Our last couple generations have been raised in an educational and society system that coddles us and makes us obedient to authority. We aren't independent, we aren't taught critical thinking skills, and we not only accept that our government is overstepping these bounds, but *expect* that they should be doing *more* . . . so they can "provide" more for us and "protect" us more.
So, why aren't more people pissed off and doing something about it? Because they don't think anything is wrong.
How many missiles, jet fighters, tanks, machine guns, infantry, medics, apaches, and nukes do you have for all this "standing up to tyranny" stuff? Don't get me wrong, I understand that the intention of the founding fathers was to provide the means for people to defend themselves - as a people - against the inevitable tyranny of governments . . . but in our modern world with our modern military, it's a little unrealistic even if you had 100% of the citizens involved, don't you think?
People have been concerned with privacy for decades, but suddenly reddit children got ahold of it this year and now it is suddenly hip to give a fuck... and worse, they think they're the first people to ever discover the concept of privacy and give a shit about it.
Anyway, I say most of us are probably at least halfway toward death. Maybe a lot closer for others of us. Enjoy the ride, read some good books and have a few parties. Let the shitty little snots enjoy the fucked up dystopia they and their parents have created for themselves, when we're gone.
TL;DR: After a life time of giving them, I am all out of shits to give.
Anyway, "twerking" is more or less putting your hands on your knees, squatting down, and jerking/bouncing/wobbling your hips and ass back and forth, so it looks like you're fucking someone who is on all-fours on the ground in the ass. It looks stupid, but has been around for awhile, I guess.
Anyway, this "we're adding new stupid shit to the dictionary!' thing isn't worth paying attention to. It's just a regularly scheduled self-promotion attempt. The stupider the thing they say they're "putting in the dictionary", the more publicity and attention they get for it.
Plus, the dictionary says that "literally" actually means "figuratively", so fuck dictionaries in their fucking face.
PTDS is such a cute and round-edged name intended to gloss over the harsh fact of shell-shock to the rest of society. "Hey, Johnny came back from life under nearly constant artillery strikes and having to see the most horrifying things for four years, but he just has PTSD which is super common and not a big deal".
We used to call that shit shellshock. It was a strong word with striking connotations, for a reason.
Yeah, I must be missing something here. Are those who do not get vaccinated putting those of us who are at serious risk? I assume maybe the more it is allowed to spread around and ramp up among the unvaccinated, the greater chance it has of mutating into a version that will infect the vaccinated? Is that it?
Oh, PS: Let's not forget the other "effort" the UN makes, which is to cite that something should be done and then American forces are the ones to do it. But that really has nothing to do with my actual point, which is that if we're sending troops somewhere to defend/fight for humanitarian purposes, then you'd think other countries would be leading the effort to do that, too. . . unless the justification and motivation on our part is all bullshit (which I think we know is the generally correct assumption to make).
I think you may have mis-parsed my words. Or, at least, are misrepresenting them in your rephrasing of them.
I said:
IF it is such an altruistic and humanitarian interest that deems we must get involved -- and not ulterior motives -- why is it only ever us?
In other words, we are always seemingly the first to go running around screaming "we have to send troops and save all those people from X, Y, or Z!" and, maybe, others will tag along afterward and say "okay, us too".
If assistance is truly needed for something and the motivation is really to help people in a situation, then where is everyone else? Shouldn't everyone else be saying "hey, we need to go in and help these people fight off X, Y, Z! -- come with us, America! Let's do this!"? If not, am I supposed to believe the reason is because the rest of the world is evil or indifferent and doesn't give a fuck about helping people rather than the possibility that maybe the US government is bullshitting us and trying to rally us around a bullshit justification by appealing to our desires to be good people doing good things?
I'm not saying the US doesn't step in and help in situations. When there are catastrophes, we're the first to send doctors and engineers and money. But any time we claim we're doing something to aid other people in other nations and we need to send military to facilitate it, it only seems to be for ulterior motives rather than actually doing good on behalf of a supposedly good people who want to help other people.
As for saying "the rest of the world uses the UN Peacekeepers'. I have to disagree with that. Sometimes military force is absolutely needed to assist others. The UN is a place nations can generally go and talk a good game, but do jack shit about anything. And when was the last time the UN Peacekeepers actually accomplished something? Standing around in a blue beret or helmet does fuck all. Weren't there UN Peacekeepers in Somalia? Rwanda? Kosovo? Sometimes you need military force to stand up for people. Even if they're not "you're people". Unfortunately, we don't ever seem to use our military force for that. We use them for other purposes and *claim* that is the reason we're sending them out. And then we get mired in it for a decade.
