Negro sounds more respectable than Nigger, my friend. The term 'colored' is too old fashioned; and many blacks are quite content with being 'black'. "African American" is too clinical for a PC term; Negro rolls off the tongue better, has neutral connotations, and provides an appropriate substitute if Black is too crude.
The English language is a pile of shit, but it at least brings a broad base to work from by its parasitic vampire bloodsucking consumption of other languages. We may as well mold it, form it, and use it to the fullest extent. There are blacks, and negros, and there are niggers--we can't forget the niggers. But you know, they're not really all niggers, not in the proper sense. If they were, the language would be less useful. And, maybe, the key tool to forming society being language, maybe they don't *want* to be niggers, so maybe if we don't tell them they're all niggers they'll try not to be niggers, without sacrificing the personal pride and heritage of being a negro or black or whatever you want to call it. You know, not being assimilated into a bland, flat society. Keep their individuality.
Actually, if you look at the parent post, you'll see it was about CCTV and about how the government putting CCTV everywhere is terrible as well as Google Glass. But then, dash cams everywhere filming you too. Bike helmet cams. And so on.
My point was people already bitch about shit other people own--big houses, private jets, hummers, stupid donks, animals, etc.
People bitch about things I own. I own a $1400 bicycle with $600 wheels--having upgraded from a $500 bicycle, ho-ly shit who knew?! People think it's their business to tell me I'm a horrible person for not buying a $50 40lb piece of shit from Toys-R-Us which would be "just as good" but fuck 'em.
I'm buying a $5000 piano--a Kawai CA-93--and people are telling me I don't need it and/or that a $300 piano or a plastic Yamaha $500 keyboard is "just as good" and rattle on and on about this like it's somehow hurting their quality of life.
You should see the way some people react when I talk about getting granite counter tops--apparently me having granite makes their quality of life poorer because everybody has granite and it's "overdone" (in the same way, I guess, that everyone having a refrigerator is overdone? Granite is fucking fantastic--yes, cement counter top is respectable, easily repaired, looks good, etc--but granite is really, really fucking awesome).
Look, a normal, poor city Negro has on average 9 to 11 credit cards depending on the year the census is taken. I've learned that most people have $15,000-$25,000 limits on each card and some of these people are up to 90% of their rolling.
I'm a rich man. I assure you I can handle a hell of a lot more plastic than some poor black kid--and coins don't go in your wallet; they're black, downtrodden, and poorly educated (our government is fail, public school sucks especially for poor kids), not retarded.
Science is not objective. If you question global warming, you'll be descended on by hawks all over the god damn place--try Fark or Slashdot for example. The more real evidence you bring, the more nonsensical this ridicule becomes--for example, the great conspiracy of replacing high-quality core samples with low-quality tree rings to eliminate the medieval warm period is countered with claims that the claims about the hockey stick model are part of a great conspiracy to discredit the hockey stick model... with of course no counter-arguments besides "Scientists all agree with this and they know what they're doing." "ClimateGate" bullshit didn't turn anyone around even when our overlords slipped and dropped some shit talking about their huge misconduct in the field. And of course we have the evidence that the whole debate is highly political--besides that it's obviously political because of the mass of politics surrounding it, you also tend to lose federal funding if you don't tow the Anthropogenic Global Warming line.
This happens everywhere. Science, politics, religion, business. When you go against the mass idealism, you get crushed. In science, we're mostly open and exploring: we have rules and we're actively looking to break them so we can do more cool shit like build warp drives. The moment it's no longer cool to break the rules, you get this shit. It's deep as shit in the global warming stuff; if we'd railed on stem cells for much longer, we would have made up some arbitrary bullshit rules there too and installed it as religious dogma that overrules medical science. And when you bring any of this up in context, people immediately attack you.
Science is the new Religion. Science is where skepticism comes from, but people point to science for truth and fact. You see people using science as a beating club to force their point, with no clue wtf they're talking about, and with no will to accept any possibility of flaw.
Meditation and spirituality, for example. Spirituality (sans-deity philoso-religious stuff mainly) is a pretty damn good template for self-improvement. The search for inner peace, the justification of morals (people believe the Just World Theory regardless--it's subconscious; you can't live without it, you'd shut down. Good people eventually get a break, bad people get bad karma, and recognizing that that's bullshit won't stop your brain from acting like it's not. The upshot is it's not worth being a good person, since you're just being stupid and missing good opportunities), these are things that are backed and supported by something called spirituality. Meditation is also considered a spiritual thing in most contexts. That all said, when you bring such things up, people throw them out completely and claim not only no value, but active detriment--because it's "hokey superstitious bullshit" and they lean on science and don't want to be poisoned by lies and the outdated beliefs of the uneducated masses. (Funny: Science has shown meditation to be beneficial.)
Living in a sterile world isn't really all that healthy.
I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?
Also the people claiming Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed are dumb. The person buying Google Glass isn't being videoed, so he doesn't have an incentive to not have it; it's everyone else who has an incentive for him to not have it. That doesn't stop the product from selling. If I become a billionaire, a lot of people will be pissed at my private yacht because they have wallets as small as their penises; but their penis envy won't stop me from owning a private yacht. (The fact that private yachts are boring as hell might--wtf am I going to do with a yacht?)
