What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.
Get back to me when they imprison this guy speaking out.
Re:The Secret to Futurama's success
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 1
"...Finally, after the third or forth time, Calculon asked him, "Do you have an extra goto ten line?""
Is there something special in the line that I'm not aware of? Sounds like many other computer-geeky lines (that many of us love) employed in the show...
It would go something like this:
10 PRINT "Hello World" 20 GOTO 10 RUN Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Hello World Get it now? It was friggin hilarious!
10 PEEK around 20 POKE doorbell 30 PRINT "Calculon! I'm your biggest fan" 40 GOTO 10
The Secret to Futurama's success
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
From TFA Groening says:
"The operating principle of Futurama was that you can do a joke that 1percent of the audience gets, as long as it doesn't derail the enjoyment of the mass audience," Cohen says. "And that 1 percent becomes a fan for life." You also see the same formula in Dennis Miller's material. You only get 1/5 of the jokes, but that one make you feel so smart that you become a fan.
I didn't care much for Futurama until one night, I was watching an episode where Bender jumped off a "See where the stars live" tour bus and kept knocking on Calculon's door. Finally, after the third or forth time, Calculon asked him, "Do you have an extra goto ten line?"
I'm being serious here... In the case that I ever end up in a public space where it becomes obvious that a nerve gas has been released, (and there is no clear way of getting out ie. subway system, sports venue...) I would take off one of my socks and piss on it.
If you really worried about it, you could just carry around a water filter. They make small ones for sports bottles, although, I don't know how easy they are to breathe through. Either way, they seem to have the same stuff in them as modern gas masks. It may work in a pinch and no one runs over your ass while you are standing there DIH, too panicked to piss on a sock.
That fact is that Bin Laden wanted us to be mired in an unsustainable gorilla war and we gave him exactly that. Mission accomplished.
No, Bin Laden wanted us to take a bloody nose and leave like we did in Somalia. He'd still claim victory if we left now and he'd be right. I don't think he wanted us to stick around kill everyone he sent over to lead the "insurgency".
More like blame the generals who shot spreadsheet "simulations" back and forth instead of large scale wargames to shake-out the technology. The networked battlefield went out untested with an expectation that it would work as promised. Which is a really dumb assumption for military hardware.
Consider it tested now.
I hate to sound so cold about the whole thing, but regardless of your opinion of the Iraq war, you have to admit that it is on hell of test bed for new tech and an excellent training opportunity. Nothing beats the real thing for hardening soldiers. As a soldier myself, I can tell you that no amount of training, no simulation in the world can compare to the real thing. All the training money can buy does not compare to having live rounds shot at you by someone who wants you dead. Trust me when I say that our soldiers are much better prepared by the lessons learned from Iraq. Even though this is still one of the most efficient campaigns in history, mistakes have been made in this war. Those same mistakes won't be made again.
'Scuse me? If you've got insurgents setting up an ambush, blasting the frak out of them sounds like a good solution to me. Fire a DU round from a tank down the road, all the IEDs go "boom" and the insurgents waiting on the side go "slwooop" as the massive air pressure changes suck them inside out.
If you want to "suck down" a target, a HEAT round is a better choice. Even though the DU Sabot round moves extremely fast, it is quite aerodynamic and does not have a lot of drag behind it. A HEAT round relies on explosive rather than kinetic energy to get the job done so it doesn't have to move as fast and is therefor not as aerodynamic. It will also make a nice "boom" when it does finally hit a target.
Of course, if you want to kill a tank or punch through a few feet of cinder block, the DU Sabot is the way to go.
One might argue that the insurgents are not terrorists and are thus not our enemy.
Insurgents live there and target an invading military force. Terrorists moved in from other countries and/or target civilians. Most of what we see over there are attacks in neighborhoods, crowded marketplaces and mosques. These guys are terrorists. There is no reasonable argument against it.
If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch.:)
Oh, and being part German, I guess I owe you too! But since you are Christian and I am part American Indian, I guess we'll call it a wash.
Wait! I'm Christian also and if you are part Jewish... this is giving me a headache.
If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch.:)
I wonder how that would work for me.
I am part American Indian... Europe owes me. I am part Irish. I guess the English owe me. I am part English. That means the Germans owe me. I am part German. I guess I owe myself!
Wow. Such hatred and bigotry in a single post. You should really pace yourself.
What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.
I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.
