I go to TVTropes to read stuff about books and anime and literature in general--TV shows and movies are scripted and use literary techniques like Checkov's Gun etc, so do books.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of installing CentOS because my employer can't be assed to pay for RHEL. Sure, we don't get the security updates feed--we get the updates, but we can't 'yum --security list' and see which pending updates are security related--but we just patch everything. Really unless you're the government, why would you pay for Linux? It's free!
So? Women should stay home. Maybe work somewhere part time, maybe have a flexible career they can jump in and out of, be functional at; but somebody needs to clean the house and raise the kids, women are going to get pregnant (usually), and running a house is fucking hard. Keeping my apartment clean is nearly a full time job; cooking for myself takes time; this plus career is stressful. There is a huge advantage to women staying home, although a couple can work together to share the load on keeping a house clean and on cooking; working and managing a home and having small children is ridiculously difficult and stressful, and when they're in school it's still harder to manage the house even though they're gone most of the day (you get home from work, they get home from school, they need your attention WHILE you manage the house!).
Women working means higher income for families, which means higher rent and house prices because you don't need all that money and the banks know where it belongs. And for your trouble, you can have a hellacious home life and never get your house clean and never have time to stay involved in school functions and let the school drift without guidance from the parents--and then the parents shout at the school every time they discipline their kids, because school is now glorified daycare and they don't want any part of it OR their kids. There's little upside to this.
Not the point. The argument was on where most men/women fall in terms of relative income, and the GP implied that assuming women don't need as much because men marry women who make less anyway and thus have income to handle this was "circular reasoning." Circular reasoning would be that women get lower salaries, thus men expect to marry women who make less, and thus expect to make up the slack, thus lower salaries are okay. What's actually happening is mostly women aren't going to have a high, steady income for a number of other reasons--income disparity in the same job function is only a minor cause, compared to women's career patterns.
While it may be true that women get paid less for the same job, this is not the reason men expect to marry a woman making less than them, and thus that is not in turn the reason women get paid less AND the cause of men expecting women to make less than them.
there's a world of difference between that and anyone having sexual contact with an 8-year-old. If you disagree with that, then maybe you should get psychological help.
The whole damn US disagrees with that, that's why 16 year old boys are "children" and exposure to pictures of titties is "severely damaging"
Circular reasoning would be well and good if we assume they have equivalent employment; however many women have part-time jobs or lower pay careers, for example as hostesses in restaurants (a step above teenager waitresses) or customer service, shift management in retail (a good $15-$20/hr), cashiers at K-mart, etc. A lot of women are part-time workers or seasonal workers, and stay home to raise children when they start having children.
Women do indeed tend to marry men who make more money; men do indeed tend to marry women who are not CEOs or Boeing engineers or $80k/year programmers for S&P500 software systems.
Ann Coulter is at least semi-sane policy wise (if cut throat) and Sarah Palin is at least fiscally conservative (in a strike-everything-that-looks-stupid-with-a-red-pen kind of way), but they're both still batshit crazy overall. I'd trust Palin to run this country's finances; I wouldn't trust her to run foreign policy. The worst part? EVERYONE ELSE WE'VE GOT RUNNING THE COUNTRY IS EVEN WORSE AT FOREIGN POLICY!
Coulter isn't a politician, she's a talking head. Her social policy is spotty. Her foreign policy is legitimate ("Why not have a war for oil? We need oil." That summarizes Ann Coulter nicely) but may not sit right with everyone (she would have a very aggressive diplomatic policy, which can have definite negative impacts). She might make a top-tier Republican candidate if she wanted to get into politics; at the very least she's not WORSE than what they're offering.
I'd bet money she's completely horrible with fiscal policy--anything you can barely say we "need" she'd sign off on, and to hell with where the money's coming from. That's what Palin's got: we need it why? And this is important why? Do you know how expensive this shit is? That's not good enough, give me a real reason besides "we don't have it". OOH DID YOU KNOW RUSSIA'S OVER THERE?!:D HIIIIIII VLADIMIIIIIIR! ^.^
Ron Paul is sane and also a fake Republican. He's only running as a Republican because you have to be in one of the two big kids' clubs or you go sit down and build a sandcastle in the playground sand.
Take your pick. By the way, Megyn Kelly reminds me of my mom, except down about 10 notches. Watch her when she finds anything that seems to support her, she draws out her speech and emphasizes and primps up like she's so proud of herself for being so much smarter than everyone else. She was the first news anchor I really noticed--the need to shoot this bitch in the face when I couldn't get out of earshot was pretty attention-grabbing (they put a TV in my office, it was set to news).
