I thought it was the other way around... There would be more casual game players if there weren't so many cheaters ruining the game for them while they're just trying to figure out how to play;)
Artists are under no obligation to perform or record anything.
If they do record music, they are under no obligation to give their music away. Do you make the plumber teach you how to fix your sink? Force the mechanic to teach you to repair your own car? Didn't think so.
Just like how I can see my girlfriend naked, but I don't have to take pictures of her and share them with other guys who want to see.
I don't suppose their parents could be partly to blame, just a little?
No, of course not... Didn't you know that games these days create money and go to the grocery store for the kids? They also make the children deaf and blind so that parents can't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Lastly, even if we try to get the kids to do chores, spend time outside, and just be productive overall... The damn games buy themselves and force their way into the kid's room!
It's your own damn fault if you don't know when to stop.
That's oh so comforting to the mother who's just lost both her children and her husband because of a drunk driver plowed them over as they were on the sidewalk.
Do you have a problem with that statement?
Yes, because you are downplaying the effect that drinks have on you. If the drinks didn't affect you, then you wouldn't drink them correct? Even if it was only raising your BAC.00001%, there's a reason you're drinking it. That reason is generally because it helps a person "loosen up" or wind down or whatever you want to call it... My point is, it's the same thing that kills your judgement. However, I never said that you shouldn't be allowed to have a few drinks, in fact, my entire post was about how the restaurants/bars/etc should show some responsibility in how they serve their customers and when they should say enough is enough, or call them a cab... Or whatever you can do to keep drunks off the road.
I also agree with you that cops could spend their time and money better elsewhere, however... One cannot say that a lack of checkpoints etc is going to suddenly mean there's now a cop in sight whenever someone's visibly drunk. You're going to get more dangerous drunks off the road if you're checking more people who are potentially dangerous, if that makes sense. I mean we can talk all night about how cops should be looking for the crack dealers instead of the pot users, the muggers and thieves instead of setting up sting operations to get prostitutes and such.. etc etc.. We'd probably agree on a few things.. That's not the point though, and I'm not saying I know how to catch all the drunks including the ones that get hammered at home.
All I'm saying is, restaurants and bars need to be more careful about how much they allow people to drink and then drive. There are a lot of good establishments out there, but there are plenty that'll give you a bottle of vodka and send you on your way as well. You want to change how law enforcement in your area works? More power to you, I'm on your side.
That's a pretty stupid and FUD laden analogy. Anthrax spores have no legitimate purpose.
Well... One big one is research... Another thing is just the idea that I should have a right to responsibly own whatever I want, and you have no business telling me what I can or cannot have within my own house. I'll thank you not to harass me for being a biochem freak who wants to be able to do hands on research. I'm no more of a menace to society than you are...
I shouldn't be punished because some people are incapable of exercising this maturity.
If you already limit yourself and have transportation set up... Then how are you being punished? Like I said in my original post, I don't want to take away your right to drink. All I have been saying is that we should force people to make mature decisions even if they are not so mature themselves. It's a minor inconvenience to have a restaurant make sure you get a cab or have a designated driver. It's a time when the good (saving lives) outweighs the bad (5 minutes of your time and the restaurant/bars). If the establishment was smart about it, they'd even set up their own drivers, or get a contract with the taxi company so that they can make a little money on the side.
No, actually they don't. It's not their problem. If they see a known alcoholic with five DWIs under his belt drive up in a car then they shouldn't serve him. That's common sense. But I'll be damned if I'll go to an establishment that's going to treat me like a child that's incapable of making my own informed decisions.
Well, we all have priorities... and I can't force you to be okay with a minor inconvenience (that really isn't e
I've been at the height of shitfaced before and still had the higher reasoning abilities to say "Ok, I'm done drinking" for whatever reason (money, needed to drive the next day, etc).
That makes a whole lot of sense... You got to "the height of shitfaced" and THEN you decided you have had enough? Hmmmm...Okay... Everyone stops eventually, do not act like you're special because you got to "the height of shitfaced" before deciding you've had enough. Okay, so MAYBE you have more judgement than the frat boys who drink till they are passed out, but in reality... They're smarter, because after they pass out, they can't get in a car and accidentally kill anyone.
One of my neighbors (a 2 year old child) was recently killed by a man who thought he stopped well before his "limit." What you think is "enough" means jackshit to me. If you seriously do not think "just a few drinks" won't affect you, then why the hell are you drinking in the first place? Think about that one for a minute, preferably when you're sober.
What's next? Is it McDonalds fault if you can't control yourself when they open a restaurant two blocks from your house and you gain 200 pounds?
What's next? Some idiot saying we should be able to buy anthrax spores and active ebola samples at the corner drug store? "I mean, really... Is it the drug store's fault if some dude wants to infect hundreds of people?" and "Should *I* have to suffer because of a few possible terrorists?!?" Well of course not son, you should be able to buy ebola without any credentials, safety training, or... Hey wait a minute...
Seriously, these are totally different things. I don't give a damn if you gain 400lb at McDonalds, because it isn't doing a thing to me. If you want to be a 600lb fatass, then that is your choice, you hurt no one but yourself. Oh the other hand, if McDonalds burgers prove to cause people to accidentally kill innocent people, then yes, McDonalds should be guilty of negligence.