I never said it makes ME sad. You know, I'm sure they offer literacy courses at your local community college. You may want to look into them. Of course, I'm assuming that you CAN'T read. I wouldn't want to insult you by assuming that you were just too lazy to. There is not crime in ignorance, but sloth is a sin. Of course, it is wrong to insult someone based on false information. You just make yourself look not only hateful, but quite foolish.
And since I doubt you can understand my original point, I'll explain it. It is sad when the government, in order to elevate "minorities", mandates breaks to a race of people over the other, especially when the minority race gets the short end of the stick.
but being white does not mean "advantaged"
Depends what country you're in. In the US, that's a big fat yes, if only because whites are the majority.
Ever been to McAllen Texas? How about Laredo or San Antonio? Miami Florida or Ruidoso or Yuma New Mexico? Sorry, but white people are not the majority in these communities.
I don't care how many laws have been passed, or how many times some politician or pundit has stood up and said there is no racism in America, normative ethics and homogeneity will always be there.
Racism is not prejudiced. It affects all peoples, regardless of their race. So yes, there is racism in America and everywhere else in the world. The way to stop it by treating all people equally, blind to their race.
This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.
And how am I responsible for that? I have never owned a slave. My ancestors never owned a slave. I come from a long line of poor farmers.
If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.
What penetrating insight! Shame you stopped digging after only a couple of inches. The way you talk about it, all jobs, schools and neighborhoods are created equal, huh? Thanks for wasting my time with such a shallow and useless argument.
Actually, the argument is not mine. It is from a guy called Martin Luther King Jr. The original goes like this:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Mine is the first generation to graduate from college in my family. My mother worked several jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. My brother and I both joined the US Army to help pay for school and worked multiple jobs to pay for living expenses. What advantage did my "whiteness" give me? Could we have used the help? Sure! Was it available? Nope. Even though I have held a job since I was 13, that was not a consideration when it came to college admission. The color of my skin was.
So, quotas suck, got a better idea to help undo hundreds of years of intolerance and abuse?
More intolerance and abuse is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. How about leveling the playing field? How about considering people based on their abilities and their character and stop playing favorites based on race or gender? It was not right when it was done in the '60s and it's not right now.
All totally correct. But if you're white, you've certainly had systemic advantages. Not your fault. But don't ignore it either.
That's a rather racist comment. I'm sorry, but being white does not mean "advantaged". If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.
I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because of the color of their skin. Bonus if they lacked a penis. Many businesses receive tax breaks for being a "minority and/or female run business".
What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.
The reason he had to reformat is that he had about 1GB left, which means there's not enough space for an archive & install, which would have left all his data intact with a fresh installation of the OS and all would be well again.
Heh! That reminds me of a time when Windows told me that I didn't have enough free space to delete a file. Still, in a pinch, I could have booted off another media, either floppy or Linux LiveCD and clear space up or even back up data from there. Is this not an option with a Mac? I remember the old OS9 systems where reinstalling the OS meant booting off the OS CD, mounting the HDD and dragging the system folder over. Is that no longer an option?
Nah, don't let that get in the way of your rant against a problem that has affected half a dozen people for all we can tell.
Do those half a dozen people not count? Are you saying this is not a problem? Besides, I'm not ranting against the problem itself, I'm ranting against those like yourself who say that because it's a Mac, it's not really a problem. That's no different than Windows fanbois that called bugs, "features". It's wrong when they do it. It's wrong when YOU do it.
Your argument about power plant safety is silly. I disagree, but let's look for something we can agree on. What about nuclear power plant security? What about the securing of nuclear weapons? More people have died from X than have from stolen nuclear weapons/sabotaged nuclear power plant. Why do we spend so much securing them? Shouldn't that money be spent preventing X. After all, that is what is killing us!
Oh, and you're also wrong. The latest major commercial airline crash in the U.S. was just a little over a year ago: Delta/Comair flight 5191 I said "in the past year", so it looks like I was right. Either way, I'm not here to argue my examples, I'm here to show how stupid it is to say "because more people die from X, why protect from Y?" Still, more people died from stroke than died on airlines. Hell, I think even a person or two did FROM a stroke while on an airline! So the example is legitemate until you can show me that more people died on airlines than from strokes.
