other good presidents in the past were Christian (if not all of them), then this one must me good as well? Good theory. Too bad it's stupid and your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything, least of all to do with what I said about Bush in particular. But, anyway, maybe your fingers got a nice workout typing all that... assuming you didn't copy and paste.
In other news, all black objects are mice because my mouse is black.
Re:Start by banning plastics for consumables
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Paper, boy genius, paper.
Of course, the problem there is that the bags they use now are designed to compensate for the fact that they're overproducing and stockpiling a product that has to sit around for a long time on a store shelf without spoiling. Scaling back production to better match demand would work better, but JIT deliveries of Doritos would probably be too expensive and the public would just stop eating them when the prices went through the roof.
Such is the problem with living in a modern convenience society that doesn't consider how the individual actions of a large base of people can have catastrophic consequences. Of course, if someone were to create a better package, but keep the price reasonable, everyone would win. That's what psycho-environmental nuts always fail to consider: if it really does become a huge problem, there's legitimate motiviation to provide a solution and, usually, a good money-making opportunity. Too bad these foaming, rabid morons don't actually stop to pick fights carefully and just rail against anything they perceive as damaging. Oh well...
Re:These are all lies
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: -1, Troll
I'd say it's making fun of Bush directly and sarcastically. The nutter has this idea in his head that he's taking orders from Jesus. He's never said it directly, but he's alluded to it via the "I talk to a higher power" sort of tripe.
I guess that qualifies the bum down on 22nd and Crescent streets to run for president since he's always going on about hearing Jeeeez-uz talk to him... can't be any worse than the looney we have now.
...how much WORSE the banks and credit card companies are than anything PayPal has done.
So? What makes you think I have any more faith in them? Why is it that on Slashdot one of the first "arguments" always seems to be "yea, but these guys are worse!" So what? What MBNA or Fulton or PNC do don't excuse PayPal from anything. We're talking PayPal. PayPal sucks ass, ok? I don't care what the banks do. If you'd like to have a long discussion with me about why Citizens, PNC, and Fulton all suck ass to one degree or another, I can do that too, but we're talking about PayPal, not Fulton, PNC, or Citizens.
Basically, one asshole can lash out and make a lot of bad press based on completely unreasonable demands.
Too bad. One looney tune isn't going to hurt you, and if they are, and they really are pressing the story in an unreasonable way, you sue them. If they're telling the whole story, however, and the demands were unreasonable, well, nobdoy is going to listen to him/her that you'd have wanted as a customer anyhow.
The point is that each of us gets to choose what we do an don't use and what we do and don't think about each individual service. I think Best Buy is full of crooks and morons and I don't think that opinion is based on them responding to "unreasonable demands". Well, too bad for Best Buy that 4 of my co-workers have actively chosen to purchase items away from Best Buy as a result.
Too bad for PayPal. They rip people off, those people retaliate and people like me evaluate the issue and decide that PayPal is an unacceptable risk. If they were concerned about their business, they wouldn't have ripped anyone off in the first place, and they'd work to actually resolve issues that legit users have rather than coming up with pre-canned bullshit responses to feed them. It's that latter point that really irks a lot of people, I'll bet. Well, boo hoo. I won't be using them as a result, and I'll encourage others to avoid them as well.
Talk about YMMV. It all comes down to how much you trust Paypal...
Exactly. And, in the opinion of a lot of people here, the few major transgressions of PayPal are enough to warrant a strong mistrust. I wouldn't trust anyone else that did this either, as soon as I found out about them. On top of that, it's more the mishandling of complaints than anything. If I have a gripe against paypal, and I present it, I damn well expect it to be resolved, not treated like a by-the-books, scripted response issue.
Hey, they're a business. They treat their customer like shit, they should expect the same from their potential customers. No excuses.
So, are you a troll, or do you just have a reading comprehension problem? Or, did you reply to my post thinking it was someone else's post? Because, what you said doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.