Yes. As I sad, there would be a lot of start-up cost. The process of processing plant fiber is largely identical; but removing it from hemp is a lot more intensive than plucking cotton puffs and milling out the seeds with a mechanical comb. Once you've harvested it, you can effectively drop that shit right into what we have now with minimal manufacturing adjustments.
The fact that this isn't just sew-and-go is important: the industry has been beaten down, and bringing it back represents a lot of market risk. People will ask, "If it's so great and cheap, why isn't anyone selling it?" That's your answer: they have to put down capital and take big risks to find out if the market will care. You have a superior product? Well we have cuter advertising so lol. Everybody likes Ambercrombie and Fitch and why should Ambercrombie and Fitch put up for a better product that might change the look-and-feel of their insanely popular brand? That's a risk you can fuck off with. Who you gonna sell hemp to?
Cotton lobby. Did you miss that part? They assassinated the hemp industry. They taught us this in HIGH SCHOOL where they insisted that smoking pot one time would give us permanent brain damage and kill our babies. They taught us hemp was great but that evil lobbyists got it banned. Mind you they didn't give us a product comparison, but they did tell us how it got banned in the first place.
If this country built a strong cannabis industry, right now, what would the benefits be?
Cannabis in the Industrial Hemp strain does not produce enough THC to get you high. The THC-production-ready strains represent an emerging market thanks to recent changes in the legislative climate.
All cannabis will grow in less-ideal conditions. It is easily grown and harvested on land unfit for the growth of more sensitive crops. See discussions about switchgrass for this concept; the benefits here are the same. Better land utilization means increases in economic wealth, as land is a wealth-bearing asset which holds less value when unused (You own land, but produce nothing? You can SELL it, but you're not gaining wealth by PRODUCING on it).
Industrial Hemp provides strong fibers which you can blend with clothes in 30% hemp 70% cotton to make cotton-like fabric of extremely light weight--sort of like silk--with high durability. Higher hemp content would be perfect for labor-clothes (i.e. denim), as it's ridiculously hard to cut and tear. Hemp is also very smooth and so very comfortable. Spun hemp fiber, being that hemp has better tensile strength, doesn't break down as easily under the stresses of wash and wear, and so produces less lint, so the clothing lasts longer.
Longer lasting, higher-quality clothing made from lower-cost materials means poor people can purchase clothing at a discount price and less often. They are then able to more effectively manage their money, improving their economic situation. The middle class and the rich similarly benefit, ending up with more money to spend elsewhere and stimulate other economic sectors. This represents an increase in wealth via a decrease in the destructive turn-over of goods (i.e. things don't wear out as fast, so are not destroyed as often; and the lower resource intensiveness of production reduces the amount of wealth sunk into creating the good, thus greatly increasing the wealth of society by replacing a high-cost good with a low-cost good of equal or greater value).
Hemp seed is highly nutritious and can be used for feed or food. Hemp seed oil can be processed into biodiesel fuel. Again, this allows for the use of unsuitable land toward a valuable economic end, thus increasing the wealth of society.
Hemp damages the cotton industry. The cotton industry, being large and powerful in the time of slave-negros, thus lobbied congress as is American tradition to produce protectionist laws. Hemp was, for a time, heavily regulated; moving onto hemp production would today require some relatively large start-up costs, despite that the process of spinning plant fibers into thread and yarn is largely the same. It would also incur a frightening amount of risk due to the risk of accidentally growing recreational cannabis (the plant is the same, the seeds look the same, and pollen on bees and in the wind from nearby grow operations could taint your crop and produce high-THC seeds). Government regulation of recreational cannabis would require regular DEA inspections, meaning expensive permits to cover the cost of these inspections, as well as the risk of determining that cross-pollination has created a hybrid and your entire crop can give folks a weak buzz--so you must now raze and burn it at your own expense, a huge loss of wealth.
We would have been better off if we didn't ban the stuff. Jefferson was, in a way, right. Maybe a little overzealous--it's a great crop with wonderful uses and a huge amount of economic benefit, but it's not the absolute top-priority of anything--but he was right.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL we'd #1 child pedophile cases and #1.0001 marijuana use, #2 hard drug users, #3 gay people committing tax fraud by filing jointly in states that don't have gay marriage. The state is ridiculously focused on moral crisis and prefers nice, safe risks--drug users, not drug cartels. Arrest the victim, but the guy who's trafficking Meth is... armed... leave him alone. Even if he DOES rape school children. ELEMENTARY school children. Dude those people will come cut your fucking head off, send the SWAT team to arrest the guy smoking pot instead.
I don't like how we implicitly bow to terrorists. Drug cartels want to play hardball? Okay, we'll play hardball. You motherfuckers crossed the border and decapitated a bunch of people who had Facebook accounts talking about how your drug cartel is evil? We're sending a god damn -army- to come get you, we will find you, and we -will- kill you. Hostages? We'll arrange for the funerals.