I do agree with you on the nuclear detection issue, though. It's strictly a financial expense without any impact on the public as a whole, it is a relatively small expense with other scientific uses, and it has some slim possibility of actually increasing safety (unlike the asinine policies that seem primarily intended to force people to buy water bottles inside $3 in the airport instead of at $0.33 at the grocery store). Mainly, though, this is a good investment not because of its potential to combat terrorism, but rather in spite of it. There are many good reasons for this research, and terrorism is about the least important of the bunch. It is kind of nice that it serves that ancillary purpose. However, if serving that anti-terrorism purpose doubled the cost of the research, it would probably be pretty foolish, as other means of detecting nuclear material would likely be more practical and economical at that point
Seriously, do you think we should spend any money at all defending the US? Really? One red cent to stop or even look for the next terrorist attack? I mean, it's not like we've never been attacked before, and it's not like no one wants to attack us. Still, do we just let it happen, secure in the knowledge that we are more likely to die of heart failure than of a terrorist attack? Holy shit. We are more likely to die in a car crash then we are from AIDS. Why do we spend so much money on AIDS research and not spend it on padding our freeways?
Not news? Hell, it's news to me that you can't reinstall the McOS without formatting the drive!
All data is intact; otherwise you couldn't access it by Firewire Target Disk mode, or by booting from a CD. Something is simply screwing with the initial boot process. Evidently, booting off a CD does not work. From TFA:
I just returned from the local Apple Store "Genius Bar" (a whole other story - not pleasant) where they tried to boot from CD, but the only option is to erase the entire drive and all data to do so. As for Firewire Target Disk mode, you need another Mac to do that. "Do what? I have to spend another $8,000 for another Mac so I can get my data back that your update hosed?!!? Can't I just borrow one of the 500 you have sitting around here?"
Apple claims (both in-store and on the phone) that they do not do data recovery nor do they know who does or how to do it. And what if you are not a bonified expert on Mac? I guess you could call one of those McGeniuses you see them speak so highly of on TV:
Apparently, they claim there is no other option (they also do not see any issues at all with having a update that can cause this type of catastrophic failure without some sort of indication of the risks thereof - i.e, "please back up all of your data before installing this upgrade) I can't wait for the next commercial
"Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Maaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaa.... "
Ahem. Their credibility really isn't an issue since they made a trivial factual claim, which happens to be correct, regarding the term of art, brick. Your own credibility has been called into question, however, by your incorrect stance over an issue you could have verified yourself in less time that it took you to type your baseless attack. If you wish to improve your credibility, spend the next hour at Wikipedia reading about logical fallacies. For extra credit, identify by name the logical fallacy you committed.
No, I'm sorry, he had a point. An Apple approved McUpdate makes the system unusable until you reinstall the entire OS. Here's something from TFA
Today, while working normally, I was "pinged" by Software Update that there were updates ready to install. I said "go ahead".
Halfway through, I received a message similar to "Software Update has encountered an unexpected issue, you must restart".
I selected restart. My machine will no longer boot (on the mac side), getting to the final (~100%) "blue line" on start up screen and than hanging.
I have tried many times (and also let it "think" for many hours) to no avail.
I just returned from the local Apple Store "Genius Bar" (a whole other story - not pleasant) where they tried to boot from CD, but the only option is to erase the entire drive and all data to do so. This guy was sitting there working and Steve Jobs sent him a message, "We Mcwent ahead and Mcdownloaded an Mcupdate. Would you Mclike to install it and reboot-in-tosh-X?" Of course, he's gonna say yes. Now all his stuff is gone. That novel he spent all those hours at Starbucks writing... gone. That Quicktime of his little girl's first steps... gone. All that porn! That glorious, beautiful PORN!!! GONE!!!! Why? Because he trusted Steve Jobs and Apple.
So, yeah, it's not officially bricked, but only a fanboi would argue the definition to someone who has just lost everything on their hard drive. If it were a Windows update that crashed a PC, this McFanBoi would be screaming about how much Windows and Bill Gates suck and how he's so happy he does not have to worry about stuff like that because he has a Mac.
Regarding nuclear plant safety, nobody has died recently in the United States. This is not true for the world as a whole.
Very true. It is also true that regarding terrorism, nobody has died recently in the United States. This is not true for the world as a whole. Further, because these are maniacs, they will eventually succeed, so the question then becomes one of how quickly the population's interest typically degrades. With that information, you can then quantify the probability each year of a security measure failing or a whole found in a security-critical way, multiply times the number of deaths if the a nuclear weapon goes critical (including deaths from cancer, birth defects, etc. that occur decades later) and you will quickly conclude that cutting the anti-terrorism measures is not a very good idea.
Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor in WWII---much more recent than the 1860s. Numerous other countries and militant groups have attacked U.S. interests abroad on an ongoing basis. That one is also crap.
Not necessarily. In 1941, more Americans died of heart disease than died at Pearl Harbor. So, according to your logic, we should have NOT gone to war against the Japanese and instead spent the resources on cholesterol research? What is the diferrence between your first example (more people die from strokes than terrorism) and this one?