Uh... you got modded troll for responding to my "Cowboy T" photoshop? Either someone made a boo boo or we have an idiot moderator on the loose. Maybe that's not really an "or" statement though...
Do you have any idea how hard it is to fit Mr T's face onto CowboyNeal's body?
I like good beer - good, dark, full body beer. If I can look through the glass and see anything on the other side of the beer, it's not good beer!
*sigh* And, of course there's going to be a troll like this.
No, it doesn't, but thanks for playing. See, someday maybe you'll learn the painful lesson that Cisco is learning now: Security Through Obscurity only works as far as your REAL security measures can protect it. Gee. Looky there. Cisco's cat just left the bag, and why? Becuase the network security wasn't strong enough to protect it. All these years of obscurity are now on the brink of becoming completely worthless because the REAL protection wasn't there just long enough to let it happen. The second that code hits a public FTP server, STO at Cisco became absolutely useless.
But, hey. If you want to rely on STO for anything more than your last line of defense, be my guest. Just promise me you won't be mad when I laugh at you for getting burned by it.
Yea, it tastes a lot better than crude oil anyway.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires me to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 17 seconds since I hit 'reply'.
Chances are, I'm behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Yea, god forbid they ever hear of capacitors. Because, you know, there aren't any electronics in the middle east.... I'm sure nobody East of Greece has ever gotten shocked by a TV capacitor or anything. Nope, they've never heard of such things.
Yes, yes. I should take off my tinfoil hat. Here's a novel idea: maybe you should consider whether I'm the one with the tinfoil hat, or you're the one with blinders?
I will take off my tinfoil hat when I have a president that was clearly voted into office and not one who's appointment via a set of judges is questionable, at best. I will take off my tinfoil hat when I live in a country that doesn't preemptively attack sovereign nations in a sorry display of blatant imperialism. I will take off my tinfoil hat when PATRIOT is rolled back. I will take off my tinfoil hat when my country stops detaining people without lawyers, outside contact, or any hope for a fair trial even if they've not been charged with anything. I will take off my tinfoil hat when the mere act of getting on an airplane doesn't subject me to a terrorism rorschach test. I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that doesn't think the answer to every question is "terrorism". I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that actually tells the people it supposedly serves what it's doing now and then.
Or, to sum it all up: I'll take off my tinfoil hate the second America comes back around to being America and not one goddamn second sooner.
...they just didn't know when to act and weren't 100% sure where to act.
That makes no sense. If they already knew who they were, what good would a biometric system do? Is this new system magically going to tell them why people are here and everything they're going to do? No. That's stupid. Whoop-dee-frickin-doo. We can tell when some big badass comes in, in the unbelievably unlikely event that they do. Of course, if some sucker that just got recruited a few days ago gets sent in, well, we're shit out of luck, now aren't we? Gee. So... WHAT problem does this solve, exactly?
I am a US citizen...
Ah yes, preface all statements with that little tidbit and that's that, right? Well, I'M a U.S. citizen and I do have a problem with it. It's just another bullshit feelgood scheme to make everyone think these dumbasses are doing anything. In the meantime, it costs money, it's going to back things up at the airport when the initial rollout doesn't work right, and it's yet another governmental power that they'll never want to give up once they've got it. It's easily turned against individual citizens and it serves no other purpose.
People always act like the U.S. government is some big huggy teddy bear. Well, it's not. Like any other government, it wants to grow and control. Funny thing about those built-in checks and balances, huh? Except, now, we're letting them kick those checks and balances right out the window. People are going to be awfully surprised when they wake up and realize one day that the U.S. government wasn't anything special, it was just built in a way that made it harder for it to turn on its own people.
The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.
I'm sure that works well when the first-timers are suicide bombers that are traveling one way one time only... after all, the high-ups like bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri fly back and forth out of Laguardia all the time, right?
If you're measuring the inside angle (as I was) then the lower the number, the harder the turn. This, of course, reverses if you measure the outside angle.