We need to get our priorities straight. Marijuana isn't just small-time; it's ridiculously harmless compared to the rest of the shit out there. It's low-hanging fruit: easy, low-risk stuff people just don't worry about because it's not going to fuck you up like cocaine or crystal meth or heroine, and that they can grow in their basement, so everybody has it. I don't smoke and even I know where I can get it--there's drug dealers across the street from me, I keep threatening them with a fucking pipewrench for trying to come hide their stash under my porch. There's 3 drug dealers in my parents' upper-middle-class, low-crime, white neighborhood in a 5 block radius from them! Half the people on my block probably grow their own. Most of these people are normal.
What else is out there? Coke and crack and meth and opiates and shit like bath salts. Forget the users, hang the dealers--and where are the dealers getting it? Who's importing this shit? Oh, those are armed cartels that will wage vicious, deadly war with the agents we send to get them? Boo-fucking-hoo, suit up and get your weapons ready! Cut OFF the flow of dangerous, deadly, viciously-addictive substances--worry about that instead of going after nigh-on-harmless low-hanging fruit and trying to shield our agents from harm while letting these assholes run around killing innocents. You signed up for this job, -you- go put yourself in harm's way trying to stop this shit, it's what you're paid for!
Nobody wants to do the hard jobs: Cut the source, admit that X is bad but Y isn't -that- bad, take the heat, take the flack, possibly get murdered. Cowards. Protecting their careers and their polyester suits and frothy lattes. I guess I can't talk; I fear nothing, when I put myself in harm's way it's not bravery so much as too-stupid-to-live. But god dammit some people need to be beat with a pipe wrench.
Unamused, Warner Bros. requested that the Marx Brothers at least outline the premise of their film. Groucho responded with an utterly ridiculous storyline, and, sure enough, received another stern letter requesting clarification. He obliged and went on to describe a plot even more preposterous than the first, claiming that he, Groucho, would be playing “Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart.” No doubt exasperated, Warner Bros. did not respond. A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.
The pacemaker packages have been upgraded to upstream version 1.1.8, which provides a number of bug fixes and enhancements over the previous version. (BZ#768522)
To minimize the difference between the supported cluster stack, Pacemaker should be used in combination with the CMAN manager. Previous versions of Pacemaker allowed to use the Pacemaker plug-in for the Corosync engine. The plug-in is not supported in this environment and will be removed very soon.
They at least warn that Corosync won't start Pacemaker in a future release--that's normal; we have the pacemaker init.d script running it, not the Corosync plug-in. Removing it during release would be a mistake, though.
They don't mention that they've removed crmsh and added PCS. They do give this warning:
With this update, Pacemaker provides a simpler XML output, which allows the users easier parsing and querying of the status of cluster resources.
Status, but not configuration. Nothing about configuration input, which was previosuly handled by crmsh but now is handled by pcs. pcs isn't even installed by default; you have to figure out that you need it, then install it. crmsh is removed by default when you upgrade.
The product wasn't fully supported. That's fine. Supplied as-is.
I want the product supplied as-is.
What I don't want is a product supplied as-whatever-the-fuck-happens. It's not functionally complete? It's not supported? Not guaranteed to work? Okay, we can manage that risk. It works for us, and then you rip half of it out and throw something completely different in, during a "stable" system release? Not okay.
I get that something might be "not complete or production ready" and I might come back like "Hey this breaks when we touch it this way" and get "... okay. We'll do something about that, eventually. We have other priorities right now." What I don't get is putting stuff out there as part of a "stable" distribution, marking that it's not supported, and then yanking the rug out from under people who use it. If it's "not supported" then you're at risk of it caving underneath you; you shouldn't be at risk of your asshole distributor coming back and causing the fucking cave-in on purpose.
Our company policy is non-existent and SOP is insane. We'll leave it at that. I've suggested jumping off RHEL repeatedly because it's such a shit heap, but I get arguments about how "the industry knows RedHat is a good product" when it's really not.
The fact is this "technology preview" is a critical feature for a huge business case--fail-over servers. You have to supply 99.999% SLA, so you have 3 servers, and when one fails it transfers its IP address to another one and there's barely a flicker. Yes, they broke that; and when they wrote the release documents, they didn't mention that they removed an entire configuration system.
On Ubuntu you have the guarantee that they won't fucking break release. They won't break release. They. Won't. Break. Release. Oh, shit, bzr isn't a thing anymore? Well, the current releases of Ubuntu that have bzr won't lose that until they've gone out of support cycle! LTS is supported 5 years? Everything in LTS is going to be there, working as-is, for 5 years! Guaranteed 100% absolutely! It won't be there in next release, so start migrating your shit off now; but it won't vanish overnight!
I blame the documented policy for being stupid and risky. It's inferior. It's like a car engine made of brittle iron versus de-sulfated iron: one of these is definitely better than the other. It's not a matter of "well one's a V8 and one's an I4, so you should understand that one of these has more power"; one of these will crack the block relatively easily, and would be acceptable if it were made of de-sulfated iron instead so it wasn't a brittle piece of shit.
What part of "we don't support this -at- -all-, but there will be no updates in current production stable release that break it" is hard to understand?
