The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
That doesn't follow, actually. Having all of a species focused on breeding isn't necessarily the most advantageous thing for it. Even at the individual level, depending on circumstances, if I have enough brothers and sisters, the optimal strategy for passing on even the genes I specifically have might be for me to not attempt to breed, but rather to help rear my siblings' children.
Example from nature: bees. Lots of workers, only a few bees who even might breed.
Out of three people, you counted three who are just some kind of leeches and parasites, and at least two being scammers too. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. That someone could actually have a problem, or really any kind of empathy, doesn't even get a passing nod as a possibility.
This.
The intelligent response to leeches, parasites, and loophole-exploiters is to reform the system to eliminate them, as best you can. You'll never get it to be 100% but you can almost always get it to be closer.
The Rand (as viewed in her novels, at least) take is to instead assume that if there can be even one leech, parasite, or loophole-exploiter, everyone who benefits from the system must be one and the whole thing has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
This kind of thinking isn't uncommon in modern America, and people can be very good at ignoring their friends and family when applying it. A few weeks ago at a dinner with some friends, one of the friends' fathers was present and spouting a very stereotypically Randian rant about leeches living off the system. The dude was living on freaking government disability and had Medicare! It never occured to him for a second that maybe, the other people taking government help might be more like him and less like the sloth-demons of his imagination.
"Sick" days? That's, like, you're sick, you do no work, you're unproductive, but you still get paid?
It's also where I don't come to work, get very little done (because I'm sick, right?), and infect all my co-workers so that they, too, spend days getting very little done.
Sometimes paying a person to go away temporarily is actually the smart capitalist's response.
The problem with a phone/game platform is that people have to pay a contract which takes it away from a key market: kids.
This nails it.
I know at least 5 kids withi DSes for every adult I know with one.
Not to say that mobile phone gaming isn't on the rise; it clearly is -- but there are a couple key markets that, at this point, will not or cannot consider switching.
I'm not sure how "all of the PC's competitors' sales put together will finally equal the PC's sales" equates to "Stick a fork in the PC; it's done." It would still have a plurality of market share and be #1.
Put a "Word processor" shortcut on the desktop. That should pretty well handle it.
I take it you don't work or interact with people who use these things on a semi-regular or greater basis, then.
As opposed to becoming unpaid tech support for Microsoft Office?
Yes, because if they're one of the vast majority of people who are used to Office and they're using Office, at most you're tech support for new things they're trying to or bugs in Office.
With LibreOffice, you'll be unpaid tech support for the equivalent of all the above, plus anything that's different between the two pieces of software.
Hey, this is easy stuff. People should just be able to figure it out. But they generally can't, or won't. You should set your expectations accordingly.
But fear not, the generation that came before you already had the same feeling and begins to fill the HR positions and to influence decision-making process. Diploma is slowly becoming irrelevant.
Sure. Just like we're the generation that isn't going to get divorced because our parents did, or 50 other nice ideas that aren't actually happening.
You choose to believe the laws of thermodynamics were suspended in order for the Big Bang to occur, I believe God created things. Both of us believe something irrational.
Or, you believe in two irrational things: God, and a strawman version of Big Bang theory.
Actually I do know where most of it is spent, Defense.
It's something like 20%, give or take.
Seriously, do a little personal research on where the money goes, and then spend a few minutes thinking about the voting groups likely to oppose cutting that area. I think it will give you a real appreciation for
A) How genuinely hard it is to cut a significant amount of spending without cutting something that you, personally, think is important
B) How much harder even than that it is to cut a significant amount of spending that isn't close to political suicide, and
C) How full of it politicians and pundits (of any stripe) who make it sound anything less than excruciatingly hard are.
Which isn't to say we shouldn't try. Watching Britain struggle (somewhat more successfully) with the same issue right now is interesting, too. The more people understand this stuff, the more, I hope, we can move as a country towards real solutions and not sound-bite-ready fake ones.
Third trimester abortions are typically only legal in cases of serious danger to the health of the would-be mother, often confirmed by multiple unaffiliated physicians. Consider the serious restrictions on it in Kansas, since you bring it up. Do you not know this, or is this an inconveinient truth?
At some point, if you're going to insist that a woman carry a fetus to term even if it's likely to kill her, your position has become: Women deserve to die for the sin of getting pregnant.
I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.
There you have it. You don't really want freedom either: you've just convinced yourself that you do, and the freedoms you don't like are somehow morally wrong. There's basically no difference between you and the people banning Happy Meals.
He would rather have zero bearing and give people hope by showing us that yes, a man can play by the original rules, than sell out.
I'd rather have an elected representative that actually gets things done that better my life.