PA is a hotbed for truck travel because it's a nexus between trucks moving from the southern states to New England. It's also situated so that the docks on the Eastern seaboard put it right in line with Ohio, making it a gateway to the midwestern states. The shredded tires are generally from trucks that are traveling these routes, often at an exceptionally high rate of speed. This is especially prevelant on I-80, I-81, and I-83 because of lax enforcement by state police.
Perry county, central PA. Any given road that's not an Interstate will have any number of the following defects or problems:
Animals ranging in size from squirrels to bears will camp in the road with impunity. Beeping will not help. Creeping forward will not help. This is why gun racks for trucks were invented.
Drunken rednecks will stammer aimlessly up the side of the road between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. (the lags are due to the time it takes shift changing workers to get drunk and compensate for bar opening / closing times). This is the secondary reasoning behind gun racks for trucks.
Potholes. Potholes in most places mean "a hole in the road which causes temporary discomfort or, if serious enough, possible damage to the vehicle". In Perry County, it's a "dimple" in the road until it's large enough to swallow a CG-47 Ticonderoga vessel whole. Fortunately, any self-respecting denizen of Perry County owns at least two trucks twice the size of a Ticonderoga and loaded with five time the armaments.
Thirty degree turns. I wish I made that up.
A long, hard haul up one side and a drop off on the other that would make a roller coaster designer wet his pants. No hill in Perry County that has a road on it has any shape other than a perfect wedge. If you managed to run up one side fast enough, you could probably win the X-Prize with your truck after you ramp off the top.
One lane. Or less. If there is a lane.
Watch out for houses on the roadway. Literally.
Roads in Perry County were invented for large pieces of farm equipment to travel on in first gear only. This warning actaully applies to the interstates and major roadways as well.
No matter how many people die at the intersection, or how backed up the traffic gets, there is no red light. Perry County residents are stubbornly proud of the fact that there has never been a permanent red light in their county. Several attempts to put some in to save lives and manage the traffic flow have been brought forward. All of them got their shit seriously wrecked by rednecks in trucks with gun racks.
Uh... huh. So, in other words, what you're saying here is "I think you're an idiot because you didn't address the issues that are important to me, you addressed the issues that are important to you?"
You must be a politician.....
Everything thing else pails in comparison.
Only to you. My freedoms are more important to me than your money, so, quite frankly, I can safely say that I don't give nearly as much of a flying fuck about #2 as you do. On top of that, maybe the question you meant to ask for #1 was "Who's the dipshit that sent us into Iraq and lied bald-faced the whole way there in the first place?". On #3, I can only hope that you're joking by talking about anything involving economic policy and Bush, because when it comes to economic policy and Bush, the man's obviously a joker.
Beyond that, the rest of it is just "lock-step rhetoric" and baseless assumptions. If you've actually got a point in there, do feel free to actually make it now. If all you have is "well I think that Kerry will and I think that Bush will..." then that's great. Just leave me out of it, because I think Bush is a psychopath, and at least Kerry's reasonably stable. If I have to choose one, I think I'll choose the one that DOESN'T don a battle helmet and pick up a sword to solve every single problem, thanks.
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to religion..
Guurgh.. corrected statement:
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to marriage...
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
...changing the law of that commonwealth AGAINST the majority will...
That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. The court's job is to interpret the law as it already stands. They've interpreted. If you don't like the way that works, I suggest you find another country to live in, because hopefully it's not changing here anytime soon.
In fact, that's exactly WHY Bush wants an amendment: he wants to CHANGE THE LAW. That's what an amendment does, last time I checked. Courts don't change laws, legislatures do. Courts give those new/altered laws meaning. That's what the court did. They didn't change anything unless someone snuck in one night and used whiteout and a ballpoint pen on the MA constitution.