RedHat's tech preview include any sort of fail-over mechanism. That means you have to chose between the risk of running without high-availability and the risk of RedHat breaking your shit. When you do dev testing, and you find it breaks, you now have to deal with the risk of protracting your update cycle longer than would have been necessary if they had taken the liberty to ensure that updates will specifically not break what once worked. That means you're forced to take on greater risk no matter what you do.
RedHat Enterprise Linux is a giant beta testing field.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is an appeal to emotion.
It's a fact both that children have less life experience and that highly addictive and dangerous substances are difficult to learn from and adapt to. Heroine will addict you in 3-4 uses (not 1 like people say), and after fairly short-term use will put you in a situation where withdrawal can be fatal--not to mention your brain is screaming for it. I know folks who have been through it and gotten out of it as young as 12-14; their anecdotes are always the same: it's only their emotional support network of family and friends that pulled them out, otherwise they'd have never gotten off no matter how bad they'd wanted to.
The same can be said of student loans--18 year olds don't know anything about finances, and hell even most seasoned adults who have trudged all 30 years of a mortgage don't get it. How anyone thinks deferred loans are a good idea is beyond me. Maybe it's because people put too much value on education--more value than the sum total of their life, not to mention a stunted career unless you're in some form of education-driven skilled labor (i.e. medicine, law, higher level engineering/mechanics i.e. rockets and planes). Experience-driven skilled labor (automechanics, IT, management) benefits more from entering the career field early, taking college slowly, taking a broad-base education, and taking minimal and short-term debt.
It's not fallacious to assume that children and young adults are less experienced and more vulnerable. It is in fact a powerful strategy to market wares to the naive and build psychological attachment so that they become a profitable adult market--it's called 'grooming'. Drug dealers would do best to market their wares to young teens and turn them into addicts just like cigarette companies used to. This isn't an appeal to emotion so much as an acknowledgement of a fact.
Likewise, I specified that we're applying certain rules to things we determine to represent a wide social threat. Highly addictive substances are important; substances we're uncomfortable with but that represent low risk are not as important. Executing drug dealers for selling marijuana to kids is an appeal to emotion--especially with arguments about gateway drugs and their future forays into cocaine and prostitution to support their habits. Citing a problem that represents a societal threat to the adult population and tracing it back to the impact of indoctrinating young, mouldable minds is simple strategy.
As for cruel and unusual punishment, we live in a world where a highly immature and uncivilized segment of society has used a huge appeal to emotion to convince people that folks don't really fear pain or death. Execution is not a deterrent to murder, and the infliction of pain (called "torture" even if we're talking about something as banal as caning, which is little more than a short, painful beating) is thought to be a horror. For our trouble, what we do is shove people into prison for eternity instead of executing them; and, when we do execute them, we do so by injecting them with anesthetics so they feel no pain as they die peacefully.
How cruel it would be to take a poor man who steals a loaf of bread, beat him two dozen times, and send him home to his family. He might be sore when he returns to work the next day to barely earn money for food and rent. What we should do, what we do instead now, is send him to jail for 45 days, 60 days, 90 days. When he comes back he will be behind in rent, and his family will be starving, possibly evicted already and on the street; he likely will no longer have a job; but at least we're not so cruel as to drive screams of pain out of him by vicious application of the cane! No, we're much better sentencing him to a life on the streets where his best options are petty theft--or, perhaps, to become a drug dealer and have a chance at affording a home again one day. This is the superior, civil method of dealing with criminals--not that barbaric display of cruelty our ancestors used.
Watch what fallacies you call. You might want to look a little harder to see if perhaps you're standing on that very island.
Really? Because AMC and Regal are both charging $12-$18 per ticket, plus outrageous prices for popcorn and soda. Matinee child tickets are even almost 170% of the quoted standard price you gave, never mind adult ticket prices for evening fare being over 250%.
If you're always nice, friendly, sterile, and PC, people won't take you seriously. The landscape is non-threatening, and we all learn to smile and nod and pretend to play along and then go do our own stupid shit just the same.
When someone comes up and rams you in the ass for your shit, you learn different. Not faster--different. Life is about learning to manipulate people. People will beat the -shit- out of you if you go fingering their screaming, crying 13 year old daughter in the park--in order to not get the shit beat out of you, don't do that. If people just went, "Maybe you shouldn't do that," just a friendly suggestion, how much of this do you think would go on? Hint: We arrest folks for doing this sometimes.
The situation needs to become uncomfortable sometimes. Unpleasant conversations are easy to deal with. Constant ranting and screaming can create stress and interference; but it's not very effective. When you -really- fuck up, maybe you -need- your ass kicked; it's not appropriate all the time, but a few choice words and some raising of voice -will- get the point across PDQ.
How many people would you describe as ebullient? How many folks would you describe as cock-sucking assholes that need to extract themselves from civilized society and go hurl themselves and their immature fucking bullshit off a god damn cliff?
Not everybody has a dev environment for everything.
Not everything works because it's been tested. Every time we release something out of software in-house dev, it goes through a month of dev testing. Then... it breaks 15 minutes after it's released, and takes 3 hours to un-break.
Slashdot Mirror
Negro sounds more respectable than Nigger, my friend. The term 'colored' is too old fashioned; and many blacks are quite content with being 'black'. "African American" is too clinical for a PC term; Negro rolls off the tongue better, has neutral connotations, and provides an appropriate substitute if Black is too crude.