I am not against your right to get drunk, so I may disagree with some other posters, and possibly even with the person you replied to. However, some of the things you said are just silly to me, and I cannot agree with you that ANYONE is 100% capable of making good decisions while drinking. You may be okay 99% of the time you go in the bar, but it only takes one time for you to slip up. Just that one time, and you could be ending your life, one of your friends lives, someone's son or daughter, or you may even be killing someone's entire family for that matter.
Like I said, I do not think the right to drink should be taken away, but restaurants and such really need to take a stronger interest in what's going on and try to make sure everyone has designated drivers or calls a cab. No one's trying to take away your right to get intoxicated really, it's just that some people believe a few more measures should be taken to make sure others don't get hurt while you're having fun. When you see an easy way to possibly save some lives that doesn't involve taking away rights completely, I believe you should go for it.
Wow... I'm glad to to see how mature the opposition to the war in Iraq is... Does anyone outside of your anti-bush circles actually take you seriously in real life?
So it seems here that you're the one with the problem and everyone else has to cater to your fear of religious based speech... No one is saying that YOU should be XYZ Religion(TM), they are only subtly expressing themselves and [in some cases] following their religion. Next thing you know, you'll be judging people as offensive based on their hairstyles... Are you really that shallow and weak? When you start complaining about someone harassing you, then I maybe I'll be able to understand.
It amuses me to great extents when people get so afraid of seeing certain images or hearing certain words. I get memories of watching old vampire movies where the vampire would cower in fear whenever someone pulled out a cross... So silly...
So... How is arguing with an Insightful comment considered offtopic? If a direct challenge to a comment is offtopic, is the parent not offtopic as well? Oh well... Enjoy it while you can, because if the person that metamoderates it is actually paying attention... Hopefully your rogue moderations will come to an end soon.
Idiots who mod based on political opinion just give people reason to whine that they're being oppressed... Seriously, read the freaking mod guidelines and think before you choose a moderation.
Oh well.. I take a karma hit, but at least I had the guts to post using my username, unlike some people...
Why are you not liberating the people in all the other countries in the world that has an opressive regime?
Mainly because we don't have the resources/ability. In any case... Look in some history books that show US military action, we've taken action in many countries to liberate the people from corrupt/oppressive regimes. One of the few good things Bill Clinton did was to bring American military power into Kosovo. Yes, we are selective in who we invade, but seriously... Do you really expect us to just save every country in the world? Make up your mind... Do you want us to save people or not? Just because I donate to one charity and not the million others does not mean that I do not want to help all unfortunate people in general. Also... Why the hell should we let them bid? They aided the enemy for crying out loud.. We gave them all the opportunities to join in on the liberation and they decided to oppose it! When they decided to oppose the invasion, they at that very moment gave up their rights to benefit. It's garbage to claim that letting them bid is going to miraculously help the Iraqi people, that's like me saying, "Oh I could be the best baseball pitcher in the world... If only I hadn't given up baseball to get a job in highschool." It really is laughable, and I get memories of my friends telling me how much faster moving [random stuff like furniture] if only I had them to help me at the time..
In the end, the Iraqi people are the real winners. Even if we get all the contracts or whatever, do the iraqis not benefit from it all? Us getting money is a bonus out of it all... After we poured in money and lost soldiers, I think we deserve it. Not to mention, it's not just the US, there are plenty of countries OTHER than Germany and France who can bid and will benefit because they supported the liberation.
Also, can you give me a quote where either George Bush, Tony Blair, or myself said that the oil was going to pay for the war? I'm not saying there isn't one, as I'm not glued to the news sources, but I am curious when it was said...
Oh yeah... Those iraqis were so happy getting oppressed and tortured by Saddam.. So happy that hundreds of thousands of them were just jumping into those great big mass graves for him! What in the hell were we doing liberating them and spending billions of dollars [which will take years and years for us to see a return on even by taking their oil] fighting Saddam and rebuilding their country?
I never said it equated to the legal term of murder, now did I AC? Second, I never said he committed the legal term of homicide... Third, I don't have any evidence to contribute to the case, and I never said I did...So why would I call the FBI and waste their time, knowing that Kennedy already got this all locked up tight? Finally... Her death was the direct result of actions on his part. If I hold a pistol to your head while I drink vodka until I pass out and "accidentally" pull the trigger, would you not consider that murder? Regardless of how you want to spin it and say that he "contributed" to her death and that it wasn't considered murder for some reason... That doesn't suddenly make it *okay*. In any case, my original point was to show how the cases are completely different.. Do I think either of them should be sealed? Not really, but in a case where someone died and everyone got off pretty much without consequence, I want answers.
The difference here being... Ted Kennedy actually killed someone, but somehow went free.. We don't know how/why (other than guesses).. On the other hand, we can easily see that Bush was prosecuted the same as anyone else..
