Have you ever been a sysadmin? It's not just throwing bodies at a problem. I think most would rather do the overnight thing for a couple weeks than deal with whatever messes a two-week temp would make.
Covered, but not discussed, at least not to the level I'm used to from Slashdot. The discussion is the real value--this is one of the last bastions of comments above the youtube level on the internet.
Side note, averaging more than 1-2 emphasis words per sentence makes you look crazy. Doubly so if you use caps instead of bold/italic/underline.
Almost all of you say it, to some degree or another. It's just an accent, so you don't hear it. I guess our version of "about" sounds weird to you in some way?
Wait, what the fuck? I'm extremely skeptical the guy is anything but a murderer, but fuck no he shouldn't be lynched. If he's found guilty, he should go to jail, but even if you think the death sentence is cool torture should be no part of it. Revenge has absolutely no place in a justice system, not ever.
Language is a compromise between the speaker and the listener. You're both agreeing that a certain flapping of the lips or scratching of shapes has a certain meaning. That's why some things are okay to say in some contexts and not in others--because of the implicit agreement, or its lack.
It's a tough lesson to learn for an individualist who wants to be able to express themselves without the fear of being misinterpreted. I work very hard, continually, to examine and stamp out any sort of bigotry in my own thoughts--and it's there, every fucking time I tense up when I pass a black guy on the street. I hate it, it's unfair, it's bullshit, no black person has ever done something to harm me but I still tense up. Having been on the receiving end of something similar, I hate finding it in myself so much I can't even begin to explain how bad it makes me feel. And that's nothing compared to being on the other end of it. If you've never felt that helplessness... well, I can understand why it's hard to understand what it's like.
And for a time, I thought that my efforts gave me the privilege of speaking however I wished. Regardless of any other indoctrination I received from growing up in a rural extremely white town, the word has never been anything other than nonsense to me. I thought, "well, I don't mean black people when I say it, I've called my chair a n***** for christ's sake, so I shouldn't feel guilty about saying it." And, to be honest, if I'm in my own home calling my chair an n-word because I stubbed my toe on it, I don't feel the least bit guilty.
But when I'm out where there's the slightest possibility that somebody else will hear it, white or black, I don't say it. Because it's a bullshit thing to put on a black person, that they have to somehow figure out that I don't secretly think they're inferior when I say it, and it dredges up such painful crap, how could I ever ask someone to deal with that? Imagine if somebody casually brought up some horrific thing from your past, and your choice was to: a.) play it off, and deal with the fact that you're probably letting somebody get away with denigrating you for something you have no control over and makes no real difference, and they hate you for it, are probably laughing up their sleeve at you letting them get away with it, or b.) freak out about it and play right into the stereotypes about you. Wouldn't that pretty much just ruin your fucking day every time you were forced into that choice?
And I don't say it around white people, because I don't want to reinforce that it's okay. It's not, for the above reason, and because there's not a general agreement about what it means. I might say it, and to me it means <generic curse word>, but because of how quiet racism can be, the person I'm saying it to might hear <inferor not-us>. I don't want that quiet fucker to think he's got a teammate out there, because he goddamn doesn't.
So yeah, I think it's a bullshit standard. The whole fucking thing is bullshit, on every side. But until you come up with a way to instantly beam somebody your entire life experience and innermost thoughts, they do not hear the same thing you're saying. Not with that word. It's too loaded, and bullshit as it is, if you're smart you won't say it. Maybe if we clean up the rest of the bullshit we can join the club, but until black kids aren't warned not to walk around with their hands in their pockets, maybe you'd better just suck it up, princess.
If you were such an expert on sociopaths, you would know that advising one to go to a psychiatrist is pretty useless advice on a number of levels.
My (extremely un-sociopathic) point though, was that you aren't nearly as good as you think you are, so you 1.) shouldn't be so quick to judge people who rightly fear their every move being put under a microscope because you can make just about anything look contemptible with the right framing, and 2.) if you've never been put in a shitty situation, you'll be surprised just how big of a difference there is between how good of a person you think you are, and how good of a person you are when you're being threatened. The GGP appears to be somebody who's never had to face that, and dehumanizes anyone in power over him/her.