I just took a look and news.google.com looks the same as it did the last time I lookedat it a couple years ago. At least, I think it does. I don't think I ever used it enough to be able to make a knowledgeable comparison. It looks readable and somewhat uncluttered, though for what it is . . . ?
I'm baffled as to who spends so much time on facebook that this matters. I mean, seriously, is watching your idiot "friends" make idiot updates really that fucking fascinating?
I would be surprised if Marissa Mayer had any input into this decision. She comes from a company that was all about being sparse and packing-in just the right information. This seems antithesis to her style.
I was ready to dismiss this submission as "who gives a fuck about a bunch of whiny twats upset that a page has changed". But damn if it isn't absolutely hideous, cluttered, and difficult to read.
Let's not forget that Al Gore makes bank off stirring things up to benefit his whole Carbon Credits scam.
It's difficult to take anyone seriously when they've built a goofy market around something and then are constantly pumping up that market with hyperbole.
Exactly my thinking. If getting involved in all these middle eastern conflicts "for the sake of humanitarian purposes", then I have to ask 1) why only the middle east and why not back in Bosnia? Why not in Africa, when flat-out genocide is occurring there? and 2) If it is such an altruistic and humanitarian interest that deems we must get involved -- and not ulterior motives -- why is it only ever us? Why don't we see the UK, Russia, France, Canada, Japan, Australia or any other number of countries pushing for intervention and then us saying "we agree, we'll also assist"? Am I supposed to believe that we are the only nation on the face of the planet that somehow cares about helping people? C'mon....
That said . . . referencing the UN is a bit silly. Talk about a bunch of corrupt do-nothings who just sit on their hands.
Really? Because . . . I remember General Wesley Clark stating that ten days after 9/11, he spoke with another general who told him we were "going to war with Iraq" (and neither of them knew why) and that they were given a plan that we were going to invade seven middle eastern countries within five years. It has taken us longer than five years, surely, but we've sure been beating the drum to justify actions in these countries constantly, haven't we?
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
Actually, the really important metrics are less "how fast and how easily available", but how controlled, censored, and monitored?
I'll take my 30mbps, home-bound-connection-only service without censorship or monitoring (if it existed) over 200mbps or free city-wide-wifi anywhere that content is heavily filtered or monitored any day.
Because most people connect with random people in their social network that they don't know, don't follow, and won't ever really have anything to do with or communicate with. Additionally, because there is no way to certify that the identity or information you found online has any relation to the person who you are applying it to, simply because they have a similar or same name.
I banned a user from my site a decade ago because they were financially defrauding other members of the site and as a result, they "got back at me" by posting vile complaints about me on a "bad business" site (even though I don't actually DO any business) that doesn't ever remove anything about anyone for any reason ever. Should that really impact me? A random internet person who was a bad-agent griefing another person just because they got pissy impacting your financial credibility?
Not to mention, what if I don't use facebook? (I don't - I only sign up on social sites to stake claim to my name) Now am I negatively impacted, because I "have no social circle" the same way I am negatively impacted if I "have no credit history"? Suddenly, it's better to be connected with several deadbeat twats than nobody at all?
Yes. I'm one of them, here. But my point is that it is less likely to be a contributing factor from Slashdot.
That said, I'm not sure what use any of the connections are, when most of the people in someone's circle on a social work are not representative of people they choose to have part of their actual real-life circle. Almost all the people on any social network I use are a couple professional colleagues and random people I don't actually know at all. I don't even add my family to any of my social networks.
The real danger of all this is when people start posting defamatory things about an individual online or even starts posing as them online. Now it isn't even your supposed social-graph determining your credibility, but trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
Our last couple generations have been raised in an educational and society system that coddles us and makes us obedient to authority. We aren't independent, we aren't taught critical thinking skills, and we not only accept that our government is overstepping these bounds, but *expect* that they should be doing *more* . . . so they can "provide" more for us and "protect" us more.
So, why aren't more people pissed off and doing something about it? Because they don't think anything is wrong.
Good luck with all that, fellas.