I can tell right off the bat from your long rant that you're a bad at waiting tables and not much of a people person, even though I'm sure you pretend to be and think you are... =)
When I was younger, I had a nice little minimum wage job as a cashier, as well as some other kiddie jobs, so I know a little about working with people. One thing that always amused me back then was how all the worst workers whined they didn't get raises and such, going on lunch break rants and blaming the customers or their bosses... Customer's an arrogant bastard... Customer treats me like garbage.. blah blah.. It's completely unprofessional and unappreciative, and I believe it tells a lot more about a person than the size of the tip they give. I'm sorry if you actually have to work for your pay.. I'm sorry that it gets tough for you to keep up with more than a few tables.. Seriously though, if you can't hack it, then you can try to get a job somewhere else. Someone will take your place, you won't be missed that much, waiters and waitresses are a dime a dozen. Guess what... The fact that I eat at the restaurant is why you have a job. You can expect all the tips you want, but when people get tired of paying your arrogant self 18 and so percent, you're out of a job. I'm glad that you're good at playing favorites, but stuff like that is going to get your ass canned because the non-tippers are the ones who are going to complain the most... Rightly so if you're treating them like garbage just because you're a gold digger.
I'm still amazed by your arrogant attitude... You had a kiddie job... Get over it already and move on... I'm actually glad that my later jobs were centered around working with explosive/flammable materials and heavy machinery... In my first week I learned more than you ever did about appreciating people (coworkers you depend on for your life), concentration, dedication, and most of all...the fact that in this world you have to work hard for your paychecks and you are not "entitled" to anything. I can just imagine what my boss would have said to me if I told him I wanted an extra $20 for every batch of nitrocellulose based lacquer that I didn't screw up... Actually, I'd probably get the cash... While I trained my replacement.
The difference though is that Microsoft is about the only place you can go when you have problems with MS products... With Linux you have a pile of usergroups and such. In any case, I'm glad to hear of jobs being created by open source.
That's cool I guess... I know it's only $5.00 a computer, but with the abundance of mailing lists, newsgroups, and other resources... It wouldn't be worth my time unless they're actually much faster at bringing exploits and bugs to light, but I guess it'll take time for them to prove whether they can or not.
This is great news for IT folks who are faced with the choice of a new OS or abandoned 1-year-old software
This may be great for very small systems (home network, family business website that nephew set up.. etc), but if by IT folks, you mean people who are paid to run systems/networks, I don't understand how this is all that helpful. I mean, I'm only a Slackware user who's learned everything from books and friends, but it would seem to me that if you're getting paid to maintain a Linux system, you should already have a few manuals handy and be able to diagnose and solve your problems without resorting to calling some tech support place...
Seriously, this is a question you're better off just asking some gamer friends who know more about the two of you.
Personally though, my ex and I played just about every multiplayer pc game out there... I have never bought a game on anyone's word either, especially considering the price of a new game. I would just ask around and go play at someone's house to sample a lot of different genres. You like fps and she likes puzzle games, but have you tried strategy games like age of empires, civilizations (freeciv), or command & conquer?
You may not consider them husband+wife games right off, but EverQuest, Galaxies, MUDs, and other rpg games combine puzzles with fighting. Plus they really do often encourage group playing so that would obviously be a plus in your case.
I don't know if you're joking around or if you're supporting my point... but... If they're dead, there is no more war with that enemy. Same thing goes if we're dead. That doesn't mean you should kill everyone that disagrees with you, it means just the ones that vow to kill you. Also... No matter how peaceful a country is, there has obviously not been "perpetual" peace in however many years man has existed... No matter how much someone has wanted peace, there's always some asshole that either has decided to hate you or just wants your land/money/culture/people/whatever...
There are anti-bush protests about every single day in our major cities. Bush is also protested at about every event he goes to as well... Search a news site, search google, hell... search slashdot... There are plenty of Americans who don't want Bush as our president.
Of course, most of the people in those protests seem to be about as dumb and blind as you apparently are... Then again, that's just a personal opinion.
The system has adapted to embrace those automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells us that a major homeland attack will result in the suspension of the Constitution. The two are qualitatively different forms of damage.
I would say that General Franks is incorrect, as he often [sadly] is. If anything, we have become more prepared for a terrorist attack. We have also become a bit better at preventing them as well. Though I'm against things like the misuse of the patriot act, I feel that as citizens we are individually more vigilant and prepared. This also goes for our emergency response professionals and such.
Other than that, my point still stands that a random whacko is a random whacko. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing... Look at the unibomber... Olympic park bombing... etc etc... We face this garbage from whackos that we piss off unintentionally. There is no reason to think that pissing people off in another country is any worse than pissing off Random Moron by passing a law he/she does not like. The threat of domestic terror, which has nothing to do with afghanistan, iraq, the plo, etc, is just as great. Your argument that the USA pissing off foreigners is not that great of a concern in the scheme of things. The only difference is that you see terrorists on the news. You're like people who are afraid of flying because of crashes, afraid of the ocean because of sharks, little kid afraid of the dark... etc etc... Just because it could happen doesn't mean it will. I'm sure the stories of doom and destruction and how the USA is going to hell sounds great to your friends though, just don't try to spread the stories as fact.
The US has killed approximately 1 million Iraqis in the past 13 years.
Don't forget the militants of Afghanistan and other terrorist harboring nations. The fact is, if they're all dead and an disarray, they can't fund or organize an attack of any size. This is double sided of course, as it is usually easier to track large organizations, but the point still stands that they need *some* funding and *some* organization to cause anything as bad or worse than what we have seen so far.
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to produce, not more expensive, not more difficult. That is why the past lack of use is not a predictor of future use.
