I seriously hope you die this instant and save us all the trouble of your soon to be miserable existence.
I have to admit that I don't share this sentiment. I hope I burden you with my miserable existence for years to come.
I now regret saying this. I read Frank Miller's "300" last night (which was brilliant, by the way). Toward the end the hero addresses himself to a turncoat and curses him "May you live forever."
While your little spat of vitriol wasn't exactly the biggest issue on my mind, it immediately struck me that your little curse of death would have been best met with a curse of life.
You likely will die of some smoking related disease and if that's the case your treatment WILL be footed by the rest of the public. All for something you did on YOUR OWN free choice. I certainly didn't make you start and I certainly shouldn't have to pay for it.
Unlikely. I rarely smoke.
I agree you shouldn't have to pay (in that sense) for my choices. I fight tooth and nail against socialized medicine. There's no inconsistency in my positions, just in your assumptions.
Anyway, this is a foolish statement to make. We all live and die by our choices, don't we?
Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in a little electric car, for the benefit of the environment, and you are crushed by an SUV? Yes. Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in an SUV and you (we suppose) increase global warming and depletion of fossil fuel reserves? Yes.
Skydiving is dangerous. I have a buddy that bikes to work for his health. If he's hit by a car while on his bike that's an expense to society.
So we all have to make our choices. I'll happily stay out of yours. I request that you respond in kind.
Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?
That was a really pointless statement. I'll ignore your blatant troll.
Nope, just trying to cover all the bases.
Someone, somewhere thinks that any given thing is bad. Why do you or garcia get to decide?
By the way, you failed miserably at ignoring my statement.
It pisses me of that smokers like to get their cake when they smoke and also get to eat it too when they claim disability, get insurance claims, and court settlements because they were "tricked" into smoking.
That pisses me off too. I never claimed to have been tricked into smoking. Please do not lump me in with those jerk-offs.
I seriously hope you die this instant and save us all the trouble of your soon to be miserable existence.
I have to admit that I don't share this sentiment. I hope I burden you with my miserable existence for years to come.
1. I'm not addicted. I am extremely careful in my consumption of both alcohol and cigarettes. I rarely smoke on two consecutive days. I often stop smoking for weeks or months at a time to let my body purge itself of nicotine.
2. I don't believe in socialized medicine.
I agree with you 100% that the sword cuts both ways. I also consider myself to be libertarian.
You said: I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system.
I said: And you propose to achieve this by . ..voting for the same shitheads that are already in there?
You replied: I don't believe my candidate is one of the "shitheads", I think he's the best candidate who has any chance of winning. To vote otherwise would be to help out the candidate I absolutely do *not* want in office.
Are you saying that you'd like to see the voting system changed, but you think it can't happen? Or are you delusional about what "your candidate" will do in office? Or is there some third possibility I don't see here?
I still insist that this whole thing is pathological. You claim that you help a candidate by not voting for his major party opponent. Can this be true? Let's say everyone was so frustrated with the system that no one but you voted. You wrote yourself in. Would the candidate you don't want in office win because you helped him by not voting for his opponent?
No. If you don't vote "against" they guy you dislike you simply fail to offset someone else to voted "against" your guy.
But we fall into this tactcial voting death-spiral, which has given us . . . well . . . look around.
I perceive that the number of people inured into thinking that "their candidate" is the right man for the job is shrinking. I can only hope that this is true, and that change is afoot.
In any case, I insist that that change, which you claim to support, will not come from electing and re-electing the same "centrist" candidates.
What I wanted to bring light to is that Big Tobacco is fighting a financial war to keep their interests afloat when it is an addictive drug.
Okay class, would everyone who is not aware of the fact that cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive drug, please raise his or her hand. Anyone?
Anyone?
Okay, now, all of those who think it is wrong for a business to protect its financial interest raise his or her hand.
Thank you, Karl.
So, garcia, just what is it that you are saying? Selling drugs invalidates one's right to protect one's interests? That I should be allowed to smoke, but no one should be allowed to sell me cigarettes?
Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?
I'm really having trouble getting your point here, so, please, give it to me straight.
So you're going to throw away your vote because you feel neither candidate is ideal?
No. I'm going to invest my vote in being able to sleep at night. And I am voting for a candidate who I don't believe to be ideal. I'm voting for one that I find tolerable If either of the "major party" candidates were tolerable I'd vote for him.
I believe that we need campaign reform, and I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system.
And you propose to achieve this by . ..voting for the same shitheads that are already in there? Wake up, indeed.
It's a real pathological thing we have going here. We vote for the "lesser of two evils," then act all surprised when we get . . . evil.
We really need something like instant runoff voting or one of the Condorcet methods. As it stands we get the second most objectionable candidate. We need a system where we can choose the least objectionable candidate.