You claim that there have been zero deaths from airline crashes is completely silly. Airplanes crash on a regular basis, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I said airline, not airplane. Not all airplanes belong to airlines. No airlines had a plane crash in the past year. And yet we spend a fortune on airline safety.
Your arguments about the plague and smallpox are pretty bizarre, as those diseases don't exist "in the wild" anymore, AFAIK. Thus, if they were introduced today, it would be an act of terrorism, and thus, their inclusion constitutes begging the question.
And yet, we the CDC still spends a small fortune on prevention, and did so BEFORE 9-11.
Either way, my point was not that the amount of money we spend on something should not be linked to the number of people it kills each year. I constantly hear people (Michael Moore comes to mind.. and you) that quote the likelyhood of dying due to a terrorist attack. Granted, that number is small, but the odds change when you start talking about the smuggling of nuclear weapons, which is exactly what we are talking about here. New York contains 8.2 million people. The US contains 300 million. If a nuclear bomb goes off in New York and kills 3 million, your odds of dying in a terrorist attack just went from almost non-existant to 1 in 100. Of course, this does not count any economic impact and other effects of such a detonation. Given this, I think it is worth spending a little money on. Granted, the odds are slim, but when you have people who won't give up and try an infinite number times, those odds get a lot close to 1/1 as time goes on.
So it's not really about how much money we are spending vs how many died last year. It's really about how many would die if? and are there people who want to do this sort of thing? and what are there odds of success? and what would be the cost of rebuilding? and finally, given our response to 9-11, would you want to see our response to a mushroom clout over Manhatten? I think it is much cheaper to prevent than react.
No, according to my logic if zero people died in plane hijackings last year but tens of thousands of people died due to X, we should probably be spending more money fighting X than we spend on preventing plane hijackings. I thought about writing out a long post about rationally fighting threats according to how dangerous they are, but judging by your post I doubt that you would be able to understand it.
Now, now. No point in dropping to the level of personal attacks.
Now back to your logic. That is a tired argument. I could have listed several other examples to explain things better, but thought it would be a waste of time since you seemed rather intelligent. Now I see I'll need a few more examples.
Zero people died from nuclear plant accidents. We should cut funding on nuclear safety. Same goes for nuclear weapon security. No country has invaded America since the 1860's. We should cut military funding. No one has died from Internet threats. We should cut funding for Internet security. Zero deaths from global warming. Zero deaths from airline crashes. Zero deaths from the plague. Zero deaths from small pox. Zero deaths from mad cow disease. Zero deaths from space born objects (cut NASA's funding). and the list goes on.
More people have died from kitchen accidents and falling down stairs than all of these listed above combined. Should we move all NASA and nuclear regulatory commission funding into funding kitchen safety and stair railings?
Maybe you should consider the idea that all this money we are spending on fighting terrorism is working.
Okay, let's see here...strokes kill about 150000 people each year in the U.S., and the government spends about $400 million on stroke research. Terrorists with radioactive materials have killed approximately zero people ever, and the government spends $650 million+ on (admittedly clever) directional radiation detectors. Yeah, we're clearly doing a great job of rationally allocating our money.
using your logic: 100% of our security budget should go towards death prevention since 100% of people will die at some point. Zero people died in plane hijackings last year, so we should eliminate airport security altogether.
Isn't most illegal file transfer done by BitTorrent?
As far as I know, yes. However, the donkey clones seem to be pretty popular. Of course, you will always have people who do it the old fashion way and put up FTP sites or trade vie IRC.
My question is, how do they know which traffic is illegal. I download my Linux distro's via BitTorrent.
So if universities do priorization, why not corporations, why not ISP's?
Because a university is a private network. Same with a business. Your house is also a private network. So if I do priorization in my own home, why not corporations, why not ISP's?
Do you want the government telling you that you can't prioritize you WOW session over you daughters MySpace traffic? When there is only one choice of ISP in a given area, that ISP becomes a public utility, not a private university, company or home. This is where net nutrality rules will apply. Once that traffic is delivered to the ISP's customers, it becomes private data and is not governed by Internet rules.
Now what about all the Righties fringe folks? Your are hardly in a position to complain about a splinter in the Dems' eye when the GOP has a log!