It would be nice if you actually added to your original argument with some substance. Assault rifles and explosives aren't hard to come by, but how often are they used to inflict mass casualties? I see gasoline tanker trucks (as well as chemicals that are probably 20* as dangerous) drive by on the highway all the tim. It would not take a genius to hijack one of these at a truck stop, but you know what? It doesn't happen... Am I saying it won't ever happen? No.. Just that the fact that they're cheaper and easier means jack, and that there is no reason to think the chances of the USA being dissolved by some terrorist group are all that great.
I don't mean this post to sound like I'm not being serious, but look at the score card and tell me how things are going with the USA keeping things unfair.
USA vs all foreign enemies so far
After the USA has lost a couple thousand people to terrorist attack, how many million casualties have we inflicted on the "enemy"? What percentage of our military has been lost to the "enemy"? Something like.1%? Just a random liberal guess... WMDs have been cheap and easy to produce for a long time, but they aren't being used, and with the combination of increased security and the fact that we're taking the war to their home countries, I doubt they will ever be used to any large extent. Yes, I know it only takes one time to murder thousands, but the fact is, we could [somehow] make peace with the terrorists and then some lunatic could randomly decide to detonate a briefcase nuke in the middle of NYC. The same thing could happen anywhere else, regardless of whether the target has pissed anyone off. You can't just go around saying oh we're all going to die because we pissed off people in the middle east... If the terrorist groups could only see posts like yours I'm sure they'd be saying, "Mission accomplished!" In whatever language they speak, of course.
You may dream up the demise of the USA all you want, but I'm happy to tell you that it isn't happening anytime soon. Even if something horrible does happen to bring down the country, it'll probably come more through foreign trade (or lack thereof) rather than from a physical attack. Even then, given our record, I don't see it happening anytime in the next 100 years, but I guess a lot could happen. Anyway, I believe that terrorist "cells" are a threat, don't get me wrong, but automobile accidents are killing more people than terrorists are...
While I believe in your right to bitch, there doesn't seem to be a powerful argument in what you say. Warfare (and as a result, technology in general) has evolved over the centuries based on creating an unfare advantage. Battles fought on perfectly equal grounds are the most bloody and often indecisive, as the winning side will probably be only slightly better off than the losing. Sticks and stones evolve into spears and slingshots, then armor, swords, and arrows, fortifications and siege weapons, mounted units, gunpowder, machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc,.. It is up to our government to find any and every way of being superior militarily to protect it's citizens. I imagine you just don't like the USA, but still... This is all part of preventing war as much as anything... Someone on the street armed with only a good left hook isn't going to attack someone with a tommy gun. Also, provided the person with the tommy gun is mentally stable, that person isn't going to have a reason to attack anyone else either so...
No one said that slavery wasn't an issue. Slavery was just part of it however... I'm sure those measures were aimed at attempting to turn down the heat, but what you find is not definitive proof that slavery was the cause of the civil war.
If you think it was the cause of the civil war, I have a couple questions for you:
1) Why did the war start while slavery was still legal? Don't you think the south would have waited until their right to own slaves was being taken away if that was the only thing?
2) If slavery was the only dividing factor, why did it take Lincoln three years after the war began to set the slaves free? Not to mention the emancipation proclamation only spoke about slavery in the rebellious stats
While I understand you wondering about people who think this is the greatest thing since CD drives... Portability, security, and disposability are probably the easiest ways to categorize the reasons.
In this, case portability means more than just the ability to carry it around, and I'm throwing in the ability to easily distribute. First of all, if I want to share a large amount of data to several people, it's easier to just burn up 10 copies or whatever and drop them off at their offices/houses/whatever than to work with removable drives. The removable drives are most likely going to be more expensive per drive than the dvd, so I'm definitely going to what to get that back. Second we have portability not only in the sense of across platforms, but in the sense that not every person that you might want to give data to is particularly tech savvy. While it may seem like a non issue to someone like yourself, many people would look at a removable hard drive and just be confused and need explanations. CD/DVD operation has become so routine that even great grandma can do it, but the more operations you add in, the more difficult it gets. What this means is that after I distribute my data, I then have to spend my evening receiving phone calls about how you're supposed to work the stupid thing. I'll also just be praying that they don't end up destroying all my drives. Finally, carrying around DVDs... I care less about theft and things like... Aliens and solar flares.
When talking about the ability to easily distribute data, security isn't always the biggest concern. For those like myself though, who do occasionally handle documents we wouldn't want getting out to the wrong people under any circumstances, a DVD offers a few small advantages. First, a DVD is *slightly* easier to hide. I realize that the removable hard drives of today can be pretty small and inconspicuous, so this isn't the biggest issue, but something to consider. A DVD is also better in this area because I can make it look like one of my movie DVDs. This isn't going to stop a really determined thief like the government, but it'll definitely throw off someone who doesn't have the time/ability to steal my entire DVD collection that I add to every paycheck. Last in this category, have you ever noticed how fast a stack of DVDs melts in the fireplace? (Sorry environmentalist slaskdotters...)