Oh god at 2:20 on that video, "*T*ax *T*ax *T*ax" emphasis just like my damn mom, Next she'll start raving that Obama is a muslim and the antichrist and talk about how gays are destroying the country and how the problem here is we don't have bibles in schools anymore.
We should duct tape Megyn Kelly to Rachel Maddow and throw them out of a plane with its windows rolled down.
(Has anyone noticed Megyn Kelly getting more militant around 2010-ish, and slowly cutting her hair shorter and shorter until she looked like a butch lesbian style... after she stopped arguing about how horrible it is we don't support the defense of marriage act and how it's okay to ridicule gays)
You assume ultra-conservatives must be better? You mortals are so narrow-minded, always imagining the universe as a line with one end 'good' and the other end 'evil', and everything that can be reduced to a line must be a battle between 'good' and 'evil'. There must be balance.
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing. The knowledge about atmospheric pressure and aerodynamics part is up for debate.
I saw that video and Romney's entire mannerism, diction, the way he smiled, the way he moved, was similar to a stand-up comedian doing a routine. He was clearly running a stream of jokes and trying to amuse himself and others; that doesn't mean the question wasn't posed as an insightful absurdity (i.e. something absurd and humorous, but warranting serious thought), but it WAS a joke. Can't tell from all that if he knew why the windows don't open. Suspending the laws of physics can be funny, though, re cartoons.
Stupid liberal bitch newscaster showed the video, stared at the camera with the most condescending look possible, and then said, "His wife just nearly died, and some people think he's joking? I don't see how he could have been joking." I'm like, "Seriously? I just watched him dance and smile and chuckle and drop strategic pauses to let the audience catch a laugh between punches, and you don't think he's joking?" It's obvious Romney was trying to be funny.
Yeah the LTR thing isn't going to be damaged by this. This is all no big deal; I've just been making a concerted effort to damage the world and corrupt the younger generation. You know the law doesn't say teenagers can't buy barley, and it doesn't make it illegal to teach them to make beer? You just can't serve them alcohol; you can totally serve them the means to produce alcohol, but they have to produce it in a household with a legal drinking age adult (the law doesn't proscribe that the person producing must be of legal age--in fact, it proscribes 100 gallons per legal adult up to 200 gallons, but it can be one legal adult producing that 200 gallons in a household with two legal adults).
Oh hell no, you can keep that. Guys are nasty and gross and girls gush goo everywhere and emit really strong, earthy smells that aren't entirely pleasant. That whole 'getting laid' thing is difficult and confusing and kind of stressful.
Actually, the representatives of the governed, representing the supposed interests of the governed, have instated laws to protect the better interests of the governed. These laws acknowledge the strategic import of secure intelligence and the lack of a general need for the governed to know details about important state-level functions that must be kept secret. Being that such things are asserted to be in the interest of the safety and security of the governed, and that the governed have elected representatives to look after their safety and security, we actually do have legitimate laws by which the governed specifically are not supposed to know certain things!
Those laws get abused; however, democracy is not such a system in which we simply ignore the law if we don't like it. Such abuse must be challenged, and it must be found that the law is not being used in a way that supports its function for those who challenge the law to retain their freedom. This is why we have a three branch system: the Executive branch, having the greatest interest in controlling the law, may only execute functions supported by the law; the Legislative branch, having its greatest interest in securing the votes of the people, may only create the law; and the Judicial branch, having no interest because judiciary positions are permanent and not subject to election, may interpret the law and dictate whether or not specific actions are in compliance with the law, thus restricting the power of the Executive branch.
The problem is the Executive branch will abuse the law in ways that are judicially sound; the Legislative branch is full of corrupt politicians acting on their own interests; and the Judicial branch is full of extremists appointed by the Executive branch who subsequently enjoy the right and responsibility to pass judgment on law which intersects their extreme political biases. The law may very well run afoul of the interest of the people; but if the law isn't changed and isn't directly against prescribed constitutional law ("not the will of the people" is not constitutional law--not unless 40 million of "the people" roll into Washington one day with a guillotine), then obviously it stands.
In such case where the law stands, then people have no right to know. An untrusted citizen with knowledge of an important state secret is a liability; according to our laws, we've placed trust in our representatives to determine who constitutes such a liability and have them dealt with.