The English language is a pile of shit, but it at least brings a broad base to work from by its parasitic vampire bloodsucking consumption of other languages. We may as well mold it, form it, and use it to the fullest extent. There are blacks, and negros, and there are niggers--we can't forget the niggers. But you know, they're not really all niggers, not in the proper sense. If they were, the language would be less useful. And, maybe, the key tool to forming society being language, maybe they don't *want* to be niggers, so maybe if we don't tell them they're all niggers they'll try not to be niggers, without sacrificing the personal pride and heritage of being a negro or black or whatever you want to call it. You know, not being assimilated into a bland, flat society. Keep their individuality.
Actually, if you look at the parent post, you'll see it was about CCTV and about how the government putting CCTV everywhere is terrible as well as Google Glass. But then, dash cams everywhere filming you too. Bike helmet cams. And so on.
My point was people already bitch about shit other people own--big houses, private jets, hummers, stupid donks, animals, etc.
People bitch about things I own. I own a $1400 bicycle with $600 wheels--having upgraded from a $500 bicycle, ho-ly shit who knew?! People think it's their business to tell me I'm a horrible person for not buying a $50 40lb piece of shit from Toys-R-Us which would be "just as good" but fuck 'em.
I'm buying a $5000 piano--a Kawai CA-93--and people are telling me I don't need it and/or that a $300 piano or a plastic Yamaha $500 keyboard is "just as good" and rattle on and on about this like it's somehow hurting their quality of life.
You should see the way some people react when I talk about getting granite counter tops--apparently me having granite makes their quality of life poorer because everybody has granite and it's "overdone" (in the same way, I guess, that everyone having a refrigerator is overdone? Granite is fucking fantastic--yes, cement counter top is respectable, easily repaired, looks good, etc--but granite is really, really fucking awesome).
Vibram FiveFingers.
What the fuck do I care about what you think about my Google Glass?
Google Shoes will have built-in navigation based on the Google Car. No matter how drunk you get, they'll get you home from the bar.
Look, a normal, poor city Negro has on average 9 to 11 credit cards depending on the year the census is taken. I've learned that most people have $15,000-$25,000 limits on each card and some of these people are up to 90% of their rolling.
I'm a rich man. I assure you I can handle a hell of a lot more plastic than some poor black kid--and coins don't go in your wallet; they're black, downtrodden, and poorly educated (our government is fail, public school sucks especially for poor kids), not retarded.
Science is not objective. If you question global warming, you'll be descended on by hawks all over the god damn place--try Fark or Slashdot for example. The more real evidence you bring, the more nonsensical this ridicule becomes--for example, the great conspiracy of replacing high-quality core samples with low-quality tree rings to eliminate the medieval warm period is countered with claims that the claims about the hockey stick model are part of a great conspiracy to discredit the hockey stick model... with of course no counter-arguments besides "Scientists all agree with this and they know what they're doing." "ClimateGate" bullshit didn't turn anyone around even when our overlords slipped and dropped some shit talking about their huge misconduct in the field. And of course we have the evidence that the whole debate is highly political--besides that it's obviously political because of the mass of politics surrounding it, you also tend to lose federal funding if you don't tow the Anthropogenic Global Warming line.
This happens everywhere. Science, politics, religion, business. When you go against the mass idealism, you get crushed. In science, we're mostly open and exploring: we have rules and we're actively looking to break them so we can do more cool shit like build warp drives. The moment it's no longer cool to break the rules, you get this shit. It's deep as shit in the global warming stuff; if we'd railed on stem cells for much longer, we would have made up some arbitrary bullshit rules there too and installed it as religious dogma that overrules medical science. And when you bring any of this up in context, people immediately attack you.
Science is the new Religion. Science is where skepticism comes from, but people point to science for truth and fact. You see people using science as a beating club to force their point, with no clue wtf they're talking about, and with no will to accept any possibility of flaw.
Meditation and spirituality, for example. Spirituality (sans-deity philoso-religious stuff mainly) is a pretty damn good template for self-improvement. The search for inner peace, the justification of morals (people believe the Just World Theory regardless--it's subconscious; you can't live without it, you'd shut down. Good people eventually get a break, bad people get bad karma, and recognizing that that's bullshit won't stop your brain from acting like it's not. The upshot is it's not worth being a good person, since you're just being stupid and missing good opportunities), these are things that are backed and supported by something called spirituality. Meditation is also considered a spiritual thing in most contexts. That all said, when you bring such things up, people throw them out completely and claim not only no value, but active detriment--because it's "hokey superstitious bullshit" and they lean on science and don't want to be poisoned by lies and the outdated beliefs of the uneducated masses. (Funny: Science has shown meditation to be beneficial.)
Living in a sterile world isn't really all that healthy.
I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?
Also the people claiming Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed are dumb. The person buying Google Glass isn't being videoed, so he doesn't have an incentive to not have it; it's everyone else who has an incentive for him to not have it. That doesn't stop the product from selling. If I become a billionaire, a lot of people will be pissed at my private yacht because they have wallets as small as their penises; but their penis envy won't stop me from owning a private yacht. (The fact that private yachts are boring as hell might--wtf am I going to do with a yacht?)