Disposability is something I've covered throughout the above two paragraphs. Worried about grandma screwing up the hard drive, or her entire computer for that matter? Give her a DVD. Got a coworker who doesn't return your stuff in a timely manner? Who cares if you get that DVD back. Have to dispose of something for security reasons? I'd rather melt off that DVD than try to destroy the hard drive. I'd also care much less that I had to do it. Misplace a DVD? No big deal. Etc, etc,. Now if you've got some big hard drives, which are as small as a dvd, and cost $1.00, I might concede some of these disposability concerns, but I haven't seen them.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was the other way around... There would be more casual game players if there weren't so many cheaters ruining the game for them while they're just trying to figure out how to play ;)
If they do record music, they are under no obligation to give their music away. Do you make the plumber teach you how to fix your sink? Force the mechanic to teach you to repair your own car? Didn't think so.
Just like how I can see my girlfriend naked, but I don't have to take pictures of her and share them with other guys who want to see.
And I'm not going to either... So don't ask
No, of course not... Didn't you know that games these days create money and go to the grocery store for the kids? They also make the children deaf and blind so that parents can't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. Lastly, even if we try to get the kids to do chores, spend time outside, and just be productive overall... The damn games buy themselves and force their way into the kid's room!
That's oh so comforting to the mother who's just lost both her children and her husband because of a drunk driver plowed them over as they were on the sidewalk.
Yes, because you are downplaying the effect that drinks have on you. If the drinks didn't affect you, then you wouldn't drink them correct? Even if it was only raising your BAC .00001%, there's a reason you're drinking it. That reason is generally because it helps a person "loosen up" or wind down or whatever you want to call it... My point is, it's the same thing that kills your judgement. However, I never said that you shouldn't be allowed to have a few drinks, in fact, my entire post was about how the restaurants/bars/etc should show some responsibility in how they serve their customers and when they should say enough is enough, or call them a cab... Or whatever you can do to keep drunks off the road.
I also agree with you that cops could spend their time and money better elsewhere, however... One cannot say that a lack of checkpoints etc is going to suddenly mean there's now a cop in sight whenever someone's visibly drunk. You're going to get more dangerous drunks off the road if you're checking more people who are potentially dangerous, if that makes sense. I mean we can talk all night about how cops should be looking for the crack dealers instead of the pot users, the muggers and thieves instead of setting up sting operations to get prostitutes and such.. etc etc.. We'd probably agree on a few things.. That's not the point though, and I'm not saying I know how to catch all the drunks including the ones that get hammered at home.
All I'm saying is, restaurants and bars need to be more careful about how much they allow people to drink and then drive. There are a lot of good establishments out there, but there are plenty that'll give you a bottle of vodka and send you on your way as well. You want to change how law enforcement in your area works? More power to you, I'm on your side.
Well... One big one is research... Another thing is just the idea that I should have a right to responsibly own whatever I want, and you have no business telling me what I can or cannot have within my own house. I'll thank you not to harass me for being a biochem freak who wants to be able to do hands on research. I'm no more of a menace to society than you are...
If you already limit yourself and have transportation set up... Then how are you being punished? Like I said in my original post, I don't want to take away your right to drink. All I have been saying is that we should force people to make mature decisions even if they are not so mature themselves. It's a minor inconvenience to have a restaurant make sure you get a cab or have a designated driver. It's a time when the good (saving lives) outweighs the bad (5 minutes of your time and the restaurant/bars). If the establishment was smart about it, they'd even set up their own drivers, or get a contract with the taxi company so that they can make a little money on the side.
Well, we all have priorities... and I can't force you to be okay with a minor inconvenience (that really isn't e
That makes a whole lot of sense... You got to "the height of shitfaced" and THEN you decided you have had enough? Hmmmm...Okay... Everyone stops eventually, do not act like you're special because you got to "the height of shitfaced" before deciding you've had enough. Okay, so MAYBE you have more judgement than the frat boys who drink till they are passed out, but in reality... They're smarter, because after they pass out, they can't get in a car and accidentally kill anyone.
One of my neighbors (a 2 year old child) was recently killed by a man who thought he stopped well before his "limit." What you think is "enough" means jackshit to me. If you seriously do not think "just a few drinks" won't affect you, then why the hell are you drinking in the first place? Think about that one for a minute, preferably when you're sober.
What's next? Some idiot saying we should be able to buy anthrax spores and active ebola samples at the corner drug store? "I mean, really... Is it the drug store's fault if some dude wants to infect hundreds of people?" and "Should *I* have to suffer because of a few possible terrorists?!?" Well of course not son, you should be able to buy ebola without any credentials, safety training, or... Hey wait a minute...
Seriously, these are totally different things. I don't give a damn if you gain 400lb at McDonalds, because it isn't doing a thing to me. If you want to be a 600lb fatass, then that is your choice, you hurt no one but yourself. Oh the other hand, if McDonalds burgers prove to cause people to accidentally kill innocent people, then yes, McDonalds should be guilty of negligence.
I am not against your right to get drunk, so I may disagree with some other posters, and possibly even with the person you replied to. However, some of the things you said are just silly to me, and I cannot agree with you that ANYONE is 100% capable of making good decisions while drinking. You may be okay 99% of the time you go in the bar, but it only takes one time for you to slip up. Just that one time, and you could be ending your life, one of your friends lives, someone's son or daughter, or you may even be killing someone's entire family for that matter.
