Mod this funny? Really? The Obama being a terrorist because his name sounds like Osama joke wasn't funny the first time I heard it and sure as heck isn't funny now that I've heard it a million times.
Now, when the Wii was first proposed by Nintendo I was all about the path they were taking. When the system came out I was blown away by the new type of game play they were introducing to us and often parroted the same Nintendo line. Now I'm just tired of shitty mini games and sequels to games like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers that don't do anything of substance new (and don't get me started on the shit heap that is the new Paper Mario). At least on the other systems when somebody makes a lack luster sequel it a) looks noticeably better and b) has the extra disc capacity to generally throw something new in. The only games on the Wii that have any interest to me are light-gun shooters but this isn't enough to make me buy a system.
I'm just glad the system was in such short supply initially that I was never able to buy one. Several of my friends weren't so lucky and have Wiis sitting around collecting dust and express envy in regards to my ownership of an XBox 360. I thank them for the time on their Wiis which allowed me to make this fine choice.
Final Fantasy? Blech. Definitely not anything I'm interested in. Give me a good Bungie RPG over overly linear, menu driven nonsense anyday. Of course that still means I need to be playing non-Nintendo systems. Especially when one considers that the latest Paper Mario was bullshit in regards to satisfying fans of the series. Maybe I've missed something but Nintendo doesn't seem to be a very good place for RPG players right now.
Yeah, instrumentals are obviously huge based off your long list of (mostly) fringe artists with extremely popular instrumental songs. I can't turn on the radio without hearing instrumental after instrumental.
Wait, no. I can't remember the last time I heard an instrumental on the radio without tuning into a classical station. Now, I'm not saying a taste for instrumental rock (or any other instrumental music) is bad or anything but it is far from mainstream. Most people playing guitar hero are looking to play music with some relevancy to popular music.
My problem with modern conservatives today is that they send their representatives to congress to try to get as much money out of the federal government as possible and do so at the same rate as liberals (as far as I can tell). Furthermore, red states (generally speaking of course) eat up much more in the way of federal social program money than blue states and pay much less in. I don't understand the logic that wants small government yet milks as much out of the system as those that want big government. I don't get the logic of people who think social programs are a waste and then eat up more of these programs dollars than anyone else.
Of course there are conservatives that are true to the ideology of conservatism and "walk the talk" (and that's great) but it just doesn't feel like this is the norm based off the numbers.
"The article also shows that among famous programmers, the ratio of males to females is much larger than among normal programmers."
Obviously it's the extra typing appendage that makes all the difference. It's a well known fact that famous programmers, like myself, type with their keyboards on their lap.
There's a few of these posts up right now and I think they're all taking this stuff way too seriously. While I am sitting here failing to put into words my rationalization, I keep coming back to a small subset of my friends who work professionally with the mentally disabled. They all make cracks about the oddities (in some cases very extreme oddities) of their clients when they're off the job. On the other hand, however, they take their work very seriously and having seen them at their job I have no doubt to their commitment to these people.
While it's true that the people who submitted the above emails likely have some sort of mental issues that they should be seeing help for I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't get a kick out of some crazy conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure how to relate to somebody who can't see themselves as teenagers looking to have fun. I know I can speak for my self in regards to the fact that I spent most of my time in high school in accelerated classes but earning B's and C's because I was too busy going out and enjoying life. Looking for rationalizations from teenagers as to why one would settle for a "B' is ignoring what it means to be young.
Blue Ray only really has the same level of DRM restrictions as DVDs do. Obviously the consumer public has embraced DVDs, why would they have a problem with the DRM on blue ray disks?
While of course broad generalizations always have flaws here and there I pretty much agree with what you describe above in terms of the sources of values for the two competeing modern ideologies today. Urban centers, even in the deep south, show this trend while rural areas, even in California, show this trend as well.
The one thing I will ad to this, however, is that we are increasingly becoming an urban culture and have been for some time. The number of people in what would typically be called rural areas has been diminishing rapidly since WWII and at an ever increasing rate. In addition, even in rural areas today many of the social ills that used to be confined to urban areas now exist. Will the old value systems support this changing environment?
Wait... but if the article is correct and liberals make more money then they also pay more money into the system than the "poorer conservatives" (thanks to the graduated tax system liberals favor). It logically follows, therefore, that any universal health care system will be funded disproportionally by liberals. In essence these "poorer" conservatives will come out ahead while these "rich" "non-altruistic" liberals come out behind. So really the "other people's money" point here is kind of moot. A very convenient fact that many conservatives loath is that blue states pay into the system far more than they get back out (generally speaking of course) while the red states suckle at our teats to support their lackluster economies while the congress people keep asking for more.