If I want to idolize someone who clings to sometimes bizarre principles at the expense of doing something useful, there's always the Pope. I don't need my Congressman to be that guy, too.
What is wrong about Palin ripping apart JFK, do some REAL research about him and him during his presidency and how he played with America's economy.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if everything she said about him is 100% true -- it's politically stupid to attack him, in a general-election sense, because he's a heroic martyr figure to too many Americans. It'd be like writing a book about what jerks Martin Luther King or John Lennon were -- there's virtually no chance of it not seriously alienating a lot more people than it wins over.
I HATE big government and I believe slowly we should be reducing our government size (such as agencies) by about half. Too many agencies do nothing but to provide jobs, where the private sector could be doing the same thing. In doing such a thing, our deficit will be reduced and by eliminating government slowly, jobs will be gained as they are lost
Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't seem to understand how or where the government is actually spending the vast majority of its money. Doing so is a pre-requisite for offering any realistic budgetary solution. (So is understand how the government gets its revenue, but that's another discussion entirely.)
At some point, you have to make peace with the fact that the union of your ideal of what you think should happen and what actually has a chance of happening is the empty set.
Right. That's why you have to go all Abu Ghraib on him first. People are eager to die for a cause but fewer are eager to be in a jail being humiliated and tormented by rednecks.
Disclaimer: I don't actually think this is what she meant, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
That doesn't follow, actually. Having all of a species focused on breeding isn't necessarily the most advantageous thing for it. Even at the individual level, depending on circumstances, if I have enough brothers and sisters, the optimal strategy for passing on even the genes I specifically have might be for me to not attempt to breed, but rather to help rear my siblings' children.
Example from nature: bees. Lots of workers, only a few bees who even might breed.
Out of three people, you counted three who are just some kind of leeches and parasites, and at least two being scammers too. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. That someone could actually have a problem, or really any kind of empathy, doesn't even get a passing nod as a possibility.
This.
The intelligent response to leeches, parasites, and loophole-exploiters is to reform the system to eliminate them, as best you can. You'll never get it to be 100% but you can almost always get it to be closer.
The Rand (as viewed in her novels, at least) take is to instead assume that if there can be even one leech, parasite, or loophole-exploiter, everyone who benefits from the system must be one and the whole thing has to be thrown out with the bathwater.
This kind of thinking isn't uncommon in modern America, and people can be very good at ignoring their friends and family when applying it. A few weeks ago at a dinner with some friends, one of the friends' fathers was present and spouting a very stereotypically Randian rant about leeches living off the system. The dude was living on freaking government disability and had Medicare! It never occured to him for a second that maybe, the other people taking government help might be more like him and less like the sloth-demons of his imagination.
Now that's some Grade A trolling.
Man, none of you guys have a clue. Have you read Rand or are you just regurgitating what you read on Wikipedia?
Rand's philosophy isn't about wealth, it's about expecting a fair reward for your inspiration and sweat.
You're responding to a post that didn't say anything about that. Did you respond to the wrong post?
A "big fan" of Ayn Rand wouldn't be in the business of government in the first place.
I suppose you've never seen an avowed member of a religion engage in acts completely anathema to the core tenets of said religion, either.
Rationalization is what separates us from the animals.
Except that the iPod Touch is not a phone, requires no contract, and plays the same games as the iPhone.
Sure. It's also not designed to take as much physical abuse as a DS is.
I don't know if you have kids, but I wouldn't give mine an iPod Touch. I'd be replacing it inside a week.
"Sick" days? That's, like, you're sick, you do no work, you're unproductive, but you still get paid?
It's also where I don't come to work, get very little done (because I'm sick, right?), and infect all my co-workers so that they, too, spend days getting very little done.
Sometimes paying a person to go away temporarily is actually the smart capitalist's response.
The problem with a phone/game platform is that people have to pay a contract which takes it away from a key market: kids.
This nails it.
I know at least 5 kids withi DSes for every adult I know with one.
Not to say that mobile phone gaming isn't on the rise; it clearly is -- but there are a couple key markets that, at this point, will not or cannot consider switching.
I'm not sure how "all of the PC's competitors' sales put together will finally equal the PC's sales" equates to "Stick a fork in the PC; it's done." It would still have a plurality of market share and be #1.
Put a "Word processor" shortcut on the desktop. That should pretty well handle it.
I take it you don't work or interact with people who use these things on a semi-regular or greater basis, then.
As opposed to becoming unpaid tech support for Microsoft Office?
Yes, because if they're one of the vast majority of people who are used to Office and they're using Office, at most you're tech support for new things they're trying to or bugs in Office.
With LibreOffice, you'll be unpaid tech support for the equivalent of all the above, plus anything that's different between the two pieces of software.