Yes. As I sad, there would be a lot of start-up cost. The process of processing plant fiber is largely identical; but removing it from hemp is a lot more intensive than plucking cotton puffs and milling out the seeds with a mechanical comb. Once you've harvested it, you can effectively drop that shit right into what we have now with minimal manufacturing adjustments.
The fact that this isn't just sew-and-go is important: the industry has been beaten down, and bringing it back represents a lot of market risk. People will ask, "If it's so great and cheap, why isn't anyone selling it?" That's your answer: they have to put down capital and take big risks to find out if the market will care. You have a superior product? Well we have cuter advertising so lol. Everybody likes Ambercrombie and Fitch and why should Ambercrombie and Fitch put up for a better product that might change the look-and-feel of their insanely popular brand? That's a risk you can fuck off with. Who you gonna sell hemp to?
Cotton lobby. Did you miss that part? They assassinated the hemp industry. They taught us this in HIGH SCHOOL where they insisted that smoking pot one time would give us permanent brain damage and kill our babies. They taught us hemp was great but that evil lobbyists got it banned. Mind you they didn't give us a product comparison, but they did tell us how it got banned in the first place.
If this country built a strong cannabis industry, right now, what would the benefits be?
Cannabis in the Industrial Hemp strain does not produce enough THC to get you high. The THC-production-ready strains represent an emerging market thanks to recent changes in the legislative climate.
All cannabis will grow in less-ideal conditions. It is easily grown and harvested on land unfit for the growth of more sensitive crops. See discussions about switchgrass for this concept; the benefits here are the same. Better land utilization means increases in economic wealth, as land is a wealth-bearing asset which holds less value when unused (You own land, but produce nothing? You can SELL it, but you're not gaining wealth by PRODUCING on it).
Industrial Hemp provides strong fibers which you can blend with clothes in 30% hemp 70% cotton to make cotton-like fabric of extremely light weight--sort of like silk--with high durability. Higher hemp content would be perfect for labor-clothes (i.e. denim), as it's ridiculously hard to cut and tear. Hemp is also very smooth and so very comfortable. Spun hemp fiber, being that hemp has better tensile strength, doesn't break down as easily under the stresses of wash and wear, and so produces less lint, so the clothing lasts longer.
Longer lasting, higher-quality clothing made from lower-cost materials means poor people can purchase clothing at a discount price and less often. They are then able to more effectively manage their money, improving their economic situation. The middle class and the rich similarly benefit, ending up with more money to spend elsewhere and stimulate other economic sectors. This represents an increase in wealth via a decrease in the destructive turn-over of goods (i.e. things don't wear out as fast, so are not destroyed as often; and the lower resource intensiveness of production reduces the amount of wealth sunk into creating the good, thus greatly increasing the wealth of society by replacing a high-cost good with a low-cost good of equal or greater value).
Hemp seed is highly nutritious and can be used for feed or food. Hemp seed oil can be processed into biodiesel fuel. Again, this allows for the use of unsuitable land toward a valuable economic end, thus increasing the wealth of society.
Hemp damages the cotton industry. The cotton industry, being large and powerful in the time of slave-negros, thus lobbied congress as is American tradition to produce protectionist laws. Hemp was, for a time, heavily regulated; moving onto hemp production would today require some relatively large start-up costs, despite that the process of spinning plant fibers into thread and yarn is largely the same. It would also incur a frightening amount of risk due to the risk of accidentally growing recreational cannabis (the plant is the same, the seeds look the same, and pollen on bees and in the wind from nearby grow operations could taint your crop and produce high-THC seeds). Government regulation of recreational cannabis would require regular DEA inspections, meaning expensive permits to cover the cost of these inspections, as well as the risk of determining that cross-pollination has created a hybrid and your entire crop can give folks a weak buzz--so you must now raze and burn it at your own expense, a huge loss of wealth.
We would have been better off if we didn't ban the stuff. Jefferson was, in a way, right. Maybe a little overzealous--it's a great crop with wonderful uses and a huge amount of economic benefit, but it's not the absolute top-priority of anything--but he was right.
It was a joke. You'd have to be familiar with David Thorne's work to get it.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL we'd #1 child pedophile cases and #1.0001 marijuana use, #2 hard drug users, #3 gay people committing tax fraud by filing jointly in states that don't have gay marriage. The state is ridiculously focused on moral crisis and prefers nice, safe risks--drug users, not drug cartels. Arrest the victim, but the guy who's trafficking Meth is ... armed ... leave him alone. Even if he DOES rape school children. ELEMENTARY school children. Dude those people will come cut your fucking head off, send the SWAT team to arrest the guy smoking pot instead.
I don't like how we implicitly bow to terrorists. Drug cartels want to play hardball? Okay, we'll play hardball. You motherfuckers crossed the border and decapitated a bunch of people who had Facebook accounts talking about how your drug cartel is evil? We're sending a god damn -army- to come get you, we will find you, and we -will- kill you. Hostages? We'll arrange for the funerals.