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to religion the way eating raw beets is an opportunity compared to ice cream. They may both be the same very general category, but one sure is a lot nice than the other. It's very simple really. Either marriage is a religious institution and gays can be excluded. Fine. Married couples get NO secular benefits. Or, marriage brings secular benefits - then it better not just be a religious institution, and that means the government can't discriminate. Simple. Really, it's not hard. If you can just arbitrarily take secular items and discriminate against gays, there's no reason we can't roll back women's right to vote, segregate blacks and whites again, and start denying people jobs, transportation, benefits, and rights based on their race, color, creed, and affiliation. If we can discriminate against gays (see above: secular vs. religions merit of marriage), there's NO reason we can't discriminate against anyone else we want to.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee now. I'd say that suddenly running out of an oil supply for one reason or another would be pretty catastrophic for our current society, now wouldn't it?
But, if you'd really like to be that pedantic about a single post on /. , here:
potentially catastrophic
So, you're theory here is that because lots of other good presidents in the past were Christian (if not all of them), then this one must me good as well? Good theory. Too bad it's stupid and your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything, least of all to do with what I said about Bush in particular. But, anyway, maybe your fingers got a nice workout typing all that... assuming you didn't copy and paste.
In other news, all black objects are mice because my mouse is black.
Paper, boy genius, paper.
Of course, the problem there is that the bags they use now are designed to compensate for the fact that they're overproducing and stockpiling a product that has to sit around for a long time on a store shelf without spoiling. Scaling back production to better match demand would work better, but JIT deliveries of Doritos would probably be too expensive and the public would just stop eating them when the prices went through the roof.
Such is the problem with living in a modern convenience society that doesn't consider how the individual actions of a large base of people can have catastrophic consequences. Of course, if someone were to create a better package, but keep the price reasonable, everyone would win. That's what psycho-environmental nuts always fail to consider: if it really does become a huge problem, there's legitimate motiviation to provide a solution and, usually, a good money-making opportunity. Too bad these foaming, rabid morons don't actually stop to pick fights carefully and just rail against anything they perceive as damaging. Oh well...
I'd say it's making fun of Bush directly and sarcastically. The nutter has this idea in his head that he's taking orders from Jesus. He's never said it directly, but he's alluded to it via the "I talk to a higher power" sort of tripe.
I guess that qualifies the bum down on 22nd and Crescent streets to run for president since he's always going on about hearing Jeeeez-uz talk to him... can't be any worse than the looney we have now.
Why not use SCO?
What, you think there's anyone left at SCO that's not a lawyer?
So? What makes you think I have any more faith in them? Why is it that on Slashdot one of the first "arguments" always seems to be "yea, but these guys are worse!" So what? What MBNA or Fulton or PNC do don't excuse PayPal from anything. We're talking PayPal. PayPal sucks ass, ok? I don't care what the banks do. If you'd like to have a long discussion with me about why Citizens, PNC, and Fulton all suck ass to one degree or another, I can do that too, but we're talking about PayPal, not Fulton, PNC, or Citizens.
Basically, one asshole can lash out and make a lot of bad press based on completely unreasonable demands.
Too bad. One looney tune isn't going to hurt you, and if they are, and they really are pressing the story in an unreasonable way, you sue them. If they're telling the whole story, however, and the demands were unreasonable, well, nobdoy is going to listen to him/her that you'd have wanted as a customer anyhow.
The point is that each of us gets to choose what we do an don't use and what we do and don't think about each individual service. I think Best Buy is full of crooks and morons and I don't think that opinion is based on them responding to "unreasonable demands". Well, too bad for Best Buy that 4 of my co-workers have actively chosen to purchase items away from Best Buy as a result.
Too bad for PayPal. They rip people off, those people retaliate and people like me evaluate the issue and decide that PayPal is an unacceptable risk. If they were concerned about their business, they wouldn't have ripped anyone off in the first place, and they'd work to actually resolve issues that legit users have rather than coming up with pre-canned bullshit responses to feed them. It's that latter point that really irks a lot of people, I'll bet. Well, boo hoo. I won't be using them as a result, and I'll encourage others to avoid them as well.
Talk about YMMV. It all comes down to how much you trust Paypal...