How many missiles, jet fighters, tanks, machine guns, infantry, medics, apaches, and nukes do you have for all this "standing up to tyranny" stuff? Don't get me wrong, I understand that the intention of the founding fathers was to provide the means for people to defend themselves - as a people - against the inevitable tyranny of governments . . . but in our modern world with our modern military, it's a little unrealistic even if you had 100% of the citizens involved, don't you think?
People have been concerned with privacy for decades, but suddenly reddit children got ahold of it this year and now it is suddenly hip to give a fuck... and worse, they think they're the first people to ever discover the concept of privacy and give a shit about it.
Anyway, I say most of us are probably at least halfway toward death. Maybe a lot closer for others of us. Enjoy the ride, read some good books and have a few parties. Let the shitty little snots enjoy the fucked up dystopia they and their parents have created for themselves, when we're gone.
TL;DR: After a life time of giving them, I am all out of shits to give.
I'm truly sorry to be the one to teach you this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgoyVRO0A0E
Anyway, "twerking" is more or less putting your hands on your knees, squatting down, and jerking/bouncing/wobbling your hips and ass back and forth, so it looks like you're fucking someone who is on all-fours on the ground in the ass. It looks stupid, but has been around for awhile, I guess.
Anyway, this "we're adding new stupid shit to the dictionary!' thing isn't worth paying attention to. It's just a regularly scheduled self-promotion attempt. The stupider the thing they say they're "putting in the dictionary", the more publicity and attention they get for it.
Plus, the dictionary says that "literally" actually means "figuratively", so fuck dictionaries in their fucking face.
PTDS is such a cute and round-edged name intended to gloss over the harsh fact of shell-shock to the rest of society. "Hey, Johnny came back from life under nearly constant artillery strikes and having to see the most horrifying things for four years, but he just has PTSD which is super common and not a big deal".
We used to call that shit shellshock. It was a strong word with striking connotations, for a reason.
Frankly, this wouldn't be an unreasonable product if the audio was stereo instead of mono and the screen was as big as a 3DSXL screen.
Well, they've done so well with the "Wii U", which has seriously confused people who are not gaming enthusiasts.
Yeah, I must be missing something here. Are those who do not get vaccinated putting those of us who are at serious risk? I assume maybe the more it is allowed to spread around and ramp up among the unvaccinated, the greater chance it has of mutating into a version that will infect the vaccinated? Is that it?
If not, then . . . who cares?
Oh, PS: Let's not forget the other "effort" the UN makes, which is to cite that something should be done and then American forces are the ones to do it. But that really has nothing to do with my actual point, which is that if we're sending troops somewhere to defend/fight for humanitarian purposes, then you'd think other countries would be leading the effort to do that, too. . . unless the justification and motivation on our part is all bullshit (which I think we know is the generally correct assumption to make).
I think you may have mis-parsed my words. Or, at least, are misrepresenting them in your rephrasing of them.
I said:
IF it is such an altruistic and humanitarian interest that deems we must get involved -- and not ulterior motives -- why is it only ever us?
In other words, we are always seemingly the first to go running around screaming "we have to send troops and save all those people from X, Y, or Z!" and, maybe, others will tag along afterward and say "okay, us too".
If assistance is truly needed for something and the motivation is really to help people in a situation, then where is everyone else? Shouldn't everyone else be saying "hey, we need to go in and help these people fight off X, Y, Z! -- come with us, America! Let's do this!"? If not, am I supposed to believe the reason is because the rest of the world is evil or indifferent and doesn't give a fuck about helping people rather than the possibility that maybe the US government is bullshitting us and trying to rally us around a bullshit justification by appealing to our desires to be good people doing good things?
I'm not saying the US doesn't step in and help in situations. When there are catastrophes, we're the first to send doctors and engineers and money. But any time we claim we're doing something to aid other people in other nations and we need to send military to facilitate it, it only seems to be for ulterior motives rather than actually doing good on behalf of a supposedly good people who want to help other people.
As for saying "the rest of the world uses the UN Peacekeepers'. I have to disagree with that. Sometimes military force is absolutely needed to assist others. The UN is a place nations can generally go and talk a good game, but do jack shit about anything. And when was the last time the UN Peacekeepers actually accomplished something? Standing around in a blue beret or helmet does fuck all. Weren't there UN Peacekeepers in Somalia? Rwanda? Kosovo? Sometimes you need military force to stand up for people. Even if they're not "you're people". Unfortunately, we don't ever seem to use our military force for that. We use them for other purposes and *claim* that is the reason we're sending them out. And then we get mired in it for a decade.