Like I said, I do not think the right to drink should be taken away, but restaurants and such really need to take a stronger interest in what's going on and try to make sure everyone has designated drivers or calls a cab. No one's trying to take away your right to get intoxicated really, it's just that some people believe a few more measures should be taken to make sure others don't get hurt while you're having fun. When you see an easy way to possibly save some lives that doesn't involve taking away rights completely, I believe you should go for it.
Wow... I'm glad to to see how mature the opposition to the war in Iraq is... Does anyone outside of your anti-bush circles actually take you seriously in real life?
So it seems here that you're the one with the problem and everyone else has to cater to your fear of religious based speech... No one is saying that YOU should be XYZ Religion(TM), they are only subtly expressing themselves and [in some cases] following their religion. Next thing you know, you'll be judging people as offensive based on their hairstyles... Are you really that shallow and weak? When you start complaining about someone harassing you, then I maybe I'll be able to understand.
It amuses me to great extents when people get so afraid of seeing certain images or hearing certain words. I get memories of watching old vampire movies where the vampire would cower in fear whenever someone pulled out a cross... So silly...
That describes your post perfectly, you whiney little bitch!
My parent:
Moderation +5
90% Insightful
10% Troll
So... How is arguing with an Insightful comment considered offtopic? If a direct challenge to a comment is offtopic, is the parent not offtopic as well? Oh well... Enjoy it while you can, because if the person that metamoderates it is actually paying attention... Hopefully your rogue moderations will come to an end soon.
Idiots who mod based on political opinion just give people reason to whine that they're being oppressed... Seriously, read the freaking mod guidelines and think before you choose a moderation.
Oh well.. I take a karma hit, but at least I had the guts to post using my username, unlike some people...
Mainly because we don't have the resources/ability. In any case... Look in some history books that show US military action, we've taken action in many countries to liberate the people from corrupt/oppressive regimes. One of the few good things Bill Clinton did was to bring American military power into Kosovo. Yes, we are selective in who we invade, but seriously... Do you really expect us to just save every country in the world? Make up your mind... Do you want us to save people or not? Just because I donate to one charity and not the million others does not mean that I do not want to help all unfortunate people in general. Also... Why the hell should we let them bid? They aided the enemy for crying out loud.. We gave them all the opportunities to join in on the liberation and they decided to oppose it! When they decided to oppose the invasion, they at that very moment gave up their rights to benefit. It's garbage to claim that letting them bid is going to miraculously help the Iraqi people, that's like me saying, "Oh I could be the best baseball pitcher in the world... If only I hadn't given up baseball to get a job in highschool." It really is laughable, and I get memories of my friends telling me how much faster moving [random stuff like furniture] if only I had them to help me at the time..
In the end, the Iraqi people are the real winners. Even if we get all the contracts or whatever, do the iraqis not benefit from it all? Us getting money is a bonus out of it all... After we poured in money and lost soldiers, I think we deserve it. Not to mention, it's not just the US, there are plenty of countries OTHER than Germany and France who can bid and will benefit because they supported the liberation.
Also, can you give me a quote where either George Bush, Tony Blair, or myself said that the oil was going to pay for the war? I'm not saying there isn't one, as I'm not glued to the news sources, but I am curious when it was said...
Oh yeah... Those iraqis were so happy getting oppressed and tortured by Saddam.. So happy that hundreds of thousands of them were just jumping into those great big mass graves for him! What in the hell were we doing liberating them and spending billions of dollars [which will take years and years for us to see a return on even by taking their oil] fighting Saddam and rebuilding their country?
I never said it equated to the legal term of murder, now did I AC? Second, I never said he committed the legal term of homicide... Third, I don't have any evidence to contribute to the case, and I never said I did...So why would I call the FBI and waste their time, knowing that Kennedy already got this all locked up tight? Finally... Her death was the direct result of actions on his part. If I hold a pistol to your head while I drink vodka until I pass out and "accidentally" pull the trigger, would you not consider that murder? Regardless of how you want to spin it and say that he "contributed" to her death and that it wasn't considered murder for some reason... That doesn't suddenly make it *okay*. In any case, my original point was to show how the cases are completely different.. Do I think either of them should be sealed? Not really, but in a case where someone died and everyone got off pretty much without consequence, I want answers.
The difference here being... Ted Kennedy actually killed someone, but somehow went free.. We don't know how/why (other than guesses).. On the other hand, we can easily see that Bush was prosecuted the same as anyone else..
(Sorry for the offtopicness)
I can tell right off the bat from your long rant that you're a bad at waiting tables and not much of a people person, even though I'm sure you pretend to be and think you are... =)
When I was younger, I had a nice little minimum wage job as a cashier, as well as some other kiddie jobs, so I know a little about working with people. One thing that always amused me back then was how all the worst workers whined they didn't get raises and such, going on lunch break rants and blaming the customers or their bosses... Customer's an arrogant bastard... Customer treats me like garbage.. blah blah.. It's completely unprofessional and unappreciative, and I believe it tells a lot more about a person than the size of the tip they give. I'm sorry if you actually have to work for your pay.. I'm sorry that it gets tough for you to keep up with more than a few tables.. Seriously though, if you can't hack it, then you can try to get a job somewhere else. Someone will take your place, you won't be missed that much, waiters and waitresses are a dime a dozen. Guess what... The fact that I eat at the restaurant is why you have a job. You can expect all the tips you want, but when people get tired of paying your arrogant self 18 and so percent, you're out of a job. I'm glad that you're good at playing favorites, but stuff like that is going to get your ass canned because the non-tippers are the ones who are going to complain the most... Rightly so if you're treating them like garbage just because you're a gold digger.