Exactly. And, in the opinion of a lot of people here, the few major transgressions of PayPal are enough to warrant a strong mistrust. I wouldn't trust anyone else that did this either, as soon as I found out about them. On top of that, it's more the mishandling of complaints than anything. If I have a gripe against paypal, and I present it, I damn well expect it to be resolved, not treated like a by-the-books, scripted response issue.
Hey, they're a business. They treat their customer like shit, they should expect the same from their potential customers. No excuses.
So, are you a troll, or do you just have a reading comprehension problem? Or, did you reply to my post thinking it was someone else's post? Because, what you said doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.
Uh... you got modded troll for responding to my "Cowboy T" photoshop? Either someone made a boo boo or we have an idiot moderator on the loose. Maybe that's not really an "or" statement though...
Do you have any idea how hard it is to fit Mr T's face onto CowboyNeal's body?
I like good beer - good, dark, full body beer. If I can look through the glass and see anything on the other side of the beer, it's not good beer!
SECURITY BY OBSCURITY DOES WORK
*sigh* And, of course there's going to be a troll like this.
No, it doesn't, but thanks for playing. See, someday maybe you'll learn the painful lesson that Cisco is learning now: Security Through Obscurity only works as far as your REAL security measures can protect it. Gee. Looky there. Cisco's cat just left the bag, and why? Becuase the network security wasn't strong enough to protect it. All these years of obscurity are now on the brink of becoming completely worthless because the REAL protection wasn't there just long enough to let it happen. The second that code hits a public FTP server, STO at Cisco became absolutely useless.
But, hey. If you want to rely on STO for anything more than your last line of defense, be my guest. Just promise me you won't be mad when I laugh at you for getting burned by it.
A Sunday night, Slashdot, and a little Photoshop inspiration...
http://www.simple-sam.com/slow_down_homie.jpg
I need a hobby.
Yea, it tastes a lot better than crude oil anyway.
Yea, god forbid they ever hear of capacitors. Because, you know, there aren't any electronics in the middle east.... I'm sure nobody East of Greece has ever gotten shocked by a TV capacitor or anything. Nope, they've never heard of such things.
Yes, yes. I should take off my tinfoil hat. Here's a novel idea: maybe you should consider whether I'm the one with the tinfoil hat, or you're the one with blinders?
I will take off my tinfoil hat when I have a president that was clearly voted into office and not one who's appointment via a set of judges is questionable, at best. I will take off my tinfoil hat when I live in a country that doesn't preemptively attack sovereign nations in a sorry display of blatant imperialism. I will take off my tinfoil hat when PATRIOT is rolled back. I will take off my tinfoil hat when my country stops detaining people without lawyers, outside contact, or any hope for a fair trial even if they've not been charged with anything. I will take off my tinfoil hat when the mere act of getting on an airplane doesn't subject me to a terrorism rorschach test. I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that doesn't think the answer to every question is "terrorism". I will take off my tinfoil hat when we have an administration that actually tells the people it supposedly serves what it's doing now and then.
Or, to sum it all up: I'll take off my tinfoil hate the second America comes back around to being America and not one goddamn second sooner.
That makes no sense. If they already knew who they were, what good would a biometric system do? Is this new system magically going to tell them why people are here and everything they're going to do? No. That's stupid. Whoop-dee-frickin-doo. We can tell when some big badass comes in, in the unbelievably unlikely event that they do. Of course, if some sucker that just got recruited a few days ago gets sent in, well, we're shit out of luck, now aren't we? Gee. So... WHAT problem does this solve, exactly?
I am a US citizen...
Ah yes, preface all statements with that little tidbit and that's that, right? Well, I'M a U.S. citizen and I do have a problem with it. It's just another bullshit feelgood scheme to make everyone think these dumbasses are doing anything. In the meantime, it costs money, it's going to back things up at the airport when the initial rollout doesn't work right, and it's yet another governmental power that they'll never want to give up once they've got it. It's easily turned against individual citizens and it serves no other purpose.