Just because liberals perform their altruism through government doesn't make it less altruistic and there is nothing altruistic about a family forced into bankruptcy because Dad was unlucky enough to get cancer and couldn't afford insurance or get it through his job (a situation more and more of our middle class are now ending up in).
It's interesting but I think the author seems to be misinterpreting his data (my assumption, of course, is based exclusively on what is written in this article). I would suggest that many liberals altruistic needs are taken care of in how they vote while for conservatives, who's policies in government generally embody a "you're on your own" mentality, feel a greater need to give to charities. I mean, if conservatives were so altruistic, why wouldn't they favor universal health care so the poor no longer have to wait for medical emergencies before being seen in an emergency room and then end up ruined by debt.
Yeah, that's pretty much the story in America too. For years now, every time moderates or liberals try to discuss something the public perceives them to be better at than conservatives, the conservatives bring out the terrorist boogie-man claiming they'll do a better job protecting the country (apparently they are going about this by pissing the rest of the Muslim world off at us even more than they already were). About the only thing the public believes Republicans do better than Democrats is national defense and bringing out the boogie-man like this quickly scares enough people into line for them to win elections. This is basically how Kerry was defeated despite Bush's horrible mishandling of the war (a fact many conservatives even concede).
Fortunately (well only politically speaking. Otherwise, extremely unfortunately) the US economy being so deep in the shitter right now has greatly diminished the effect of this fear-mongering. Now McCain has turned to populism (which is really funny coming from a Republican) and has sold his sold to the religious right (which he was in no way affiliated with prior to his running for pres and who he had even spoke of negatively in the past).
The trailer is obviously a pre-rendered movie which is a very common means of depicting in between game play events in games (especially in Blizzard games) and the use of these movies in trailers to give the viewer a sense of the games background is not an uncommon practice at all.
For the last 6 decades at least, our government has run with a deficit most of the time. The few years during the 90's where we made a tiny dent in the deficit (certainly not great strides) was a deviation for the norm and the reason I said "generally" in my original post.
Not the way we do it. In the Keynesian model a country is supposed to only run a deficit during times of recession while during periods of economic prosperity a country is supposed to pay off any debt they have accrued and maybe save a little money for the next bust period. Our model goes more along the lines of running a deficit all the time.
Well there are some who are opposed because they would be apposed to any offshore drilling because they are ardent environmentalists but for most I think it's the small quantity yields being projected for many of the places being proposed to drill at. Furthermore, calling Scott Adams bias "fantastical and out there" is a bit ridiculous given how mainstream this opinion is (of course the position in favor of drilling is also mainstream).
On the other hand the only time I get passed on the right is when I am not paying attention to my driving like I should be and am sitting in the left lane while some one comes up behind me. What you describe sounds more like the occasional crazy that I make reference to above.
"You apparently read right past the part where I explained that not only do hypermilers not drive below the speed limit most of the time"
I never said hypermilers drive below the speed limit, I was talking about speed comfort levels.
"...but YOU are responsible for not hitting cars in front of you. There is a reason that it is automatically your fault if you rear-end someone."
I am well aware of this. It is, however, irrelevant to what I was talking about.
"As for the bullshit you spew in your second paragraph, since you are I-Was-Not-There-But-I'm-Going-To-Lecture-You Internet Asshole #2, I'm just going to refer you to my comment no. #25020179 and you can shove your snark up your ass. In most civilized countries, using a deceleration lane AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE USED would be respected, and someone obeying the rules regarding decleration lanes would not even be nearly hit ONCE, let alone TWICE."
You seem to be under the impression that I was addressing specifically the incident you described in the early post. I was not. I was merely making a broad based comment. Plus you should probably calm down.
While I think it's funny that your example drives the same vehicle I would use for almost every idiot driver I've encountered (that's right, most of you drive SUVs), I have to reject your notion that those who get frustrated by people hypermiling are crazies. While of course there are always those people out there who will drive recklessly and at insane speeds, most ordinary people get upset with hypermilers because they get in their way. If you have ever been stuck behind a person who is walking way too slow for your own comfort level then you know exactly what I am talking about.
Plus, if you are being passed on the right you are driving too slow. If you were driving in any civilized country besides the US you would have people flashing and honking at you. Unfortunately, this is considered "rude" in the US so those that hold others up in the passing lane often times feel justified driving there despite their inconveinencing everyone else on the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this funny? Really? The Obama being a terrorist because his name sounds like Osama joke wasn't funny the first time I heard it and sure as heck isn't funny now that I've heard it a million times.
This one's still up
http://www.barackobama.com/
ROTFLOL!!!1!!! Obama and Osama sound similiar so Obama must be a terrorist!! LOLLOL!!!! I've never heard that before!!!