I'm still amazed by your arrogant attitude... You had a kiddie job... Get over it already and move on... I'm actually glad that my later jobs were centered around working with explosive/flammable materials and heavy machinery... In my first week I learned more than you ever did about appreciating people (coworkers you depend on for your life), concentration, dedication, and most of all...the fact that in this world you have to work hard for your paychecks and you are not "entitled" to anything. I can just imagine what my boss would have said to me if I told him I wanted an extra $20 for every batch of nitrocellulose based lacquer that I didn't screw up... Actually, I'd probably get the cash... While I trained my replacement.
The difference though is that Microsoft is about the only place you can go when you have problems with MS products... With Linux you have a pile of usergroups and such. In any case, I'm glad to hear of jobs being created by open source.
That's cool I guess... I know it's only $5.00 a computer, but with the abundance of mailing lists, newsgroups, and other resources... It wouldn't be worth my time unless they're actually much faster at bringing exploits and bugs to light, but I guess it'll take time for them to prove whether they can or not.
This may be great for very small systems (home network, family business website that nephew set up.. etc), but if by IT folks, you mean people who are paid to run systems/networks, I don't understand how this is all that helpful. I mean, I'm only a Slackware user who's learned everything from books and friends, but it would seem to me that if you're getting paid to maintain a Linux system, you should already have a few manuals handy and be able to diagnose and solve your problems without resorting to calling some tech support place...
Seriously, this is a question you're better off just asking some gamer friends who know more about the two of you.
Personally though, my ex and I played just about every multiplayer pc game out there... I have never bought a game on anyone's word either, especially considering the price of a new game. I would just ask around and go play at someone's house to sample a lot of different genres. You like fps and she likes puzzle games, but have you tried strategy games like age of empires, civilizations (freeciv), or command & conquer?
You may not consider them husband+wife games right off, but EverQuest, Galaxies, MUDs, and other rpg games combine puzzles with fighting. Plus they really do often encourage group playing so that would obviously be a plus in your case.
I don't know if you're joking around or if you're supporting my point... but... If they're dead, there is no more war with that enemy. Same thing goes if we're dead. That doesn't mean you should kill everyone that disagrees with you, it means just the ones that vow to kill you. Also... No matter how peaceful a country is, there has obviously not been "perpetual" peace in however many years man has existed... No matter how much someone has wanted peace, there's always some asshole that either has decided to hate you or just wants your land/money/culture/people/whatever...
Oh yeah, sorry about the typo.
There are anti-bush protests about every single day in our major cities. Bush is also protested at about every event he goes to as well... Search a news site, search google, hell... search slashdot... There are plenty of Americans who don't want Bush as our president.
Of course, most of the people in those protests seem to be about as dumb and blind as you apparently are... Then again, that's just a personal opinion.
The system has adapted to embrace those
automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells
us that a major homeland attack will result
in the suspension of the Constitution.
The two are qualitatively different forms of
damage.
I would say that General Franks is incorrect, as he often [sadly] is. If anything, we have become more prepared for a terrorist attack. We have also become a bit better at preventing them as well. Though I'm against things like the misuse of the patriot act, I feel that as citizens we are individually more vigilant and prepared. This also goes for our emergency response professionals and such.
Other than that, my point still stands that a random whacko is a random whacko. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing... Look at the unibomber... Olympic park bombing... etc etc... We face this garbage from whackos that we piss off unintentionally. There is no reason to think that pissing people off in another country is any worse than pissing off Random Moron by passing a law he/she does not like. The threat of domestic terror, which has nothing to do with afghanistan, iraq, the plo, etc, is just as great. Your argument that the USA pissing off foreigners is not that great of a concern in the scheme of things. The only difference is that you see terrorists on the news. You're like people who are afraid of flying because of crashes, afraid of the ocean because of sharks, little kid afraid of the dark... etc etc... Just because it could happen doesn't mean it will. I'm sure the stories of doom and destruction and how the USA is going to hell sounds great to your friends though, just don't try to spread the stories as fact.
The US has killed approximately 1 million
Iraqis in the past 13 years.
Don't forget the militants of Afghanistan and other terrorist harboring nations. The fact is, if they're all dead and an disarray, they can't fund or organize an attack of any size. This is double sided of course, as it is usually easier to track large organizations, but the point still stands that they need *some* funding and *some* organization to cause anything as bad or worse than what we have seen so far.
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to
produce, not more expensive, not more
difficult. That is why the past lack of
use is not a predictor of future use.
It would be nice if you actually added to your original argument with some substance. Assault rifles and explosives aren't hard to come by, but how often are they used to inflict mass casualties? I see gasoline tanker trucks (as well as chemicals that are probably 20* as dangerous) drive by on the highway all the tim. It would not take a genius to hijack one of these at a truck stop, but you know what? It doesn't happen... Am I saying it won't ever happen? No.. Just that the fact that they're cheaper and easier means jack, and that there is no reason to think the chances of the USA being dissolved by some terrorist group are all that great.