I think you are missing the point. Republicans go out of their way to distance themselves from the likes of David Duke. We shun our wing-nuts and disown them. The left embraces those like Code Pink who will sing the praises of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Why? Not because they offer a beacon of freedom in Latin America. Quite the opposite. They have shut down elections, silenced all opposing voices, and turned a formerly free press into a government mouthpiece. The lefty's hatred of Bush has blinded them to the point where they actually believe that these dictators offer more freedoms than the US, who has free elections, a free press and political opposition. Still, the more moderate left doesn't seem to mind. They gladly support their wing-nuts and don't say a word.
So really, there is no comparison. The GOP pulls the splinters out their own eyes while the left allows it to blind them.
As for what one member may have done to a door at Walter Reed Medical Center, that is just plain graffiti and wrong. I'd be surprised if all felt that way. The Walter Reed Medical Center protests went on for months by much more than one member. They got a permit and protested on the front steps of Walter Reed every single day. Counter protectors who were there to support the troops were forced to stand across the street because Code Pink had the permit. If you think that it was simply a little graffiti, you are completely ignorant of what really happened. I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look stupid again. Any way, it proves my point. All you said was "I'd be surprised if they all felt that way" when you should have said, "They were fucking wrong and they don't represent me."
During the night you buy (CHEAP!) electricity to charge your car.
Not again!
The laws of supply and demand determine price. When demand is up, price is up. When demand is down, price is down. Demand for electricity is down at night, that's why the price is CHEAP. When everyone has their cars plugged in from 6:00pm to 8:00am, demand for electricity will rise (substantially) so night time electricity won't be CHEAP any more.
The GGP said that charging electric cars would create a strain on the electrical grid. The GP said this could be fixed by using solar. I (the P) pointed out that most cars will be charging at night, when solar is not an option. So if everyone's electrical cars will be a problem at night, how will solar power help?
What does selling electricity during the day and buying it at night going to do to help the problem with an overloaded electrical grid at night? You'll be buying along with everyone else, thus the problem!
Slashdot Mirror
One by one our freedoms are being taken away...
What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.
Get back to me when they imprison this guy speaking out.
Is there something special in the line that I'm not aware of? Sounds like many other computer-geeky lines (that many of us love) employed in the show...
It would go something like this: 10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
RUN
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World Get it now? It was friggin hilarious! 10 PEEK around
20 POKE doorbell
30 PRINT "Calculon! I'm your biggest fan"
40 GOTO 10
I didn't care much for Futurama until one night, I was watching an episode where Bender jumped off a "See where the stars live" tour bus and kept knocking on Calculon's door. Finally, after the third or forth time, Calculon asked him, "Do you have an extra goto ten line?"
I've been a fan ever since.
It's at the top of my Netflix queue, but is listed as "Very Long Wait". Looks like you're not the only one having trouble getting it!
I'm being serious here... In the case that I ever end up in a public space where it becomes obvious that a nerve gas has been released, (and there is no clear way of getting out ie. subway system, sports venue...) I would take off one of my socks and piss on it.
If you really worried about it, you could just carry around a water filter. They make small ones for sports bottles, although, I don't know how easy they are to breathe through. Either way, they seem to have the same stuff in them as modern gas masks. It may work in a pinch and no one runs over your ass while you are standing there DIH, too panicked to piss on a sock.
Venus, incredibly dense even after stripping
Most strippers are.
That fact is that Bin Laden wanted us to be mired in an unsustainable gorilla war and we gave him exactly that. Mission accomplished.
No, Bin Laden wanted us to take a bloody nose and leave like we did in Somalia. He'd still claim victory if we left now and he'd be right. I don't think he wanted us to stick around kill everyone he sent over to lead the "insurgency".
More like blame the generals who shot spreadsheet "simulations" back and forth instead of large scale wargames to shake-out the technology. The networked battlefield went out untested with an expectation that it would work as promised. Which is a really dumb assumption for military hardware.
Consider it tested now.
I hate to sound so cold about the whole thing, but regardless of your opinion of the Iraq war, you have to admit that it is on hell of test bed for new tech and an excellent training opportunity. Nothing beats the real thing for hardening soldiers. As a soldier myself, I can tell you that no amount of training, no simulation in the world can compare to the real thing. All the training money can buy does not compare to having live rounds shot at you by someone who wants you dead. Trust me when I say that our soldiers are much better prepared by the lessons learned from Iraq. Even though this is still one of the most efficient campaigns in history, mistakes have been made in this war. Those same mistakes won't be made again.
'Scuse me? If you've got insurgents setting up an ambush, blasting the frak out of them sounds like a good solution to me. Fire a DU round from a tank down the road, all the IEDs go "boom" and the insurgents waiting on the side go "slwooop" as the massive air pressure changes suck them inside out.
