yeah, let's make a big deal of someone reading our IMs but totally forget that email can be read too. Here's an idea...don't write anything online that you wouldn't want publiched. Problem solved.
That said, I doubt AOL employees really care about your fucking IMs.
xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx: LOL supertard: heh xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx:dude, did you see that one show? LOL supertard: yeah lollerz!1
*rolleyes* who fucking cares if they read your chat logs? It isn't security through obscurity, it's security through absurdity.
I have obviously never used a Mac? Bullshit, buddy. You have obviously never heard the adage about assuming. Also, you don't get jokes. Good luck with the rest of your humorless, cold, antiseptic life, you grey, joyless chunk of bitterness. Since you claim programs have no reason to 'spew detritus', perhaps you can give your justification for doing same...
Also, please disregard this message. I'm too drunk to be posting right now, but for some reason I'm still able to. I'm going to have a few more drinks, which should solve that problem.
republic != constitutional republic != democracy. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. All constitutional republics are democracies, not all democracies are constitutional republics. In any case, the difference is esoteric enough that most people don't care. Our founding fathers, however, clearly did not want pure democracy. That's why they set up the oligarchy^W constitutional republic we enjoy to this day.
Yup. I know. That whoosh you heard a little while ago....that was the joke passing over your head. Besides, I don't run any OS other than CP/M. Who needs a directory tree?
Nah. They'll still charge you for them. You have to opt-out if you don't want them, and they don't let you opt-out. Even if you move and/or register with false info, they'll find you. The Trendy Mafia is inescapable. You can't trick the white-trenchcoated Apple thugs. They own j00, and they look more stylish than you while they're at it. Plus, they get more chicks than you.
Well, for starters, Linux doesn't have a Finder. Without a Finder, how can you Find anything? Additionally, Linux doesn't annoyingly^W conveniently switch to the desktop if you accidentally click a sliver of transparent space in a foreground window. Plus, Linux doesn't frown at you when there's a problem. Finally, Linux offers prominent and easy access to terminal windows, which is turrible, just turrible. Clearly, OSX RulEZ, LiNUx DrOoLZ.
They needn't be. Thus the point about 'codifi[cation] into the license'. The only one who was a Zen master was the original author. The rest are simply following the teaching.
Nobody's going to be like "Hey, you think your life sucks now? Hah, just wait until you get into the cage."
Really? Because that's exactly what happened to a friend of mine. Here in Texas, attempted suicide is illegal. A friend of mine was involuntarily committed for 2 years because of a suicide attempt. It didn't save her life. She didn't last a month. Hey, at least the government stepped in to make her more depressed. Also, they assured her family that it's impossible for people in 'hospitals' to commit suicide. When they were wrong, they didn't even apologize. If someone wants to kill him or herself, they will do so. Providing information to make it quicker or less painful might help them. At least they wouldn't suffer as much. We're not just talking about a web page that says 'Go kill yourself, you loser!'. We're also talking about assisted-suicide pages for those in daily, intense pain. In additiion, maddox.xmission.com would be unviewable in Australia. Sometimes it seems like banning stuff is good, but the focus is almost never as narrow as you think.
Hysteria over 'cell phone danger' is about as useful as fear of terrorists in Duluth. I bet you drive or ride in cars, right? You should be far more concerned about their dangers, as they're not only real, they're likely to occur. Bathtubs kill thousands of people each year. Lightning kills. People drown in puddles. People overdose on drugs and alcohol. People die accidental deaths every day. Even if cell phones actually did pose health hazards, they'd pale in comparison to hazards you deal with daily. I wonder how many people are fearing their cellphones while slamming down double cheeseburgers or doughtnuts or other unhealthy foods. Perspective, people. Please try and gain some.
I was right there with you.....until you stated that a phone in a bag is less likely to be stolen than one in your pocket. Ummmmmm......really? I've had bags stolen before. I've never had anything stolen out of my front pocket. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I would hesitate to accept your assertion.