Hah, no. I'm still on my 3GS, bought for the feature set and not the rounded corners, almost a year out of contract and won't be getting a new one until the battery stops making it through a day, and I've never leased a car (or had a new one at all) in my life.
Just because I don't take part in conspicuous consumption doesn't mean I begrudge others their right to do so. I'm no Mother Theresa though, I've got my own faults (being an asshole on the internet for fun is one of them), and so I hope the conspicuous consumers out there forgive me mine back.
I know what happens. You slow down. I've also been in the car while somebody pulled the e-brake on dry pavement at 50 mph while turning the wheel. Queue dramatic screeching and a perfect 180. (he's an excellent stunt driver (very different from an excellent driver in general, which means safe, although his driving record of zero accidents over a 15-year career attests that he's that too, or at least lucky) but it still scared the shit out of me). If your e-brake doesn't slow you down, you have a broken emergency brake and your car probably shouldn't pass inspection.
You're also making the assumption that all e-brakes work the same way, which isn't true. Some cars (generally older ones, I think) use a pin against the drum. My car, which has disc brakes in the rear, directly attaches the cable to the caliper, bypassing the hydraulic system. Others use it, but don't rely on engine vacuum, others stop the front wheels, I'm sure there's plenty of other variations. The main point is, it's usually a redundant system, which is why it qualifies to be called an "emergency" brake. They're also usually ratcheting, which qualifies them to be called "parking" brakes. Most, you can call either and be correct.
As for emergency stopping, that's part of my test drive of a car, and part of my decision on whether to buy it or not is based on its behavior there. I'm not sure what part of my post made you assume that I'm a poor or irresponsible driver. I also... uh... "test" my car's handling on snow/ice by doing donuts in empty parking lots. Anyway, if you assumed that my handbrake won't slow my car down because yours doesn't slow your car down, you should get your car checked out.
Sometimes people buy things they don't need, just because they want it. Not everybody wants to be a robot "min-maxing" every aspect of their life--some of us want to enjoy it.
And hey, somebody's got to buy those new cars. They don't just roll out of the factory used so you can get your sweet deal. Looked at another way, you're just a leech feeding off all the people who have the resources to pay to actually have the vehicles built. I don't actually believe that, but for those unable to see shades of gray, there's still an alternative viewpoint.
That all depends on whether you think those patents were worth more, less than, or equal to a billion dollars. It's a reasonable assumption that they were either worth less than a billion dollars, or cash on hand is more valuable to AOL than the potential future earnings the patents represent. A cake next week doesn't mean much to somebody who's starving today.
That doesn't, however, discard the alternate possibilities: Microsoft got a shit deal on a bunch of worthless patents and AOL needs the cash now, or Microsoft got a great deal and AOL just sold the only thing that might have saved them for a short-term boost, or anything in between.
The statement isn't tortious because "tort" is not a synonym for "lie" or "doublespeak" or anything of the sort, and even if it was, a bland sales-lingo statement could hardly be misconstrued as anything to base a business decision on. Maybe you took it that way, but if so, I think I'm safe in assuming you don't have the money necessary to actually be harmed by such a claim.
Haha what a douche! He totally had something he enjoyed but was a poor financial choice, and then when the time came to be responsible he got rid of it for a (presumably) more sensible ride! What a loser!
Also, lease? Eeeeew! Can you believe somebody would choose to pay less on a monthly basis when they don't plan to keep the car past the lease duration instead of paying more and then going through the risk and hassle of selling it? Man! I'm so much smarter being upside-down and paying gap insurance on my zero-down loan instead of leasing. Or, should I say, "low-classing". What am I, a drug dealer? Boy it's great being smug.
It's always the same with these kinds of sociopaths- they really don't give a shit about anything which doesn't affect them personally. Anything which has that potential is feared, and if you observe their behavior you'll see most of their efforts are a direct result of such fears, and are directed towards making sure that when Shit Flies, it doesn't land on them.
Congratulations, you just described every living person. Not that I don't think that people in power are in general shitty people, but if the past is any example, you'd be the exact same way, and so would I.
So you'd rather have nothing as a last resort in case of emergency? Because if you discount the emergency/parking brake, that's what you have.
Or maybe you're saying it should be a great big lever painted in yellow and black stripes with rotating red lights, sirens, and steam. If that's the case I agree, that's an emergency brake.