If you want to "suck down" a target, a HEAT round is a better choice. Even though the DU Sabot round moves extremely fast, it is quite aerodynamic and does not have a lot of drag behind it. A HEAT round relies on explosive rather than kinetic energy to get the job done so it doesn't have to move as fast and is therefor not as aerodynamic. It will also make a nice "boom" when it does finally hit a target.
Of course, if you want to kill a tank or punch through a few feet of cinder block, the DU Sabot is the way to go.
One might argue that the insurgents are not terrorists and are thus not our enemy.
Insurgents live there and target an invading military force. Terrorists moved in from other countries and/or target civilians. Most of what we see over there are attacks in neighborhoods, crowded marketplaces and mosques. These guys are terrorists. There is no reasonable argument against it.
If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch. :)
Oh, and being part German, I guess I owe you too! But since you are Christian and I am part American Indian, I guess we'll call it a wash.
Wait! I'm Christian also and if you are part Jewish... this is giving me a headache.
If we're going to demand reparations for past wrongs no matter how long ago, then Egypt (because I'm also a small part Jewish) and Rome (because I'm Christian) owe me a bunch. :)
I wonder how that would work for me.
I am part American Indian... Europe owes me.
I am part Irish. I guess the English owe me.
I am part English. That means the Germans owe me.
I am part German. I guess I owe myself!
What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.
I was going to leave you alone until I read this last sentence, and it speaks volumes about you. If that makes you sad, I can't possibly imagine the blubbery mess you become when some serious shit hits you, you sad little wanker.
I never said it makes ME sad. You know, I'm sure they offer literacy courses at your local community college. You may want to look into them. Of course, I'm assuming that you CAN'T read. I wouldn't want to insult you by assuming that you were just too lazy to. There is not crime in ignorance, but sloth is a sin. Of course, it is wrong to insult someone based on false information. You just make yourself look not only hateful, but quite foolish.
And since I doubt you can understand my original point, I'll explain it. It is sad when the government, in order to elevate "minorities", mandates breaks to a race of people over the other, especially when the minority race gets the short end of the stick.
but being white does not mean "advantaged"
Depends what country you're in. In the US, that's a big fat yes, if only because whites are the majority.
Ever been to McAllen Texas? How about Laredo or San Antonio? Miami Florida or Ruidoso or Yuma New Mexico? Sorry, but white people are not the majority in these communities.
I don't care how many laws have been passed, or how many times some politician or pundit has stood up and said there is no racism in America, normative ethics and homogeneity will always be there.
Racism is not prejudiced. It affects all peoples, regardless of their race. So yes, there is racism in America and everywhere else in the world. The way to stop it by treating all people equally, blind to their race.
This is, of course, before we even get mired in the way the US has handled its slavery and segregation issues.
And how am I responsible for that? I have never owned a slave. My ancestors never owned a slave. I come from a long line of poor farmers.
If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.
What penetrating insight! Shame you stopped digging after only a couple of inches. The way you talk about it, all jobs, schools and neighborhoods are created equal, huh? Thanks for wasting my time with such a shallow and useless argument.
Actually, the argument is not mine. It is from a guy called Martin Luther King Jr. The original goes like this:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Mine is the first generation to graduate from college in my family. My mother worked several jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. My brother and I both joined the US Army to help pay for school and worked multiple jobs to pay for living expenses. What advantage did my "whiteness" give me?
Could we have used the help? Sure! Was it available? Nope. Even though I have held a job since I was 13, that was not a consideration when it came to college admission. The color of my skin was.
So, quotas suck, got a better idea to help undo hundreds of years of intolerance and abuse?
More intolerance and abuse is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. How about leveling the playing field? How about considering people based on their abilities and their character and stop playing favorites based on race or gender? It was not right when it was done in the '60s and it's not right now.
Al
All totally correct. But if you're white, you've certainly had systemic advantages. Not your fault. But don't ignore it either.
That's a rather racist comment. I'm sorry, but being white does not mean "advantaged". If you want to give people a break because they are poor or "less advantaged", then look at their bank statements and their high school's rating and NOT the color of their skin.
I've seen minorities that come from wealthier families with less qualifications than me get promoted above me because of the color of their skin. Bonus if they lacked a penis. Many businesses receive tax breaks for being a "minority and/or female run business".
What really makes it sad is that in my community, I am the minority. White people are no longer the majority in many areas of the country.
The reason he had to reformat is that he had about 1GB left, which means there's not enough space for an archive & install, which would have left all his data intact with a fresh installation of the OS and all would be well again.