We need to get our priorities straight. Marijuana isn't just small-time; it's ridiculously harmless compared to the rest of the shit out there. It's low-hanging fruit: easy, low-risk stuff people just don't worry about because it's not going to fuck you up like cocaine or crystal meth or heroine, and that they can grow in their basement, so everybody has it. I don't smoke and even I know where I can get it--there's drug dealers across the street from me, I keep threatening them with a fucking pipewrench for trying to come hide their stash under my porch. There's 3 drug dealers in my parents' upper-middle-class, low-crime, white neighborhood in a 5 block radius from them! Half the people on my block probably grow their own. Most of these people are normal.
What else is out there? Coke and crack and meth and opiates and shit like bath salts. Forget the users, hang the dealers--and where are the dealers getting it? Who's importing this shit? Oh, those are armed cartels that will wage vicious, deadly war with the agents we send to get them? Boo-fucking-hoo, suit up and get your weapons ready! Cut OFF the flow of dangerous, deadly, viciously-addictive substances--worry about that instead of going after nigh-on-harmless low-hanging fruit and trying to shield our agents from harm while letting these assholes run around killing innocents. You signed up for this job, -you- go put yourself in harm's way trying to stop this shit, it's what you're paid for!
Nobody wants to do the hard jobs: Cut the source, admit that X is bad but Y isn't -that- bad, take the heat, take the flack, possibly get murdered. Cowards. Protecting their careers and their polyester suits and frothy lattes. I guess I can't talk; I fear nothing, when I put myself in harm's way it's not bravery so much as too-stupid-to-live. But god dammit some people need to be beat with a pipe wrench.
Unamused, Warner Bros. requested that the Marx Brothers at least outline the premise of their film. Groucho responded with an utterly ridiculous storyline, and, sure enough, received another stern letter requesting clarification. He obliged and went on to describe a plot even more preposterous than the first, claiming that he, Groucho, would be playing “Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart.” No doubt exasperated, Warner Bros. did not respond. A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.
Entire exchange can be found on 27bslash6.com.
I would have directed the lawyer to the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
The pacemaker packages have been upgraded to upstream version 1.1.8, which provides a number of bug fixes and enhancements over the previous version. (BZ#768522)
To minimize the difference between the supported cluster stack, Pacemaker should be used in combination with the CMAN manager. Previous versions of Pacemaker allowed to use the Pacemaker plug-in for the Corosync engine. The plug-in is not supported in this environment and will be removed very soon.
They at least warn that Corosync won't start Pacemaker in a future release--that's normal; we have the pacemaker init.d script running it, not the Corosync plug-in. Removing it during release would be a mistake, though.
They don't mention that they've removed crmsh and added PCS. They do give this warning:
With this update, Pacemaker provides a simpler XML output, which allows the users easier parsing and querying of the status of cluster resources.
Status, but not configuration. Nothing about configuration input, which was previosuly handled by crmsh but now is handled by pcs. pcs isn't even installed by default; you have to figure out that you need it, then install it. crmsh is removed by default when you upgrade.
How wonderful that they've been so clear.
The product wasn't fully supported. That's fine. Supplied as-is.
I want the product supplied as-is.
What I don't want is a product supplied as-whatever-the-fuck-happens. It's not functionally complete? It's not supported? Not guaranteed to work? Okay, we can manage that risk. It works for us, and then you rip half of it out and throw something completely different in, during a "stable" system release? Not okay.
I get that something might be "not complete or production ready" and I might come back like "Hey this breaks when we touch it this way" and get "... okay. We'll do something about that, eventually. We have other priorities right now." What I don't get is putting stuff out there as part of a "stable" distribution, marking that it's not supported, and then yanking the rug out from under people who use it. If it's "not supported" then you're at risk of it caving underneath you; you shouldn't be at risk of your asshole distributor coming back and causing the fucking cave-in on purpose.
Our company policy is non-existent and SOP is insane. We'll leave it at that. I've suggested jumping off RHEL repeatedly because it's such a shit heap, but I get arguments about how "the industry knows RedHat is a good product" when it's really not.
The fact is this "technology preview" is a critical feature for a huge business case--fail-over servers. You have to supply 99.999% SLA, so you have 3 servers, and when one fails it transfers its IP address to another one and there's barely a flicker. Yes, they broke that; and when they wrote the release documents, they didn't mention that they removed an entire configuration system.
On Ubuntu you have the guarantee that they won't fucking break release. They won't break release. They. Won't. Break. Release. Oh, shit, bzr isn't a thing anymore? Well, the current releases of Ubuntu that have bzr won't lose that until they've gone out of support cycle! LTS is supported 5 years? Everything in LTS is going to be there, working as-is, for 5 years! Guaranteed 100% absolutely! It won't be there in next release, so start migrating your shit off now; but it won't vanish overnight!
I blame the documented policy for being stupid and risky. It's inferior. It's like a car engine made of brittle iron versus de-sulfated iron: one of these is definitely better than the other. It's not a matter of "well one's a V8 and one's an I4, so you should understand that one of these has more power"; one of these will crack the block relatively easily, and would be acceptable if it were made of de-sulfated iron instead so it wasn't a brittle piece of shit.
What part of "we don't support this -at- -all-, but there will be no updates in current production stable release that break it" is hard to understand?