Me? In an emergency, I'll grab whatever the hell is around to slow me down, and I don't give a damn it's called, I'll just be grateful to have a redundant system.
I'm terrified by people who use multiple punctuation marks. Mostly because it indicates that they're probably a 13-year-old girl, an incredibly dangerous group of people to be talking to on the internet.
Christians' (and all religious folks) minds are broken. Sometimes in very obvious ways, such as when they're giving tacit approval to the institutionalization of child sexual abuse by tithing to the Catholic church even after it was shown that they assisted priests in getting away with it. Sometimes in much more subtle ways. For instance, this guy seems to think there are absolute answers to everything. I suppose that's not such a big leap when you accept that there's an all-powerful all-knowing being. He says that they should have planned for the 15' tsunami regardless of the fact that it was a 1/10,000 year event because it happened. As in, it happened in the past. Therefore, they should have planned ahead for it. Because now that it's happened, the... probability (I have a real problem applying this word to a past event) that it would have happened is 100%. Which they should have planned for.
He says that we should have an infallable way to cool every reactor, or we shouldn't have reactors. Well, I guess there can only be one reactor, because there's only one pope to go around blowing on these things to keep everyone safe, and the probability that two reactors would break at once is 100% once two reactors have broken at once.
Sorry. It sucks. I'm sure they did lots of things wrong at Fukushima. Maybe one of them was drawing the line at a once in 10,000 years event, maybe it should have been a once in 100,000 years event. But saying that we should have some guaranteed way of making things safe is ridiculous. Nothing is 100% safe, and you can never, ever predict everything that might go wrong. I'm sure my actual argument will be drowned out by the fact that I took the opportunity to take a stab at the religious, but hey, I've got the karma to burn and it needs to be said until we stop treating these delusional people as intellectual equals.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of mandating vaccinations, make spreading a preventable disease a crime.
If vaccines caused autism, most people would probably opt out of most vaccines, and the relative risk from disease would skyrocket.
Have you ever been a sysadmin? It's not just throwing bodies at a problem. I think most would rather do the overnight thing for a couple weeks than deal with whatever messes a two-week temp would make.
Really? I can just kill everyone who takes a swing at me?
Covered, but not discussed, at least not to the level I'm used to from Slashdot. The discussion is the real value--this is one of the last bastions of comments above the youtube level on the internet.
Side note, averaging more than 1-2 emphasis words per sentence makes you look crazy. Doubly so if you use caps instead of bold/italic/underline.
Apparently you've forgotten about gravity.
Almost all of you say it, to some degree or another. It's just an accent, so you don't hear it. I guess our version of "about" sounds weird to you in some way?
Wait, what the fuck? I'm extremely skeptical the guy is anything but a murderer, but fuck no he shouldn't be lynched. If he's found guilty, he should go to jail, but even if you think the death sentence is cool torture should be no part of it. Revenge has absolutely no place in a justice system, not ever.
"No matter how little I eat, I just don't lose weight!"
Oh, yeah, I've heard of that. You've got one of those thyroid problems. You know, where it causes you to metabolize zero-point energy.
Yep, That's the Impression That I Get.
Language is a compromise between the speaker and the listener. You're both agreeing that a certain flapping of the lips or scratching of shapes has a certain meaning. That's why some things are okay to say in some contexts and not in others--because of the implicit agreement, or its lack.
It's a tough lesson to learn for an individualist who wants to be able to express themselves without the fear of being misinterpreted. I work very hard, continually, to examine and stamp out any sort of bigotry in my own thoughts--and it's there, every fucking time I tense up when I pass a black guy on the street. I hate it, it's unfair, it's bullshit, no black person has ever done something to harm me but I still tense up. Having been on the receiving end of something similar, I hate finding it in myself so much I can't even begin to explain how bad it makes me feel. And that's nothing compared to being on the other end of it. If you've never felt that helplessness ... well, I can understand why it's hard to understand what it's like.
And for a time, I thought that my efforts gave me the privilege of speaking however I wished. Regardless of any other indoctrination I received from growing up in a rural extremely white town, the word has never been anything other than nonsense to me. I thought, "well, I don't mean black people when I say it, I've called my chair a n***** for christ's sake, so I shouldn't feel guilty about saying it." And, to be honest, if I'm in my own home calling my chair an n-word because I stubbed my toe on it, I don't feel the least bit guilty.