The kind of political discourse you say you remember from the past never actually existed outside the high school and college debate clubs.
Oh, well. Thank you for informing me that my experiences didn't really happen. I mean, since I was there and you were not, I thought I knew what went on. However, since you're apparently omniscient, I suppose I'll have to re-write my personal history.
Perhaps you didn't notice it then, or perhaps you're looking a the past through proverbial rose colored glasses.
Perhaps. Perhaps you're simply applying the filter of your experience to my life...which generally doesn't work too well.
Just because I phrase my point in humor and parody doesn't mean I'm not expressing a point.
While true, I never claimed otherwise. Your point could indeed be valid, but I thought what you wanted was for people to listen to your point, not just for it to be valid. What use is a valid point if people dismiss it because of your presentation?
leaving most of the down and dirty "outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol" to third party organizations and campaign workers.
Yes, and campaign workers were exactly who I was talking about when I said 'general public'. Oh wait, no they weren't.
American politics have always been vile and prone to use every dirty trick possible to tear down the opposition.
I think you meant to use the word 'politicians' above. That would be much more correct, especially as 'American politics' aren't capable of thought or action.
Again, you seem to be arguing that politicians and their immediate supporters have always used negative tactics. I never contradicted that. However, I have noticed that normal people, such as those one meets in bars, on planes, and in social situations as well as co-workers and the like are now spouting the same stuff. While mud has always been slung, I have had many non-combative political discussions in the past, or at least less combative. Lately, though, most political conversations can't be called discussions. Perhaps it is a local or regional thing, but my experiences are not subject to your revision. You may disagree with my conclusions, though you haven't seemed to address them yet, but you may not re-frame my life through your lens.
You used the wrong word. It doesn't matter if you spelled the word you meant to use incorrectly or if you chose the wrong word. The result is the same. You used a word that exists but which does not mean what you were trying to convey. It's important to use words properly, otherwise meaning becomes more difficult to determine. Sure, people might be able to extract meaning from context *now*, when the differences are small. However, as more words are used improperly, leading to more confusion, it becomes more difficult. That's why it's important to use the correct word. For the same reason, correct spelling is important. I don't believe spelling is quite as important as correct word usage, but poor spelling does contribute to lessened comprehension. It's particularly important to proofread when you tend to use words you didn't intend to use. This is because spell-checking software won't alert you to those types of errors. If you don't want people like me pointing out your improper word usage, I have a very simple solution for you: proofread your work.
Why do you insist on spelling flames as if they matter?
I spell flames as if they matter? Did you mean why do I insist on correcting poor spelling and improper word usage? If so, I've answered that question above. So far, your rebuttals haven't suggested that your error was an anomaly. You obviously can't use the language properly on your own. If you could, I wouldn't have to correct you, now would I?
I heard from some guy that Austrians all play the accordion and wear lederhosen. They *do* make accordions in Austria, so it must be true. I even provided a link!
Why would the production of a t-shirt prove anything? I can go to cafepress or t-shirt hell and make a t-shirt that says anything. Would a t-shirt that said 'all Austrians wish they were Australians' suddenly make that assertion true? I know they don't teach logic in schools anymore, but I hadn't realized how bad it had truly gotten. Note: Simply stating that you haven't proved your assertion is *NOT* the same as stating that it's false. LEARN TO USE LOGIC. It will help you avoid appearing quite so moronic.
I see. So I'm supposed to believe an anecdotal account from an internet stranger over my own experience? Why would I possibly do that? Would you take my unsubstantiated word as truth over your own experience? If so, you're an even bigger idiot than you appear. Simply stating 'studies show X' without backing it up is no better than anecdotal evidence. You put so much stock in vague, unnamed 'studies'. Why? Oh...right, I forgot. You have no head for logic. Studies show that most things you believe are supported by studies...at least, if you don't have to actually link to the studies. I didn't say 'I don't like it so it must be false'. I said 'Oh, well, internet stranger reports second-hand anecdotal evidence, so it must be true'. Of course, it was sarcasm. I didn't say it was necessarily false, I just said that internet strangers posting anecdotal evidence that conflicts with my actual experience as an American aren't going to convince me of anything. I should have expected someone else to come along and restate my position so that it is incorrect and then 'correct' it. It's funny, out of two or three threads in which you purport to have 'the real knowledge', you never post any links to hard evidence backing it up. Is that because you don't understand that making assertions requires proving them, or is it because these vague 'studies' that you keep referring to either don't exist or have serious flaws? I'm just curious, you needn't answer. Of course, you probably will, and your reply will no doubt mention some study or other. Oh, what fun.