People always act like the U.S. government is some big huggy teddy bear. Well, it's not. Like any other government, it wants to grow and control. Funny thing about those built-in checks and balances, huh? Except, now, we're letting them kick those checks and balances right out the window. People are going to be awfully surprised when they wake up and realize one day that the U.S. government wasn't anything special, it was just built in a way that made it harder for it to turn on its own people.
The goal is to prevent known terrorists from entering the country and to make the use of stolen passports virtually impossible.
I'm sure that works well when the first-timers are suicide bombers that are traveling one way one time only... after all, the high-ups like bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri fly back and forth out of Laguardia all the time, right?
If you're measuring the inside angle (as I was) then the lower the number, the harder the turn. This, of course, reverses if you measure the outside angle.
A fairly detailed description.
No. I'm surrounded by new rednecks now, but at least the road outside my apartment has two yellow lines on it.
PA is a hotbed for truck travel because it's a nexus between trucks moving from the southern states to New England. It's also situated so that the docks on the Eastern seaboard put it right in line with Ohio, making it a gateway to the midwestern states. The shredded tires are generally from trucks that are traveling these routes, often at an exceptionally high rate of speed. This is especially prevelant on I-80, I-81, and I-83 because of lax enforcement by state police.
Perry county, central PA. Any given road that's not an Interstate will have any number of the following defects or problems:
Remind me to link back to this in November.
Hey sckeener. Remember to link back to that in November.
My job here is done.
is that they hate themselves for you. It's very convenient, actually.
Uh... huh. So, in other words, what you're saying here is "I think you're an idiot because you didn't address the issues that are important to me, you addressed the issues that are important to you?"
You must be a politician.....
Everything thing else pails in comparison.
Only to you. My freedoms are more important to me than your money, so, quite frankly, I can safely say that I don't give nearly as much of a flying fuck about #2 as you do. On top of that, maybe the question you meant to ask for #1 was "Who's the dipshit that sent us into Iraq and lied bald-faced the whole way there in the first place?". On #3, I can only hope that you're joking by talking about anything involving economic policy and Bush, because when it comes to economic policy and Bush, the man's obviously a joker.
Beyond that, the rest of it is just "lock-step rhetoric" and baseless assumptions. If you've actually got a point in there, do feel free to actually make it now. If all you have is "well I think that Kerry will and I think that Bush will..." then that's great. Just leave me out of it, because I think Bush is a psychopath, and at least Kerry's reasonably stable. If I have to choose one, I think I'll choose the one that DOESN'T don a battle helmet and pick up a sword to solve every single problem, thanks.
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to religion ..
Guurgh.. corrected statement:
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to marriage...
That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. The court's job is to interpret the law as it already stands. They've interpreted. If you don't like the way that works, I suggest you find another country to live in, because hopefully it's not changing here anytime soon.
In fact, that's exactly WHY Bush wants an amendment: he wants to CHANGE THE LAW. That's what an amendment does, last time I checked. Courts don't change laws, legislatures do. Courts give those new/altered laws meaning. That's what the court did. They didn't change anything unless someone snuck in one night and used whiteout and a ballpoint pen on the MA constitution.
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to religion the way eating raw beets is an opportunity compared to ice cream. They may both be the same very general category, but one sure is a lot nice than the other. It's very simple really. Either marriage is a religious institution and gays can be excluded. Fine. Married couples get NO secular benefits. Or, marriage brings secular benefits - then it better not just be a religious institution, and that means the government can't discriminate. Simple. Really, it's not hard. If you can just arbitrarily take secular items and discriminate against gays, there's no reason we can't roll back women's right to vote, segregate blacks and whites again, and start denying people jobs, transportation, benefits, and rights based on their race, color, creed, and affiliation. If we can discriminate against gays (see above: secular vs. religions merit of marriage), there's NO reason we can't discriminate against anyone else we want to.
What, you think that time's not now?