But when I'm out where there's the slightest possibility that somebody else will hear it, white or black, I don't say it. Because it's a bullshit thing to put on a black person, that they have to somehow figure out that I don't secretly think they're inferior when I say it, and it dredges up such painful crap, how could I ever ask someone to deal with that? Imagine if somebody casually brought up some horrific thing from your past, and your choice was to: a.) play it off, and deal with the fact that you're probably letting somebody get away with denigrating you for something you have no control over and makes no real difference, and they hate you for it, are probably laughing up their sleeve at you letting them get away with it, or b.) freak out about it and play right into the stereotypes about you. Wouldn't that pretty much just ruin your fucking day every time you were forced into that choice?
And I don't say it around white people, because I don't want to reinforce that it's okay. It's not, for the above reason, and because there's not a general agreement about what it means. I might say it, and to me it means <generic curse word>, but because of how quiet racism can be, the person I'm saying it to might hear <inferor not-us>. I don't want that quiet fucker to think he's got a teammate out there, because he goddamn doesn't.
So yeah, I think it's a bullshit standard. The whole fucking thing is bullshit, on every side. But until you come up with a way to instantly beam somebody your entire life experience and innermost thoughts, they do not hear the same thing you're saying. Not with that word. It's too loaded, and bullshit as it is, if you're smart you won't say it. Maybe if we clean up the rest of the bullshit we can join the club, but until black kids aren't warned not to walk around with their hands in their pockets, maybe you'd better just suck it up, princess.
If you were such an expert on sociopaths, you would know that advising one to go to a psychiatrist is pretty useless advice on a number of levels.
My (extremely un-sociopathic) point though, was that you aren't nearly as good as you think you are, so you 1.) shouldn't be so quick to judge people who rightly fear their every move being put under a microscope because you can make just about anything look contemptible with the right framing, and 2.) if you've never been put in a shitty situation, you'll be surprised just how big of a difference there is between how good of a person you think you are, and how good of a person you are when you're being threatened. The GGP appears to be somebody who's never had to face that, and dehumanizes anyone in power over him/her.
Hah, no. I'm still on my 3GS, bought for the feature set and not the rounded corners, almost a year out of contract and won't be getting a new one until the battery stops making it through a day, and I've never leased a car (or had a new one at all) in my life.
Just because I don't take part in conspicuous consumption doesn't mean I begrudge others their right to do so. I'm no Mother Theresa though, I've got my own faults (being an asshole on the internet for fun is one of them), and so I hope the conspicuous consumers out there forgive me mine back.
I know what happens. You slow down. I've also been in the car while somebody pulled the e-brake on dry pavement at 50 mph while turning the wheel. Queue dramatic screeching and a perfect 180. (he's an excellent stunt driver (very different from an excellent driver in general, which means safe, although his driving record of zero accidents over a 15-year career attests that he's that too, or at least lucky) but it still scared the shit out of me). If your e-brake doesn't slow you down, you have a broken emergency brake and your car probably shouldn't pass inspection.
You're also making the assumption that all e-brakes work the same way, which isn't true. Some cars (generally older ones, I think) use a pin against the drum. My car, which has disc brakes in the rear, directly attaches the cable to the caliper, bypassing the hydraulic system. Others use it, but don't rely on engine vacuum, others stop the front wheels, I'm sure there's plenty of other variations. The main point is, it's usually a redundant system, which is why it qualifies to be called an "emergency" brake. They're also usually ratcheting, which qualifies them to be called "parking" brakes. Most, you can call either and be correct.
As for emergency stopping, that's part of my test drive of a car, and part of my decision on whether to buy it or not is based on its behavior there. I'm not sure what part of my post made you assume that I'm a poor or irresponsible driver. I also ... uh ... "test" my car's handling on snow/ice by doing donuts in empty parking lots. Anyway, if you assumed that my handbrake won't slow my car down because yours doesn't slow your car down, you should get your car checked out.
Sometimes people buy things they don't need, just because they want it. Not everybody wants to be a robot "min-maxing" every aspect of their life--some of us want to enjoy it.