You didn't misspell a word. You used it incorrectly. There's a large difference there. Also, how can episode three be a huge hit movie before it's even out? I can see that you have some rather major flaws, and you might consider taking a remedial English class in order to get your skills up to third-grade level. I also wouldn't call a book with sales as high as snow crash 'an obscure genre book'. Then again, I like to be correct. You apparently prefer to be wrong. That's your choice, I suppose. Good luck with that. Have a nice life!
Hmm. I think you're wrong. I noticed it at least 5 years ago. It had to have happened sometime before that. I still don't know exactly when, but it isn't nearly as recent a phenomenon as you have indicated. Additionally, in the last election it was 'liberal this, karl rove that, lefty this, neo-con that' It is not now, nor have I ever known it to be, one-sided. Each side needs to stop blaming the other, take some ownership, and work it out. No, I'm not nearly naive or stupid enough to believe it will happen. I hold on to hope for a solution, even though I know it's a hope destined to be punched repeatedly in the face until it's a small, bloody lump of dead hope.
First of all, movies don't intend to do anything. They aren't capable of intending. Next: How do you know that even a single country exists where *no one* has heard of snow crash? You cannot POSSIBLY have definitive knowledge of this. Claiming that you do is ridiculous. You might have said 'where relatively few people have heard of snow crash' or something like that, but to claim that you know absolutely is rubbish. You are rubbish. You don't even know the meaning of the word 'intend'.
Speak for yourself.
Do you honestly think I'd speak for you? You wish.
I'm a libertarian. I'm stating that up front, because I'm going to piss off Republicrats and Demopublicans alike and I want any claims of partisanship to at least correctly identify my party.
When did public political discourse devolve into outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol? I know it's been like that among politicians for quite a while, but I can rememebr a time when that was the exception in public discourse, not the norm.
Look, people: just because someone holds a belief that you disagree with, that doesn't mean they are evil or stupid. I highly doubt that the average Republican agrees with CFR or this measure. On the other hand, I would guess that almost all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation, agree with both. Not every issue has only two sides, and not all issues with only two sides can be split along repub/dem party lines. The kind of discourse you are engaged in will only appeal to those with whom you already agree. While that can be rewarding, is alienating people with whom you disagree really what you want to do? Would you not rather convice them of the correctness of your argument? It seems these days that no one wants to actually convince anyone else. Maybe that's because in order to get someone to listen to you, you must also be willing to listen to them. Everyone wants to be heard these days....but is anyone willing to listen?
Problem is, you *never* know if you're getting reliable info until you check it. If it doesn't pan out, your subject is either dead or has had plenty of time to create new 'information' for you. In any case, the carrot has long been known to be more effective in the long run than the stick. Does that mean that information obtained through a reward system is 100% reliable? Of course not. The hard fact that proponents of torture and proponents of bribes alike wish to forget is that most info gleaned from either method is bogus. Reliance on prisoners or traitors for information is stupid, stupid, stupid. Should you ignore them? Of course not. Just be prepared to waste a lot of time sifting through chaff.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. :)
no, i do those from time to time...just to see who can tell the difference between typos and spelling errors. Better luck next time :)
yeah, let's make a big deal of someone reading our IMs but totally forget that email can be read too. Here's an idea...don't write anything online that you wouldn't want publiched. Problem solved.