The 'superhero' is an asshole who happens to be banging the shit out of your ex-girlfriend because she doesn't want to lose touch with his nine inch penis even though he treats her like shit in public. She'd be better off ditching him and coming back to you, but eh.
My mom is a cunt bitch who acted like she owned me as a slave and has never recognized a situation where she could have possibly been wrong in her life. I moved out because I was plotting how to get away with stabbing her in the throat and I figured the cost was higher than the return. She's already been hit by a car once and I almost killed her in labor, two good tries but no such luck; world will be better without her.
So starting up a business providing computer security services to banks doesn't help anyone? It's a great business opportunity, it gives a lot of opportunity for stable employment for programmers and security engineers and IT people who are needed for short-term projects (3, 6, 12 months) and would otherwise become consultants or get hired on for a short term. It creates internal positions for legal, accounting, HR, and even IT. The only one that benefits is the multi-millionaire CEO?
Other way around. I mean to indicate that girls do not have a propensity to screw every decent guy they meet, and if you're just not batting a thousand or at least a good 850 they'll kick you into the friend zone. You can make a move but things get awkward because she "just doesn't think of you like that." SHE can make a move, but that would be awkward too, and you know...awkwardness versus angry birds.... You might have some luck actually dating, which could lead to sex, but you're definitely not getting in her without upping the ante.
Crushing boredom with nothing to do seriously trumps awkwardness. Seriously, with no other alternative to keep occupied, people will stammer and blush and fumble around and resort to "so like, you wanna... I mean..." "uh... yeahhh I.. guess we could..." "ehehe... umm.. so yeah! I uh..." until they figure out how to get their clothes off, because if they stop embarrassing the shit out of themselves all they've got left is staring at a wall checking out the shadows cast by imperfections in the smoothness of the paint.
On the other hand, the iPhone has probably improved the spread of foundational Christian values in Georgia and Alabama, where there's absolutely nothing to fucking do and you keep getting locked in your house with your sister for 6-8 hours a day.
Slashdot Mirror
I go to TVTropes to read stuff about books and anime and literature in general--TV shows and movies are scripted and use literary techniques like Checkov's Gun etc, so do books.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of installing CentOS because my employer can't be assed to pay for RHEL. Sure, we don't get the security updates feed--we get the updates, but we can't 'yum --security list' and see which pending updates are security related--but we just patch everything. Really unless you're the government, why would you pay for Linux? It's free!
Was that the debate where Franken cited that the US South was basically "an undeveloped third world country"?
So? Women should stay home. Maybe work somewhere part time, maybe have a flexible career they can jump in and out of, be functional at; but somebody needs to clean the house and raise the kids, women are going to get pregnant (usually), and running a house is fucking hard. Keeping my apartment clean is nearly a full time job; cooking for myself takes time; this plus career is stressful. There is a huge advantage to women staying home, although a couple can work together to share the load on keeping a house clean and on cooking; working and managing a home and having small children is ridiculously difficult and stressful, and when they're in school it's still harder to manage the house even though they're gone most of the day (you get home from work, they get home from school, they need your attention WHILE you manage the house!).
Women working means higher income for families, which means higher rent and house prices because you don't need all that money and the banks know where it belongs. And for your trouble, you can have a hellacious home life and never get your house clean and never have time to stay involved in school functions and let the school drift without guidance from the parents--and then the parents shout at the school every time they discipline their kids, because school is now glorified daycare and they don't want any part of it OR their kids. There's little upside to this.
Not the point. The argument was on where most men/women fall in terms of relative income, and the GP implied that assuming women don't need as much because men marry women who make less anyway and thus have income to handle this was "circular reasoning." Circular reasoning would be that women get lower salaries, thus men expect to marry women who make less, and thus expect to make up the slack, thus lower salaries are okay. What's actually happening is mostly women aren't going to have a high, steady income for a number of other reasons--income disparity in the same job function is only a minor cause, compared to women's career patterns.
While it may be true that women get paid less for the same job, this is not the reason men expect to marry a woman making less than them, and thus that is not in turn the reason women get paid less AND the cause of men expecting women to make less than them.
there's a world of difference between that and anyone having sexual contact with an 8-year-old. If you disagree with that, then maybe you should get psychological help.
The whole damn US disagrees with that, that's why 16 year old boys are "children" and exposure to pictures of titties is "severely damaging"
But what if the females are poor negotiators and easier to take advantage of?
Women's lady-friends are all women they hate or used to hate. Women are immediately skeptical of each other, sometimes outright vicious.