RedHat's tech preview include any sort of fail-over mechanism. That means you have to chose between the risk of running without high-availability and the risk of RedHat breaking your shit. When you do dev testing, and you find it breaks, you now have to deal with the risk of protracting your update cycle longer than would have been necessary if they had taken the liberty to ensure that updates will specifically not break what once worked. That means you're forced to take on greater risk no matter what you do.
RedHat Enterprise Linux is a giant beta testing field.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is an appeal to emotion.
It's a fact both that children have less life experience and that highly addictive and dangerous substances are difficult to learn from and adapt to. Heroine will addict you in 3-4 uses (not 1 like people say), and after fairly short-term use will put you in a situation where withdrawal can be fatal--not to mention your brain is screaming for it. I know folks who have been through it and gotten out of it as young as 12-14; their anecdotes are always the same: it's only their emotional support network of family and friends that pulled them out, otherwise they'd have never gotten off no matter how bad they'd wanted to.
The same can be said of student loans--18 year olds don't know anything about finances, and hell even most seasoned adults who have trudged all 30 years of a mortgage don't get it. How anyone thinks deferred loans are a good idea is beyond me. Maybe it's because people put too much value on education--more value than the sum total of their life, not to mention a stunted career unless you're in some form of education-driven skilled labor (i.e. medicine, law, higher level engineering/mechanics i.e. rockets and planes). Experience-driven skilled labor (automechanics, IT, management) benefits more from entering the career field early, taking college slowly, taking a broad-base education, and taking minimal and short-term debt.
It's not fallacious to assume that children and young adults are less experienced and more vulnerable. It is in fact a powerful strategy to market wares to the naive and build psychological attachment so that they become a profitable adult market--it's called 'grooming'. Drug dealers would do best to market their wares to young teens and turn them into addicts just like cigarette companies used to. This isn't an appeal to emotion so much as an acknowledgement of a fact.
Likewise, I specified that we're applying certain rules to things we determine to represent a wide social threat. Highly addictive substances are important; substances we're uncomfortable with but that represent low risk are not as important. Executing drug dealers for selling marijuana to kids is an appeal to emotion--especially with arguments about gateway drugs and their future forays into cocaine and prostitution to support their habits. Citing a problem that represents a societal threat to the adult population and tracing it back to the impact of indoctrinating young, mouldable minds is simple strategy.
As for cruel and unusual punishment, we live in a world where a highly immature and uncivilized segment of society has used a huge appeal to emotion to convince people that folks don't really fear pain or death. Execution is not a deterrent to murder, and the infliction of pain (called "torture" even if we're talking about something as banal as caning, which is little more than a short, painful beating) is thought to be a horror. For our trouble, what we do is shove people into prison for eternity instead of executing them; and, when we do execute them, we do so by injecting them with anesthetics so they feel no pain as they die peacefully.
How cruel it would be to take a poor man who steals a loaf of bread, beat him two dozen times, and send him home to his family. He might be sore when he returns to work the next day to barely earn money for food and rent. What we should do, what we do instead now, is send him to jail for 45 days, 60 days, 90 days. When he comes back he will be behind in rent, and his family will be starving, possibly evicted already and on the street; he likely will no longer have a job; but at least we're not so cruel as to drive screams of pain out of him by vicious application of the cane! No, we're much better sentencing him to a life on the streets where his best options are petty theft--or, perhaps, to become a drug dealer and have a chance at affording a home again one day. This is the superior, civil method of dealing with criminals--not that barbaric display of cruelty our ancestors used.
Watch what fallacies you call. You might want to look a little harder to see if perhaps you're standing on that very island.
Really? Because AMC and Regal are both charging $12-$18 per ticket, plus outrageous prices for popcorn and soda. Matinee child tickets are even almost 170% of the quoted standard price you gave, never mind adult ticket prices for evening fare being over 250%.
If you're always nice, friendly, sterile, and PC, people won't take you seriously. The landscape is non-threatening, and we all learn to smile and nod and pretend to play along and then go do our own stupid shit just the same.
When someone comes up and rams you in the ass for your shit, you learn different. Not faster--different. Life is about learning to manipulate people. People will beat the -shit- out of you if you go fingering their screaming, crying 13 year old daughter in the park--in order to not get the shit beat out of you, don't do that. If people just went, "Maybe you shouldn't do that," just a friendly suggestion, how much of this do you think would go on? Hint: We arrest folks for doing this sometimes.
The situation needs to become uncomfortable sometimes. Unpleasant conversations are easy to deal with. Constant ranting and screaming can create stress and interference; but it's not very effective. When you -really- fuck up, maybe you -need- your ass kicked; it's not appropriate all the time, but a few choice words and some raising of voice -will- get the point across PDQ.
Why would you limit the use of a language?
How many people would you describe as ebullient? How many folks would you describe as cock-sucking assholes that need to extract themselves from civilized society and go hurl themselves and their immature fucking bullshit off a god damn cliff?
Not everybody has a dev environment for everything.
Not everything works because it's been tested. Every time we release something out of software in-house dev, it goes through a month of dev testing. Then... it breaks 15 minutes after it's released, and takes 3 hours to un-break.