I don't mean this post to sound like I'm not being serious, but look at the score card and tell me how things are going with the USA keeping things unfair.
.1%? Just a random liberal guess... WMDs have been cheap and easy to produce for a long time, but they aren't being used, and with the combination of increased security and the fact that we're taking the war to their home countries, I doubt they will ever be used to any large extent. Yes, I know it only takes one time to murder thousands, but the fact is, we could [somehow] make peace with the terrorists and then some lunatic could randomly decide to detonate a briefcase nuke in the middle of NYC. The same thing could happen anywhere else, regardless of whether the target has pissed anyone off. You can't just go around saying oh we're all going to die because we pissed off people in the middle east... If the terrorist groups could only see posts like yours I'm sure they'd be saying, "Mission accomplished!" In whatever language they speak, of course.
USA vs all foreign enemies so far
After the USA has lost a couple thousand people to terrorist attack, how many million casualties have we inflicted on the "enemy"? What percentage of our military has been lost to the "enemy"? Something like
You may dream up the demise of the USA all you want, but I'm happy to tell you that it isn't happening anytime soon. Even if something horrible does happen to bring down the country, it'll probably come more through foreign trade (or lack thereof) rather than from a physical attack. Even then, given our record, I don't see it happening anytime in the next 100 years, but I guess a lot could happen. Anyway, I believe that terrorist "cells" are a threat, don't get me wrong, but automobile accidents are killing more people than terrorists are...
While I believe in your right to bitch, there doesn't seem to be a powerful argument in what you say. Warfare (and as a result, technology in general) has evolved over the centuries based on creating an unfare advantage. Battles fought on perfectly equal grounds are the most bloody and often indecisive, as the winning side will probably be only slightly better off than the losing. Sticks and stones evolve into spears and slingshots, then armor, swords, and arrows, fortifications and siege weapons, mounted units, gunpowder, machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc,.. It is up to our government to find any and every way of being superior militarily to protect it's citizens. I imagine you just don't like the USA, but still... This is all part of preventing war as much as anything... Someone on the street armed with only a good left hook isn't going to attack someone with a tommy gun. Also, provided the person with the tommy gun is mentally stable, that person isn't going to have a reason to attack anyone else either so...
No one said that slavery wasn't an issue. Slavery was just part of it however... I'm sure those measures were aimed at attempting to turn down the heat, but what you find is not definitive proof that slavery was the cause of the civil war.
If you think it was the cause of the civil war, I have a couple questions for you:
1) Why did the war start while slavery was still legal? Don't you think the south would have waited until their right to own slaves was being taken away if that was the only thing?
2) If slavery was the only dividing factor, why did it take Lincoln three years after the war began to set the slaves free? Not to mention the emancipation proclamation only spoke about slavery in the rebellious stats
While I understand you wondering about people who think this is the greatest thing since CD drives... Portability, security, and disposability are probably the easiest ways to categorize the reasons.
In this, case portability means more than just the ability to carry it around, and I'm throwing in the ability to easily distribute. First of all, if I want to share a large amount of data to several people, it's easier to just burn up 10 copies or whatever and drop them off at their offices/houses/whatever than to work with removable drives. The removable drives are most likely going to be more expensive per drive than the dvd, so I'm definitely going to what to get that back. Second we have portability not only in the sense of across platforms, but in the sense that not every person that you might want to give data to is particularly tech savvy. While it may seem like a non issue to someone like yourself, many people would look at a removable hard drive and just be confused and need explanations. CD/DVD operation has become so routine that even great grandma can do it, but the more operations you add in, the more difficult it gets. What this means is that after I distribute my data, I then have to spend my evening receiving phone calls about how you're supposed to work the stupid thing. I'll also just be praying that they don't end up destroying all my drives. Finally, carrying around DVDs... I care less about theft and things like... Aliens and solar flares.
When talking about the ability to easily distribute data, security isn't always the biggest concern. For those like myself though, who do occasionally handle documents we wouldn't want getting out to the wrong people under any circumstances, a DVD offers a few small advantages. First, a DVD is *slightly* easier to hide. I realize that the removable hard drives of today can be pretty small and inconspicuous, so this isn't the biggest issue, but something to consider. A DVD is also better in this area because I can make it look like one of my movie DVDs. This isn't going to stop a really determined thief like the government, but it'll definitely throw off someone who doesn't have the time/ability to steal my entire DVD collection that I add to every paycheck. Last in this category, have you ever noticed how fast a stack of DVDs melts in the fireplace? (Sorry environmentalist slaskdotters...)
Disposability is something I've covered throughout the above two paragraphs. Worried about grandma screwing up the hard drive, or her entire computer for that matter? Give her a DVD. Got a coworker who doesn't return your stuff in a timely manner? Who cares if you get that DVD back. Have to dispose of something for security reasons? I'd rather melt off that DVD than try to destroy the hard drive. I'd also care much less that I had to do it. Misplace a DVD? No big deal. Etc, etc,. Now if you've got some big hard drives, which are as small as a dvd, and cost $1.00, I might concede some of these disposability concerns, but I haven't seen them.