Circular reasoning would be well and good if we assume they have equivalent employment; however many women have part-time jobs or lower pay careers, for example as hostesses in restaurants (a step above teenager waitresses) or customer service, shift management in retail (a good $15-$20/hr), cashiers at K-mart, etc. A lot of women are part-time workers or seasonal workers, and stay home to raise children when they start having children.
Women do indeed tend to marry men who make more money; men do indeed tend to marry women who are not CEOs or Boeing engineers or $80k/year programmers for S&P500 software systems.
Look, all I'm saying is why does a 30 year old man want to spend all day in a room filled with first grade girls?
Ann Coulter is at least semi-sane policy wise (if cut throat) and Sarah Palin is at least fiscally conservative (in a strike-everything-that-looks-stupid-with-a-red-pen kind of way), but they're both still batshit crazy overall. I'd trust Palin to run this country's finances; I wouldn't trust her to run foreign policy. The worst part? EVERYONE ELSE WE'VE GOT RUNNING THE COUNTRY IS EVEN WORSE AT FOREIGN POLICY!
Coulter isn't a politician, she's a talking head. Her social policy is spotty. Her foreign policy is legitimate ("Why not have a war for oil? We need oil." That summarizes Ann Coulter nicely) but may not sit right with everyone (she would have a very aggressive diplomatic policy, which can have definite negative impacts). She might make a top-tier Republican candidate if she wanted to get into politics; at the very least she's not WORSE than what they're offering.
I'd bet money she's completely horrible with fiscal policy--anything you can barely say we "need" she'd sign off on, and to hell with where the money's coming from. That's what Palin's got: we need it why? And this is important why? Do you know how expensive this shit is? That's not good enough, give me a real reason besides "we don't have it". OOH DID YOU KNOW RUSSIA'S OVER THERE?! :D HIIIIIII VLADIMIIIIIIR! ^.^
Ron Paul is sane and also a fake Republican. He's only running as a Republican because you have to be in one of the two big kids' clubs or you go sit down and build a sandcastle in the playground sand.
Take your pick. By the way, Megyn Kelly reminds me of my mom, except down about 10 notches. Watch her when she finds anything that seems to support her, she draws out her speech and emphasizes and primps up like she's so proud of herself for being so much smarter than everyone else. She was the first news anchor I really noticed--the need to shoot this bitch in the face when I couldn't get out of earshot was pretty attention-grabbing (they put a TV in my office, it was set to news).
Oh god at 2:20 on that video, "*T*ax *T*ax *T*ax" emphasis just like my damn mom, Next she'll start raving that Obama is a muslim and the antichrist and talk about how gays are destroying the country and how the problem here is we don't have bibles in schools anymore.
We should duct tape Megyn Kelly to Rachel Maddow and throw them out of a plane with its windows rolled down.
(Has anyone noticed Megyn Kelly getting more militant around 2010-ish, and slowly cutting her hair shorter and shorter until she looked like a butch lesbian style... after she stopped arguing about how horrible it is we don't support the defense of marriage act and how it's okay to ridicule gays)
"Stupid liberal bitch"
Wow, calm down there, partisan much?
You assume ultra-conservatives must be better? You mortals are so narrow-minded, always imagining the universe as a line with one end 'good' and the other end 'evil', and everything that can be reduced to a line must be a battle between 'good' and 'evil'. There must be balance.
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing. The knowledge about atmospheric pressure and aerodynamics part is up for debate.
I saw that video and Romney's entire mannerism, diction, the way he smiled, the way he moved, was similar to a stand-up comedian doing a routine. He was clearly running a stream of jokes and trying to amuse himself and others; that doesn't mean the question wasn't posed as an insightful absurdity (i.e. something absurd and humorous, but warranting serious thought), but it WAS a joke. Can't tell from all that if he knew why the windows don't open. Suspending the laws of physics can be funny, though, re cartoons.
Stupid liberal bitch newscaster showed the video, stared at the camera with the most condescending look possible, and then said, "His wife just nearly died, and some people think he's joking? I don't see how he could have been joking." I'm like, "Seriously? I just watched him dance and smile and chuckle and drop strategic pauses to let the audience catch a laugh between punches, and you don't think he's joking?" It's obvious Romney was trying to be funny.
Bell LaPadula. If your level is "Secret," shit you produce under your function is "Secret" or higher. Write-up, read-down.