In the mean time, how do you justify voting for someone who is terrible? Given the choice between two highly objectionable candidates, I'll vote for one who "can't win."
Their biggest problem is that their business model is dead, it just hasn't cooled off yet. If they want to stick to a proprietary model they will HAVE to start supporting their products. The whole "who are you going to sue" thing has worn mighty thin. Everyone knows that Microsoft does all the suing.
The TCO argument might slow the hemorrhaging, but until they decided to buckle down and offer some value they will be doomed to a downward trend.
You'd be right if they were using the sort of setup you are describing, but they aren't. The Fine Article says they're using Akamai, which means there is no "they [sic] webserver."
On they chance you don't know, Akamai uses a world-wide mesh of webservers to serve up their client's sites. And since the site is full of video and such, one would expect this move to greatly reduce bandwidth expenses.
Email, as defined by RFC, is a plain text medium. Binary attachments are a legitimate extension of that medium. See RFC 2045 and friends. (Ever wonder why MIME is needed? It's because email is plain-text.)
HTML is plain text, but it isn't very human-readable, is it? It, thereby, violates the spirit of the RFC.
Furthermore, when it comes to communication, it takes two to tango. I resent it when people dictate that I must use a mail agent that renders HTML or slog through HTML source.
If you think that HTML should really be allowable in the body of emails, you should get cracking writing RFC 3822.
The fact remains that the SAME word was written in the summary with BOTH the British and American spellings. I don't have a big problem with the existence of the two standards, my gripe is with MIXING them. You know what, fuck it, mix 'em. But don't use two different spelling for the SAME FUCKING WORD in adjacent sentences.
So, do you have anything to say that relates to my actual point? I mean, I used bold and everything. Maybe if you got off your high horse for a second you could understand what someone else is saying.
Slashdot Mirror
For god's sake, would you take Alec Baldwin with you?
Four years later and he's still here.
-Peter
I now regret saying this. I read Frank Miller's "300" last night (which was brilliant, by the way). Toward the end the hero addresses himself to a turncoat and curses him "May you live forever."
While your little spat of vitriol wasn't exactly the biggest issue on my mind, it immediately struck me that your little curse of death would have been best met with a curse of life.
Well, life goes on.
-Peter
Feel free to substitue the word "objectionable."
It's just as true, just doesn't sound as good.
-Peter
Unlikely. I rarely smoke.
I agree you shouldn't have to pay (in that sense) for my choices. I fight tooth and nail against socialized medicine. There's no inconsistency in my positions, just in your assumptions.
Anyway, this is a foolish statement to make. We all live and die by our choices, don't we?
Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in a little electric car, for the benefit of the environment, and you are crushed by an SUV? Yes. Does society pay a price if you choose to get around in an SUV and you (we suppose) increase global warming and depletion of fossil fuel reserves? Yes.
Skydiving is dangerous. I have a buddy that bikes to work for his health. If he's hit by a car while on his bike that's an expense to society.
So we all have to make our choices. I'll happily stay out of yours. I request that you respond in kind.
Nope, just trying to cover all the bases.
Someone, somewhere thinks that any given thing is bad. Why do you or garcia get to decide?
By the way, you failed miserably at ignoring my statement.
That pisses me off too. I never claimed to have been tricked into smoking. Please do not lump me in with those jerk-offs.
I have to admit that I don't share this sentiment. I hope I burden you with my miserable existence for years to come.
-Peter
1. I'm not addicted. I am extremely careful in my consumption of both alcohol and cigarettes. I rarely smoke on two consecutive days. I often stop smoking for weeks or months at a time to let my body purge itself of nicotine.
2. I don't believe in socialized medicine.
I agree with you 100% that the sword cuts both ways. I also consider myself to be libertarian.
I guess we are in complete agreement!
-Peter
Hold on a second.
.voting for the same shitheads that are already in there?
You said: I'd love to see our voting system changed to something like an approval-based system.
I said: And you propose to achieve this by . .
You replied: I don't believe my candidate is one of the "shitheads", I think he's the best candidate who has any chance of winning. To vote otherwise would be to help out the candidate I absolutely do *not* want in office.
Are you saying that you'd like to see the voting system changed, but you think it can't happen? Or are you delusional about what "your candidate" will do in office? Or is there some third possibility I don't see here?
I still insist that this whole thing is pathological. You claim that you help a candidate by not voting for his major party opponent. Can this be true? Let's say everyone was so frustrated with the system that no one but you voted. You wrote yourself in. Would the candidate you don't want in office win because you helped him by not voting for his opponent?
No. If you don't vote "against" they guy you dislike you simply fail to offset someone else to voted "against" your guy.
But we fall into this tactcial voting death-spiral, which has given us . . . well . . . look around.
I perceive that the number of people inured into thinking that "their candidate" is the right man for the job is shrinking. I can only hope that this is true, and that change is afoot.