Heh! That reminds me of a time when Windows told me that I didn't have enough free space to delete a file. Still, in a pinch, I could have booted off another media, either floppy or Linux LiveCD and clear space up or even back up data from there. Is this not an option with a Mac? I remember the old OS9 systems where reinstalling the OS meant booting off the OS CD, mounting the HDD and dragging the system folder over. Is that no longer an option?
Nah, don't let that get in the way of your rant against a problem that has affected half a dozen people for all we can tell.
Do those half a dozen people not count? Are you saying this is not a problem? Besides, I'm not ranting against the problem itself, I'm ranting against those like yourself who say that because it's a Mac, it's not really a problem. That's no different than Windows fanbois that called bugs, "features". It's wrong when they do it. It's wrong when YOU do it.
Your argument about power plant safety is silly.
I disagree, but let's look for something we can agree on. What about nuclear power plant security? What about the securing of nuclear weapons? More people have died from X than have from stolen nuclear weapons/sabotaged nuclear power plant. Why do we spend so much securing them? Shouldn't that money be spent preventing X. After all, that is what is killing us!
Oh, and you're also wrong. The latest major commercial airline crash in the U.S. was just a little over a year ago: Delta/Comair flight 5191
I said "in the past year", so it looks like I was right. Either way, I'm not here to argue my examples, I'm here to show how stupid it is to say "because more people die from X, why protect from Y?" Still, more people died from stroke than died on airlines. Hell, I think even a person or two did FROM a stroke while on an airline! So the example is legitemate until you can show me that more people died on airlines than from strokes.
I do agree with you on the nuclear detection issue, though. It's strictly a financial expense without any impact on the public as a whole, it is a relatively small expense with other scientific uses, and it has some slim possibility of actually increasing safety (unlike the asinine policies that seem primarily intended to force people to buy water bottles inside $3 in the airport instead of at $0.33 at the grocery store). Mainly, though, this is a good investment not because of its potential to combat terrorism, but rather in spite of it. There are many good reasons for this research, and terrorism is about the least important of the bunch. It is kind of nice that it serves that ancillary purpose. However, if serving that anti-terrorism purpose doubled the cost of the research, it would probably be pretty foolish, as other means of detecting nuclear material would likely be more practical and economical at that point
Seriously, do you think we should spend any money at all defending the US? Really? One red cent to stop or even look for the next terrorist attack? I mean, it's not like we've never been attacked before, and it's not like no one wants to attack us. Still, do we just let it happen, secure in the knowledge that we are more likely to die of heart failure than of a terrorist attack? Holy shit. We are more likely to die in a car crash then we are from AIDS. Why do we spend so much money on AIDS research and not spend it on padding our freeways?
Not news? Hell, it's news to me that you can't reinstall the McOS without formatting the drive!
All data is intact; otherwise you couldn't access it by Firewire Target Disk mode, or by booting from a CD. Something is simply screwing with the initial boot process.
Evidently, booting off a CD does not work. From TFA: I just returned from the local Apple Store "Genius Bar" (a whole other story - not pleasant) where they tried to boot from CD, but the only option is to erase the entire drive and all data to do so. As for Firewire Target Disk mode, you need another Mac to do that. "Do what? I have to spend another $8,000 for another Mac so I can get my data back that your update hosed?!!? Can't I just borrow one of the 500 you have sitting around here?" Apple claims (both in-store and on the phone) that they do not do data recovery nor do they know who does or how to do it. And what if you are not a bonified expert on Mac? I guess you could call one of those McGeniuses you see them speak so highly of on TV: Apparently, they claim there is no other option (they also do not see any issues at all with having a update that can cause this type of catastrophic failure without some sort of indication of the risks thereof - i.e, "please back up all of your data before installing this upgrade) I can't wait for the next commercial "Hi, I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Maaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaa.... "
No, I'm sorry, he had a point. An Apple approved McUpdate makes the system unusable until you reinstall the entire OS. Here's something from TFA Today, while working normally, I was "pinged" by Software Update that there were updates ready to install. I said "go ahead".
Halfway through, I received a message similar to "Software Update has encountered an unexpected issue, you must restart".
I selected restart. My machine will no longer boot (on the mac side), getting to the final (~100%) "blue line" on start up screen and than hanging.
I have tried many times (and also let it "think" for many hours) to no avail.