Hey, this is easy stuff. People should just be able to figure it out. But they generally can't, or won't. You should set your expectations accordingly.
Office Suite - $400!. But not if you use apt-get. Sssh, don't tell ANYONE.
This sounds like a great way to
A) Have to explain to everyone you tell this to why they can't find Word and
B) Become unpaid tech support for LibreOffice.
But this is Slashdot, where people who can't program their VCRs (and still have VCRs) can switch to free software without any problems.
Funny, that is the single be description of why so many people hate Lotus Notes/Domino.
I thought we hated it because it was a buggy/crashy piece of shit that even IBM wasn't using internally at one point.
(Note: I haven't touched Notes in about 4 years. Maybe it's awesome now.)
But fear not, the generation that came before you already had the same feeling and begins to fill the HR positions and to influence decision-making process. Diploma is slowly becoming irrelevant.
Sure. Just like we're the generation that isn't going to get divorced because our parents did, or 50 other nice ideas that aren't actually happening.
You choose to believe the laws of thermodynamics were suspended in order for the Big Bang to occur, I believe God created things.
Both of us believe something irrational.
Or, you believe in two irrational things: God, and a strawman version of Big Bang theory.
I did. You can tell I've been out of school too many years.
Actually I do know where most of it is spent, Defense.
It's something like 20%, give or take.
Seriously, do a little personal research on where the money goes, and then spend a few minutes thinking about the voting groups likely to oppose cutting that area. I think it will give you a real appreciation for
A) How genuinely hard it is to cut a significant amount of spending without cutting something that you, personally, think is important
B) How much harder even than that it is to cut a significant amount of spending that isn't close to political suicide, and
C) How full of it politicians and pundits (of any stripe) who make it sound anything less than excruciatingly hard are.
Which isn't to say we shouldn't try. Watching Britain struggle (somewhat more successfully) with the same issue right now is interesting, too. The more people understand this stuff, the more, I hope, we can move as a country towards real solutions and not sound-bite-ready fake ones.
Third trimester abortions are typically only legal in cases of serious danger to the health of the would-be mother, often confirmed by multiple unaffiliated physicians. Consider the serious restrictions on it in Kansas, since you bring it up. Do you not know this, or is this an inconveinient truth?
At some point, if you're going to insist that a woman carry a fetus to term even if it's likely to kill her, your position has become: Women deserve to die for the sin of getting pregnant.
Because people like you have no principles, period.
Bitch, don't even talk like you know me.
I do draw the line at abortion because I believe the right to swing your fist extends exactly to the tip of my nose. Thusly a woman should have all the right in the world to do with her body as she chooses, up to the point of killing a baby inside her.
There you have it. You don't really want freedom either: you've just convinced yourself that you do, and the freedoms you don't like are somehow morally wrong. There's basically no difference between you and the people banning Happy Meals.
He would rather have zero bearing and give people hope by showing us that yes, a man can play by the original rules, than sell out.
I'd rather have an elected representative that actually gets things done that better my life.
If I want to idolize someone who clings to sometimes bizarre principles at the expense of doing something useful, there's always the Pope. I don't need my Congressman to be that guy, too.
What is wrong about Palin ripping apart JFK, do some REAL research about him and him during his presidency and how he played with America's economy.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if everything she said about him is 100% true -- it's politically stupid to attack him, in a general-election sense, because he's a heroic martyr figure to too many Americans. It'd be like writing a book about what jerks Martin Luther King or John Lennon were -- there's virtually no chance of it not seriously alienating a lot more people than it wins over.
I HATE big government and I believe slowly we should be reducing our government size (such as agencies) by about half. Too many agencies do nothing but to provide jobs, where the private sector could be doing the same thing. In doing such a thing, our deficit will be reduced and by eliminating government slowly, jobs will be gained as they are lost
Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't seem to understand how or where the government is actually spending the vast majority of its money. Doing so is a pre-requisite for offering any realistic budgetary solution. (So is understand how the government gets its revenue, but that's another discussion entirely.)
At some point, you have to make peace with the fact that the union of your ideal of what you think should happen and what actually has a chance of happening is the empty set.
At least, if you want to accomplish anything.
and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution.
Just like everyone else who loves the Constitution, until following it would mean doing something you don't like.
Ron Paul is worthless?
In the sense that what he wants has roughly zero bearing on what Congress actually does, yeah.
Right or wrong, if you kill him becomes a martyr.
Right. That's why you have to go all Abu Ghraib on him first. People are eager to die for a cause but fewer are eager to be in a jail being humiliated and tormented by rednecks.
Disclaimer: I don't actually think this is what she meant, though.