That said, I doubt AOL employees really care about your fucking IMs.
xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx: LOL
supertard: heh
xXx-@DeathBecomesME@-xXx:dude, did you see that one show? LOL
supertard: yeah lollerz!1
*rolleyes* who fucking cares if they read your chat logs?
It isn't security through obscurity, it's security through absurdity.
I have obviously never used a Mac? Bullshit, buddy. You have obviously never heard the adage about assuming. Also, you don't get jokes. Good luck with the rest of your humorless, cold, antiseptic life, you grey, joyless chunk of bitterness. Since you claim programs have no reason to 'spew detritus', perhaps you can give your justification for doing same...
Also, please disregard this message. I'm too drunk to be posting right now, but for some reason I'm still able to. I'm going to have a few more drinks, which should solve that problem.
republic != constitutional republic != democracy. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. All constitutional republics are democracies, not all democracies are constitutional republics. In any case, the difference is esoteric enough that most people don't care. Our founding fathers, however, clearly did not want pure democracy. That's why they set up the oligarchy^W constitutional republic we enjoy to this day.
Yup. I know. That whoosh you heard a little while ago....that was the joke passing over your head.
Besides, I don't run any OS other than CP/M. Who needs a directory tree?
Thank you for getting it :)
Nah. They'll still charge you for them. You have to opt-out if you don't want them, and they don't let you opt-out. Even if you move and/or register with false info, they'll find you. The Trendy Mafia is inescapable. You can't trick the white-trenchcoated Apple thugs. They own j00, and they look more stylish than you while they're at it. Plus, they get more chicks than you.
Well, for starters, Linux doesn't have a Finder. Without a Finder, how can you Find anything? Additionally, Linux doesn't annoyingly^W conveniently switch to the desktop if you accidentally click a sliver of transparent space in a foreground window. Plus, Linux doesn't frown at you when there's a problem. Finally, Linux offers prominent and easy access to terminal windows, which is turrible, just turrible. Clearly, OSX RulEZ, LiNUx DrOoLZ.
They needn't be. Thus the point about 'codifi[cation] into the license'. The only one who was a Zen master was the original author. The rest are simply following the teaching.
Nobody's going to be like "Hey, you think your life sucks now? Hah, just wait until you get into the cage."
Really? Because that's exactly what happened to a friend of mine. Here in Texas, attempted suicide is illegal. A friend of mine was involuntarily committed for 2 years because of a suicide attempt. It didn't save her life. She didn't last a month. Hey, at least the government stepped in to make her more depressed. Also, they assured her family that it's impossible for people in 'hospitals' to commit suicide. When they were wrong, they didn't even apologize. If someone wants to kill him or herself, they will do so. Providing information to make it quicker or less painful might help them. At least they wouldn't suffer as much. We're not just talking about a web page that says 'Go kill yourself, you loser!'. We're also talking about assisted-suicide pages for those in daily, intense pain. In additiion, maddox.xmission.com would be unviewable in Australia. Sometimes it seems like banning stuff is good, but the focus is almost never as narrow as you think.
Hysteria over 'cell phone danger' is about as useful as fear of terrorists in Duluth. I bet you drive or ride in cars, right? You should be far more concerned about their dangers, as they're not only real, they're likely to occur. Bathtubs kill thousands of people each year. Lightning kills. People drown in puddles. People overdose on drugs and alcohol. People die accidental deaths every day. Even if cell phones actually did pose health hazards, they'd pale in comparison to hazards you deal with daily. I wonder how many people are fearing their cellphones while slamming down double cheeseburgers or doughtnuts or other unhealthy foods. Perspective, people. Please try and gain some.
Well, I guess my 'FoetalFone, Cellular Phones for the Unborn' concept is going to fail. *Snap*. Oh well, back to the ol' drawing board.
I was right there with you.....until you stated that a phone in a bag is less likely to be stolen than one in your pocket. Ummmmmm......really? I've had bags stolen before. I've never had anything stolen out of my front pocket. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I would hesitate to accept your assertion.