Now, when the Wii was first proposed by Nintendo I was all about the path they were taking. When the system came out I was blown away by the new type of game play they were introducing to us and often parroted the same Nintendo line. Now I'm just tired of shitty mini games and sequels to games like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers that don't do anything of substance new (and don't get me started on the shit heap that is the new Paper Mario). At least on the other systems when somebody makes a lack luster sequel it a) looks noticeably better and b) has the extra disc capacity to generally throw something new in. The only games on the Wii that have any interest to me are light-gun shooters but this isn't enough to make me buy a system.
I'm just glad the system was in such short supply initially that I was never able to buy one. Several of my friends weren't so lucky and have Wiis sitting around collecting dust and express envy in regards to my ownership of an XBox 360. I thank them for the time on their Wiis which allowed me to make this fine choice.
Final Fantasy? Blech. Definitely not anything I'm interested in. Give me a good Bungie RPG over overly linear, menu driven nonsense anyday. Of course that still means I need to be playing non-Nintendo systems. Especially when one considers that the latest Paper Mario was bullshit in regards to satisfying fans of the series. Maybe I've missed something but Nintendo doesn't seem to be a very good place for RPG players right now.
Wow, HD support, huh? Welcome to the new millennium Nintendo.
Yeah, instrumentals are obviously huge based off your long list of (mostly) fringe artists with extremely popular instrumental songs. I can't turn on the radio without hearing instrumental after instrumental.
Wait, no. I can't remember the last time I heard an instrumental on the radio without tuning into a classical station. Now, I'm not saying a taste for instrumental rock (or any other instrumental music) is bad or anything but it is far from mainstream. Most people playing guitar hero are looking to play music with some relevancy to popular music.
My problem with modern conservatives today is that they send their representatives to congress to try to get as much money out of the federal government as possible and do so at the same rate as liberals (as far as I can tell). Furthermore, red states (generally speaking of course) eat up much more in the way of federal social program money than blue states and pay much less in. I don't understand the logic that wants small government yet milks as much out of the system as those that want big government. I don't get the logic of people who think social programs are a waste and then eat up more of these programs dollars than anyone else.
Of course there are conservatives that are true to the ideology of conservatism and "walk the talk" (and that's great) but it just doesn't feel like this is the norm based off the numbers.
"The article also shows that among famous programmers, the ratio of males to females is much larger than among normal programmers."
Obviously it's the extra typing appendage that makes all the difference. It's a well known fact that famous programmers, like myself, type with their keyboards on their lap.
"Penny Arcade is also running a two-part series on DRM from game journalists Brian Crecente and Chris Remo."
It's a three part series, only two parts are up. The third will be up on Monday.
I don't know. As long as said person isn't in the room, what's the harm in laughing at them?
There's a few of these posts up right now and I think they're all taking this stuff way too seriously. While I am sitting here failing to put into words my rationalization, I keep coming back to a small subset of my friends who work professionally with the mentally disabled. They all make cracks about the oddities (in some cases very extreme oddities) of their clients when they're off the job. On the other hand, however, they take their work very seriously and having seen them at their job I have no doubt to their commitment to these people.
While it's true that the people who submitted the above emails likely have some sort of mental issues that they should be seeing help for I really don't see any reason why we shouldn't get a kick out of some crazy conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure how to relate to somebody who can't see themselves as teenagers looking to have fun. I know I can speak for my self in regards to the fact that I spent most of my time in high school in accelerated classes but earning B's and C's because I was too busy going out and enjoying life. Looking for rationalizations from teenagers as to why one would settle for a "B' is ignoring what it means to be young.
Blue Ray only really has the same level of DRM restrictions as DVDs do. Obviously the consumer public has embraced DVDs, why would they have a problem with the DRM on blue ray disks?
While of course broad generalizations always have flaws here and there I pretty much agree with what you describe above in terms of the sources of values for the two competeing modern ideologies today. Urban centers, even in the deep south, show this trend while rural areas, even in California, show this trend as well.
The one thing I will ad to this, however, is that we are increasingly becoming an urban culture and have been for some time. The number of people in what would typically be called rural areas has been diminishing rapidly since WWII and at an ever increasing rate. In addition, even in rural areas today many of the social ills that used to be confined to urban areas now exist. Will the old value systems support this changing environment?
Wait... but if the article is correct and liberals make more money then they also pay more money into the system than the "poorer conservatives" (thanks to the graduated tax system liberals favor). It logically follows, therefore, that any universal health care system will be funded disproportionally by liberals. In essence these "poorer" conservatives will come out ahead while these "rich" "non-altruistic" liberals come out behind. So really the "other people's money" point here is kind of moot. A very convenient fact that many conservatives loath is that blue states pay into the system far more than they get back out (generally speaking of course) while the red states suckle at our teats to support their lackluster economies while the congress people keep asking for more.