And hey, somebody's got to buy those new cars. They don't just roll out of the factory used so you can get your sweet deal. Looked at another way, you're just a leech feeding off all the people who have the resources to pay to actually have the vehicles built. I don't actually believe that, but for those unable to see shades of gray, there's still an alternative viewpoint.
duel x16
En garde, all sixteen of you!
That all depends on whether you think those patents were worth more, less than, or equal to a billion dollars. It's a reasonable assumption that they were either worth less than a billion dollars, or cash on hand is more valuable to AOL than the potential future earnings the patents represent. A cake next week doesn't mean much to somebody who's starving today.
That doesn't, however, discard the alternate possibilities: Microsoft got a shit deal on a bunch of worthless patents and AOL needs the cash now, or Microsoft got a great deal and AOL just sold the only thing that might have saved them for a short-term boost, or anything in between.
The statement isn't tortious because "tort" is not a synonym for "lie" or "doublespeak" or anything of the sort, and even if it was, a bland sales-lingo statement could hardly be misconstrued as anything to base a business decision on. Maybe you took it that way, but if so, I think I'm safe in assuming you don't have the money necessary to actually be harmed by such a claim.
Haha what a douche! He totally had something he enjoyed but was a poor financial choice, and then when the time came to be responsible he got rid of it for a (presumably) more sensible ride! What a loser!
Also, lease? Eeeeew! Can you believe somebody would choose to pay less on a monthly basis when they don't plan to keep the car past the lease duration instead of paying more and then going through the risk and hassle of selling it? Man! I'm so much smarter being upside-down and paying gap insurance on my zero-down loan instead of leasing. Or, should I say, "low-classing". What am I, a drug dealer? Boy it's great being smug.
It's always the same with these kinds of sociopaths- they really don't give a shit about anything which doesn't affect them personally. Anything which has that potential is feared, and if you observe their behavior you'll see most of their efforts are a direct result of such fears, and are directed towards making sure that when Shit Flies, it doesn't land on them.
Congratulations, you just described every living person. Not that I don't think that people in power are in general shitty people, but if the past is any example, you'd be the exact same way, and so would I.
So you'd rather have nothing as a last resort in case of emergency? Because if you discount the emergency/parking brake, that's what you have.
Or maybe you're saying it should be a great big lever painted in yellow and black stripes with rotating red lights, sirens, and steam. If that's the case I agree, that's an emergency brake.
Me? In an emergency, I'll grab whatever the hell is around to slow me down, and I don't give a damn it's called, I'll just be grateful to have a redundant system.
Don't file bogus lawsuits unless you're a big corporation suing somebody too poor to sue back.
I'm terrified by people who use multiple punctuation marks. Mostly because it indicates that they're probably a 13-year-old girl, an incredibly dangerous group of people to be talking to on the internet.
WHERE'S THE CAT
...
*CLAP*
I guess you're kind of right. They're insane. I shouldn't be making fun of them.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor.
Christians' (and all religious folks) minds are broken. Sometimes in very obvious ways, such as when they're giving tacit approval to the institutionalization of child sexual abuse by tithing to the Catholic church even after it was shown that they assisted priests in getting away with it. Sometimes in much more subtle ways. For instance, this guy seems to think there are absolute answers to everything. I suppose that's not such a big leap when you accept that there's an all-powerful all-knowing being. He says that they should have planned for the 15' tsunami regardless of the fact that it was a 1/10,000 year event because it happened. As in, it happened in the past. Therefore, they should have planned ahead for it. Because now that it's happened, the ... probability (I have a real problem applying this word to a past event) that it would have happened is 100%. Which they should have planned for.
He says that we should have an infallable way to cool every reactor, or we shouldn't have reactors. Well, I guess there can only be one reactor, because there's only one pope to go around blowing on these things to keep everyone safe, and the probability that two reactors would break at once is 100% once two reactors have broken at once.
Sorry. It sucks. I'm sure they did lots of things wrong at Fukushima. Maybe one of them was drawing the line at a once in 10,000 years event, maybe it should have been a once in 100,000 years event. But saying that we should have some guaranteed way of making things safe is ridiculous. Nothing is 100% safe, and you can never, ever predict everything that might go wrong. I'm sure my actual argument will be drowned out by the fact that I took the opportunity to take a stab at the religious, but hey, I've got the karma to burn and it needs to be said until we stop treating these delusional people as intellectual equals.