The kind of political discourse you say you remember from the past never actually existed outside the high school and college debate clubs.
Oh, well. Thank you for informing me that my experiences didn't really happen. I mean, since I was there and you were not, I thought I knew what went on. However, since you're apparently omniscient, I suppose I'll have to re-write my personal history.
Perhaps you didn't notice it then, or perhaps you're looking a the past through proverbial rose colored glasses.
Perhaps. Perhaps you're simply applying the filter of your experience to my life...which generally doesn't work too well.
Just because I phrase my point in humor and parody doesn't mean I'm not expressing a point.
While true, I never claimed otherwise. Your point could indeed be valid, but I thought what you wanted was for people to listen to your point, not just for it to be valid. What use is a valid point if people dismiss it because of your presentation?
leaving most of the down and dirty "outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol" to third party organizations and campaign workers.
Yes, and campaign workers were exactly who I was talking about when I said 'general public'. Oh wait, no they weren't.
American politics have always been vile and prone to use every dirty trick possible to tear down the opposition.
I think you meant to use the word 'politicians' above. That would be much more correct, especially as 'American politics' aren't capable of thought or action.
Again, you seem to be arguing that politicians and their immediate supporters have always used negative tactics. I never contradicted that. However, I have noticed that normal people, such as those one meets in bars, on planes, and in social situations as well as co-workers and the like are now spouting the same stuff. While mud has always been slung, I have had many non-combative political discussions in the past, or at least less combative. Lately, though, most political conversations can't be called discussions. Perhaps it is a local or regional thing, but my experiences are not subject to your revision. You may disagree with my conclusions, though you haven't seemed to address them yet, but you may not re-frame my life through your lens.
You used the wrong word. It doesn't matter if you spelled the word you meant to use incorrectly or if you chose the wrong word. The result is the same. You used a word that exists but which does not mean what you were trying to convey. It's important to use words properly, otherwise meaning becomes more difficult to determine. Sure, people might be able to extract meaning from context *now*, when the differences are small. However, as more words are used improperly, leading to more confusion, it becomes more difficult. That's why it's important to use the correct word. For the same reason, correct spelling is important. I don't believe spelling is quite as important as correct word usage, but poor spelling does contribute to lessened comprehension. It's particularly important to proofread when you tend to use words you didn't intend to use. This is because spell-checking software won't alert you to those types of errors. If you don't want people like me pointing out your improper word usage, I have a very simple solution for you: proofread your work.
Why do you insist on spelling flames as if they matter?
I spell flames as if they matter? Did you mean why do I insist on correcting poor spelling and improper word usage? If so, I've answered that question above. So far, your rebuttals haven't suggested that your error was an anomaly. You obviously can't use the language properly on your own. If you could, I wouldn't have to correct you, now would I?
I heard from some guy that Austrians all play the accordion and wear lederhosen. They *do* make accordions in Austria, so it must be true. I even provided a link!
Why would the production of a t-shirt prove anything? I can go to cafepress or t-shirt hell and make a t-shirt that says anything. Would a t-shirt that said 'all Austrians wish they were Australians' suddenly make that assertion true? I know they don't teach logic in schools anymore, but I hadn't realized how bad it had truly gotten. Note: Simply stating that you haven't proved your assertion is *NOT* the same as stating that it's false. LEARN TO USE LOGIC. It will help you avoid appearing quite so moronic.