Just because liberals perform their altruism through government doesn't make it less altruistic and there is nothing altruistic about a family forced into bankruptcy because Dad was unlucky enough to get cancer and couldn't afford insurance or get it through his job (a situation more and more of our middle class are now ending up in).
It's interesting but I think the author seems to be misinterpreting his data (my assumption, of course, is based exclusively on what is written in this article). I would suggest that many liberals altruistic needs are taken care of in how they vote while for conservatives, who's policies in government generally embody a "you're on your own" mentality, feel a greater need to give to charities. I mean, if conservatives were so altruistic, why wouldn't they favor universal health care so the poor no longer have to wait for medical emergencies before being seen in an emergency room and then end up ruined by debt.
Now I'm not saying your wrong but I've never heard that statistic before. Back up your claim please.
Yeah, that's pretty much the story in America too. For years now, every time moderates or liberals try to discuss something the public perceives them to be better at than conservatives, the conservatives bring out the terrorist boogie-man claiming they'll do a better job protecting the country (apparently they are going about this by pissing the rest of the Muslim world off at us even more than they already were). About the only thing the public believes Republicans do better than Democrats is national defense and bringing out the boogie-man like this quickly scares enough people into line for them to win elections. This is basically how Kerry was defeated despite Bush's horrible mishandling of the war (a fact many conservatives even concede).
Fortunately (well only politically speaking. Otherwise, extremely unfortunately) the US economy being so deep in the shitter right now has greatly diminished the effect of this fear-mongering. Now McCain has turned to populism (which is really funny coming from a Republican) and has sold his sold to the religious right (which he was in no way affiliated with prior to his running for pres and who he had even spoke of negatively in the past).
The trailer is obviously a pre-rendered movie which is a very common means of depicting in between game play events in games (especially in Blizzard games) and the use of these movies in trailers to give the viewer a sense of the games background is not an uncommon practice at all.
For the last 6 decades at least, our government has run with a deficit most of the time. The few years during the 90's where we made a tiny dent in the deficit (certainly not great strides) was a deviation for the norm and the reason I said "generally" in my original post.
Not the way we do it. In the Keynesian model a country is supposed to only run a deficit during times of recession while during periods of economic prosperity a country is supposed to pay off any debt they have accrued and maybe save a little money for the next bust period. Our model goes more along the lines of running a deficit all the time.
Well there are some who are opposed because they would be apposed to any offshore drilling because they are ardent environmentalists but for most I think it's the small quantity yields being projected for many of the places being proposed to drill at. Furthermore, calling Scott Adams bias "fantastical and out there" is a bit ridiculous given how mainstream this opinion is (of course the position in favor of drilling is also mainstream).
On the other hand the only time I get passed on the right is when I am not paying attention to my driving like I should be and am sitting in the left lane while some one comes up behind me. What you describe sounds more like the occasional crazy that I make reference to above.
"You apparently read right past the part where I explained that not only do hypermilers not drive below the speed limit most of the time"
I never said hypermilers drive below the speed limit, I was talking about speed comfort levels.
"...but YOU are responsible for not hitting cars in front of you. There is a reason that it is automatically your fault if you rear-end someone."
I am well aware of this. It is, however, irrelevant to what I was talking about.
"As for the bullshit you spew in your second paragraph, since you are I-Was-Not-There-But-I'm-Going-To-Lecture-You Internet Asshole #2, I'm just going to refer you to my comment no. #25020179 and you can shove your snark up your ass. In most civilized countries, using a deceleration lane AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE USED would be respected, and someone obeying the rules regarding decleration lanes would not even be nearly hit ONCE, let alone TWICE."
You seem to be under the impression that I was addressing specifically the incident you described in the early post. I was not.
I was merely making a broad based comment. Plus you should probably calm down.
While I think it's funny that your example drives the same vehicle I would use for almost every idiot driver I've encountered (that's right, most of you drive SUVs), I have to reject your notion that those who get frustrated by people hypermiling are crazies. While of course there are always those people out there who will drive recklessly and at insane speeds, most ordinary people get upset with hypermilers because they get in their way. If you have ever been stuck behind a person who is walking way too slow for your own comfort level then you know exactly what I am talking about.
Plus, if you are being passed on the right you are driving too slow. If you were driving in any civilized country besides the US you would have people flashing and honking at you. Unfortunately, this is considered "rude" in the US so those that hold others up in the passing lane often times feel justified driving there despite their inconveinencing everyone else on the road.