Yeah the LTR thing isn't going to be damaged by this. This is all no big deal; I've just been making a concerted effort to damage the world and corrupt the younger generation. You know the law doesn't say teenagers can't buy barley, and it doesn't make it illegal to teach them to make beer? You just can't serve them alcohol; you can totally serve them the means to produce alcohol, but they have to produce it in a household with a legal drinking age adult (the law doesn't proscribe that the person producing must be of legal age--in fact, it proscribes 100 gallons per legal adult up to 200 gallons, but it can be one legal adult producing that 200 gallons in a household with two legal adults).
Oh, no, Alabamans have plenty of social skills.
With their siblings.
Oh hell no, you can keep that. Guys are nasty and gross and girls gush goo everywhere and emit really strong, earthy smells that aren't entirely pleasant. That whole 'getting laid' thing is difficult and confusing and kind of stressful.
Actually, the representatives of the governed, representing the supposed interests of the governed, have instated laws to protect the better interests of the governed. These laws acknowledge the strategic import of secure intelligence and the lack of a general need for the governed to know details about important state-level functions that must be kept secret. Being that such things are asserted to be in the interest of the safety and security of the governed, and that the governed have elected representatives to look after their safety and security, we actually do have legitimate laws by which the governed specifically are not supposed to know certain things!
Those laws get abused; however, democracy is not such a system in which we simply ignore the law if we don't like it. Such abuse must be challenged, and it must be found that the law is not being used in a way that supports its function for those who challenge the law to retain their freedom. This is why we have a three branch system: the Executive branch, having the greatest interest in controlling the law, may only execute functions supported by the law; the Legislative branch, having its greatest interest in securing the votes of the people, may only create the law; and the Judicial branch, having no interest because judiciary positions are permanent and not subject to election, may interpret the law and dictate whether or not specific actions are in compliance with the law, thus restricting the power of the Executive branch.
The problem is the Executive branch will abuse the law in ways that are judicially sound; the Legislative branch is full of corrupt politicians acting on their own interests; and the Judicial branch is full of extremists appointed by the Executive branch who subsequently enjoy the right and responsibility to pass judgment on law which intersects their extreme political biases. The law may very well run afoul of the interest of the people; but if the law isn't changed and isn't directly against prescribed constitutional law ("not the will of the people" is not constitutional law--not unless 40 million of "the people" roll into Washington one day with a guillotine), then obviously it stands.
In such case where the law stands, then people have no right to know. An untrusted citizen with knowledge of an important state secret is a liability; according to our laws, we've placed trust in our representatives to determine who constitutes such a liability and have them dealt with.
BJs help you keep your secretarial job at the executive level.
I play Go.
The 'superhero' is an asshole who happens to be banging the shit out of your ex-girlfriend because she doesn't want to lose touch with his nine inch penis even though he treats her like shit in public. She'd be better off ditching him and coming back to you, but eh.
My mom is a cunt bitch who acted like she owned me as a slave and has never recognized a situation where she could have possibly been wrong in her life. I moved out because I was plotting how to get away with stabbing her in the throat and I figured the cost was higher than the return. She's already been hit by a car once and I almost killed her in labor, two good tries but no such luck; world will be better without her.
So starting up a business providing computer security services to banks doesn't help anyone? It's a great business opportunity, it gives a lot of opportunity for stable employment for programmers and security engineers and IT people who are needed for short-term projects (3, 6, 12 months) and would otherwise become consultants or get hired on for a short term. It creates internal positions for legal, accounting, HR, and even IT. The only one that benefits is the multi-millionaire CEO?
Other way around. I mean to indicate that girls do not have a propensity to screw every decent guy they meet, and if you're just not batting a thousand or at least a good 850 they'll kick you into the friend zone. You can make a move but things get awkward because she "just doesn't think of you like that." SHE can make a move, but that would be awkward too, and you know ...awkwardness versus angry birds.... You might have some luck actually dating, which could lead to sex, but you're definitely not getting in her without upping the ante.
Crushing boredom with nothing to do seriously trumps awkwardness. Seriously, with no other alternative to keep occupied, people will stammer and blush and fumble around and resort to "so like, you wanna... I mean..." "uh... yeahhh I.. guess we could..." "ehehe... umm.. so yeah! I uh..." until they figure out how to get their clothes off, because if they stop embarrassing the shit out of themselves all they've got left is staring at a wall checking out the shadows cast by imperfections in the smoothness of the paint.
On the other hand, the iPhone has probably improved the spread of foundational Christian values in Georgia and Alabama, where there's absolutely nothing to fucking do and you keep getting locked in your house with your sister for 6-8 hours a day.