I see. So I'm supposed to believe an anecdotal account from an internet stranger over my own experience? Why would I possibly do that? Would you take my unsubstantiated word as truth over your own experience? If so, you're an even bigger idiot than you appear. Simply stating 'studies show X' without backing it up is no better than anecdotal evidence. You put so much stock in vague, unnamed 'studies'. Why? Oh...right, I forgot. You have no head for logic. Studies show that most things you believe are supported by studies...at least, if you don't have to actually link to the studies. I didn't say 'I don't like it so it must be false'. I said 'Oh, well, internet stranger reports second-hand anecdotal evidence, so it must be true'. Of course, it was sarcasm. I didn't say it was necessarily false, I just said that internet strangers posting anecdotal evidence that conflicts with my actual experience as an American aren't going to convince me of anything. I should have expected someone else to come along and restate my position so that it is incorrect and then 'correct' it. It's funny, out of two or three threads in which you purport to have 'the real knowledge', you never post any links to hard evidence backing it up. Is that because you don't understand that making assertions requires proving them, or is it because these vague 'studies' that you keep referring to either don't exist or have serious flaws? I'm just curious, you needn't answer. Of course, you probably will, and your reply will no doubt mention some study or other. Oh, what fun.
You didn't misspell a word. You used it incorrectly. There's a large difference there. Also, how can episode three be a huge hit movie before it's even out? I can see that you have some rather major flaws, and you might consider taking a remedial English class in order to get your skills up to third-grade level.
I also wouldn't call a book with sales as high as snow crash 'an obscure genre book'. Then again, I like to be correct. You apparently prefer to be wrong. That's your choice, I suppose. Good luck with that.
Have a nice life!
Oh, well...anecdotal evidence, reported secondhand by an internet stranger....MUST be true.
Whatever.
funny, but not true
:)
Exactly as intended. Thanks
Hmm. I think you're wrong. I noticed it at least 5 years ago. It had to have happened sometime before that. I still don't know exactly when, but it isn't nearly as recent a phenomenon as you have indicated. Additionally, in the last election it was 'liberal this, karl rove that, lefty this, neo-con that' It is not now, nor have I ever known it to be, one-sided. Each side needs to stop blaming the other, take some ownership, and work it out. No, I'm not nearly naive or stupid enough to believe it will happen. I hold on to hope for a solution, even though I know it's a hope destined to be punched repeatedly in the face until it's a small, bloody lump of dead hope.
First of all, movies don't intend to do anything. They aren't capable of intending. Next: How do you know that even a single country exists where *no one* has heard of snow crash? You cannot POSSIBLY have definitive knowledge of this. Claiming that you do is ridiculous. You might have said 'where relatively few people have heard of snow crash' or something like that, but to claim that you know absolutely is rubbish. You are rubbish. You don't even know the meaning of the word 'intend'.
Speak for yourself.
Do you honestly think I'd speak for you? You wish.
Why make points when you can make jokes?
I'm a libertarian. I'm stating that up front, because I'm going to piss off Republicrats and Demopublicans alike and I want any claims of partisanship to at least correctly identify my party.
When did public political discourse devolve into outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol? I know it's been like that among politicians for quite a while, but I can rememebr a time when that was the exception in public discourse, not the norm.
Look, people: just because someone holds a belief that you disagree with, that doesn't mean they are evil or stupid. I highly doubt that the average Republican agrees with CFR or this measure. On the other hand, I would guess that almost all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation, agree with both. Not every issue has only two sides, and not all issues with only two sides can be split along repub/dem party lines. The kind of discourse you are engaged in will only appeal to those with whom you already agree. While that can be rewarding, is alienating people with whom you disagree really what you want to do? Would you not rather convice them of the correctness of your argument? It seems these days that no one wants to actually convince anyone else. Maybe that's because in order to get someone to listen to you, you must also be willing to listen to them. Everyone wants to be heard these days....but is anyone willing to listen?
Sure. Sodium pentethol.
Also, hypnosis in the suceptible.
Problem is, you *never* know if you're getting reliable info until you check it. If it doesn't pan out, your subject is either dead or has had plenty of time to create new 'information' for you. In any case, the carrot has long been known to be more effective in the long run than the stick. Does that mean that information obtained through a reward system is 100% reliable? Of course not. The hard fact that proponents of torture and proponents of bribes alike wish to forget is that most info gleaned from either method is bogus. Reliance on prisoners or traitors for information is stupid, stupid, stupid. Should you ignore them? Of course not. Just be prepared to waste a lot of time sifting through chaff.