I just took a look and news.google.com looks the same as it did the last time I lookedat it a couple years ago. At least, I think it does. I don't think I ever used it enough to be able to make a knowledgeable comparison. It looks readable and somewhat uncluttered, though for what it is . . . ?
I'm baffled as to who spends so much time on facebook that this matters. I mean, seriously, is watching your idiot "friends" make idiot updates really that fucking fascinating?
I would be surprised if Marissa Mayer had any input into this decision. She comes from a company that was all about being sparse and packing-in just the right information. This seems antithesis to her style.
My thoughts, exactly. It looks incredibly amateur and tends to violate every bit of readability common sense. Blech.
Yahoo! is the place I get linked to by people when they couldn't come up with another place to link me to a syndicated AP article.
I was ready to dismiss this submission as "who gives a fuck about a bunch of whiny twats upset that a page has changed". But damn if it isn't absolutely hideous, cluttered, and difficult to read.
Let's not forget that Al Gore makes bank off stirring things up to benefit his whole Carbon Credits scam.
It's difficult to take anyone seriously when they've built a goofy market around something and then are constantly pumping up that market with hyperbole.
Exactly my thinking. If getting involved in all these middle eastern conflicts "for the sake of humanitarian purposes", then I have to ask 1) why only the middle east and why not back in Bosnia? Why not in Africa, when flat-out genocide is occurring there? and 2) If it is such an altruistic and humanitarian interest that deems we must get involved -- and not ulterior motives -- why is it only ever us? Why don't we see the UK, Russia, France, Canada, Japan, Australia or any other number of countries pushing for intervention and then us saying "we agree, we'll also assist"? Am I supposed to believe that we are the only nation on the face of the planet that somehow cares about helping people? C'mon....
That said . . . referencing the UN is a bit silly. Talk about a bunch of corrupt do-nothings who just sit on their hands.
Really? Because . . . I remember General Wesley Clark stating that ten days after 9/11, he spoke with another general who told him we were "going to war with Iraq" (and neither of them knew why) and that they were given a plan that we were going to invade seven middle eastern countries within five years. It has taken us longer than five years, surely, but we've sure been beating the drum to justify actions in these countries constantly, haven't we?
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
Here's video of the talk he gave where he explained this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXsoYrXaMQ
Actually, the really important metrics are less "how fast and how easily available", but how controlled, censored, and monitored?
I'll take my 30mbps, home-bound-connection-only service without censorship or monitoring (if it existed) over 200mbps or free city-wide-wifi anywhere that content is heavily filtered or monitored any day.
Right. And the NSA only uses their spying powers "for good".
Because most people connect with random people in their social network that they don't know, don't follow, and won't ever really have anything to do with or communicate with. Additionally, because there is no way to certify that the identity or information you found online has any relation to the person who you are applying it to, simply because they have a similar or same name.
I banned a user from my site a decade ago because they were financially defrauding other members of the site and as a result, they "got back at me" by posting vile complaints about me on a "bad business" site (even though I don't actually DO any business) that doesn't ever remove anything about anyone for any reason ever. Should that really impact me? A random internet person who was a bad-agent griefing another person just because they got pissy impacting your financial credibility?
Not to mention, what if I don't use facebook? (I don't - I only sign up on social sites to stake claim to my name) Now am I negatively impacted, because I "have no social circle" the same way I am negatively impacted if I "have no credit history"? Suddenly, it's better to be connected with several deadbeat twats than nobody at all?
Yes. I'm one of them, here. But my point is that it is less likely to be a contributing factor from Slashdot.
That said, I'm not sure what use any of the connections are, when most of the people in someone's circle on a social work are not representative of people they choose to have part of their actual real-life circle. Almost all the people on any social network I use are a couple professional colleagues and random people I don't actually know at all. I don't even add my family to any of my social networks.
The real danger of all this is when people start posting defamatory things about an individual online or even starts posing as them online. Now it isn't even your supposed social-graph determining your credibility, but trolls.
Dude . . . it's Goldman Sachs.
I got the statistic from the same site you did and a month ago it was 4.6%.
Brothers are doin' it for themselves.
So you shut YOUR pie-hole! Yeah! Shut it! Shut it good!