In any case, I insist that that change, which you claim to support, will not come from electing and re-electing the same "centrist" candidates.
-Peter
Yes! That's the one I was trying to think of. Damn you Cobb. Damn you for muddling my thinking with all your instant runoff nonsense!
Seriously, thanks Cybrr.
-Peter
Okay class, would everyone who is not aware of the fact that cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive drug, please raise his or her hand. Anyone?
Anyone?
Okay, now, all of those who think it is wrong for a business to protect its financial interest raise his or her hand.
Thank you, Karl.
So, garcia, just what is it that you are saying? Selling drugs invalidates one's right to protect one's interests? That I should be allowed to smoke, but no one should be allowed to sell me cigarettes?
Or is it just that you are mad that some people are very successful doing something that you think is a bad idea? Or just that they are successful?
I'm really having trouble getting your point here, so, please, give it to me straight.
-Peter
Stay off my back deck and out of the smoking section in bars I freqent and we won't have a problem.
-Peter
No. I'm going to invest my vote in being able to sleep at night. And I am voting for a candidate who I don't believe to be ideal. I'm voting for one that I find tolerable If either of the "major party" candidates were tolerable I'd vote for him.
And you propose to achieve this by . .
-Peter
It's a sad sate of affairs when you think you have the right to dictate to me what I consume.
Here's the clue; I am a grownup. If I want to smoke cigarettes (or stick them up my ass for that matter) that's none of your fucking business.
-Peter
Jorb? What, is that Coach Z's Ogg player?
-Peter
It's a real pathological thing we have going here. We vote for the "lesser of two evils," then act all surprised when we get . . . evil.
We really need something like instant runoff voting or one of the Condorcet methods. As it stands we get the second most objectionable candidate. We need a system where we can choose the least objectionable candidate.
In the mean time, how do you justify voting for someone who is terrible? Given the choice between two highly objectionable candidates, I'll vote for one who "can't win."
-Peter
Dude, seriously, these guys are aggressive and driven.
And have no morals.
Exactly what you are looking for.
-Peter
Right. It's all the media's fault we tune in to this crap. The candidates conspire to restrict the debate to arm-waving and personal attacks.
If only one would talk about real issues the electorate would flock to him.
Ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they give us what we (collectively) want?
-Peter
Damn, you beat me to it. Guess I'll just go feed the Yog-Sothoth.
-Peter
We don't expect anything more from brown people.
(Please note that is my analysis of what "we" think, not my personal opinion.)
-Peter
I think you can be a company man without lying.
Their biggest problem is that their business model is dead, it just hasn't cooled off yet. If they want to stick to a proprietary model they will HAVE to start supporting their products. The whole "who are you going to sue" thing has worn mighty thin. Everyone knows that Microsoft does all the suing.
The TCO argument might slow the hemorrhaging, but until they decided to buckle down and offer some value they will be doomed to a downward trend.
-Peter
Aww, comeon. LeChuck's just misunderstood. You try walking around with your beard on fire and see if you don't get a little grumpy.
-Peter
You'd be right if they were using the sort of setup you are describing, but they aren't. The Fine Article says they're using Akamai, which means there is no "they [sic] webserver."
On they chance you don't know, Akamai uses a world-wide mesh of webservers to serve up their client's sites. And since the site is full of video and such, one would expect this move to greatly reduce bandwidth expenses.
Regarding competence; glass houses, stones, etc.
-Peter
Do you resent the IETF defining email?
Email, as defined by RFC, is a plain text medium. Binary attachments are a legitimate extension of that medium. See RFC 2045 and friends. (Ever wonder why MIME is needed? It's because email is plain-text.)
HTML is plain text, but it isn't very human-readable, is it? It, thereby, violates the spirit of the RFC.
Furthermore, when it comes to communication, it takes two to tango. I resent it when people dictate that I must use a mail agent that renders HTML or slog through HTML source.
If you think that HTML should really be allowable in the body of emails, you should get cracking writing RFC 3822.
-Peter
They don't steal your soul, son. They steal your precious bodily fluids.
And remember, you needn't avoid women, but you must deny them your essence.
-Peter
I have a friend that pulls this same crap.
"Yeah, he voted for it, but he's really against it. I mean, all the tools in Congress voted for it."
How do other votes mitigate the fact that he voted for this thing?
-Peter
The title was a joke.
The fact remains that the SAME word was written in the summary with BOTH the British and American spellings. I don't have a big problem with the existence of the two standards, my gripe is with MIXING them. You know what, fuck it, mix 'em. But don't use two different spelling for the SAME FUCKING WORD in adjacent sentences.
So, do you have anything to say that relates to my actual point? I mean, I used bold and everything. Maybe if you got off your high horse for a second you could understand what someone else is saying.
Thanks for the rambling "lesson" anyway.
-Peter
Set, like one of each.
-Peter