I just returned from the local Apple Store "Genius Bar" (a whole other story - not pleasant) where they tried to boot from CD, but the only option is to erase the entire drive and all data to do so. This guy was sitting there working and Steve Jobs sent him a message, "We Mcwent ahead and Mcdownloaded an Mcupdate. Would you Mclike to install it and reboot-in-tosh-X?" Of course, he's gonna say yes. Now all his stuff is gone. That novel he spent all those hours at Starbucks writing... gone. That Quicktime of his little girl's first steps... gone. All that porn! That glorious, beautiful PORN!!! GONE!!!! Why? Because he trusted Steve Jobs and Apple.
So, yeah, it's not officially bricked, but only a fanboi would argue the definition to someone who has just lost everything on their hard drive. If it were a Windows update that crashed a PC, this McFanBoi would be screaming about how much Windows and Bill Gates suck and how he's so happy he does not have to worry about stuff like that because he has a Mac.
Regarding nuclear plant safety, nobody has died recently in the United States. This is not true for the world as a whole.
Very true. It is also true that regarding terrorism, nobody has died recently in the United States. This is not true for the world as a whole. Further, because these are maniacs, they will eventually succeed, so the question then becomes one of how quickly the population's interest typically degrades. With that information, you can then quantify the probability each year of a security measure failing or a whole found in a security-critical way, multiply times the number of deaths if the a nuclear weapon goes critical (including deaths from cancer, birth defects, etc. that occur decades later) and you will quickly conclude that cutting the anti-terrorism measures is not a very good idea.
Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor in WWII---much more recent than the 1860s. Numerous other countries and militant groups have attacked U.S. interests abroad on an ongoing basis. That one is also crap.
Not necessarily. In 1941, more Americans died of heart disease than died at Pearl Harbor. So, according to your logic, we should have NOT gone to war against the Japanese and instead spent the resources on cholesterol research? What is the diferrence between your first example (more people die from strokes than terrorism) and this one?
You claim that there have been zero deaths from airline crashes is completely silly. Airplanes crash on a regular basis, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I said airline, not airplane. Not all airplanes belong to airlines. No airlines had a plane crash in the past year. And yet we spend a fortune on airline safety.
Your arguments about the plague and smallpox are pretty bizarre, as those diseases don't exist "in the wild" anymore, AFAIK. Thus, if they were introduced today, it would be an act of terrorism, and thus, their inclusion constitutes begging the question.
And yet, we the CDC still spends a small fortune on prevention, and did so BEFORE 9-11.
Either way, my point was not that the amount of money we spend on something should not be linked to the number of people it kills each year. I constantly hear people (Michael Moore comes to mind.. and you) that quote the likelyhood of dying due to a terrorist attack. Granted, that number is small, but the odds change when you start talking about the smuggling of nuclear weapons, which is exactly what we are talking about here. New York contains 8.2 million people. The US contains 300 million. If a nuclear bomb goes off in New York and kills 3 million, your odds of dying in a terrorist attack just went from almost non-existant to 1 in 100. Of course, this does not count any economic impact and other effects of such a detonation. Given this, I think it is worth spending a little money on. Granted, the odds are slim, but when you have people who won't give up and try an infinite number times, those odds get a lot close to 1/1 as time goes on.
So it's not really about how much money we are spending vs how many died last year. It's really about how many would die if? and are there people who want to do this sort of thing? and what are there odds of success? and what would be the cost of rebuilding? and finally, given our response to 9-11, would you want to see our response to a mushroom clout over Manhatten? I think it is much cheaper to prevent than react.
No, according to my logic if zero people died in plane hijackings last year but tens of thousands of people died due to X, we should probably be spending more money fighting X than we spend on preventing plane hijackings. I thought about writing out a long post about rationally fighting threats according to how dangerous they are, but judging by your post I doubt that you would be able to understand it.
Now, now. No point in dropping to the level of personal attacks.
Now back to your logic. That is a tired argument. I could have listed several other examples to explain things better, but thought it would be a waste of time since you seemed rather intelligent. Now I see I'll need a few more examples.
Zero people died from nuclear plant accidents. We should cut funding on nuclear safety. Same goes for nuclear weapon security.
No country has invaded America since the 1860's. We should cut military funding.
No one has died from Internet threats. We should cut funding for Internet security.
Zero deaths from global warming.
Zero deaths from airline crashes.
Zero deaths from the plague.
Zero deaths from small pox.
Zero deaths from mad cow disease.
Zero deaths from space born objects (cut NASA's funding).
and the list goes on.
More people have died from kitchen accidents and falling down stairs than all of these listed above combined. Should we move all NASA and nuclear regulatory commission funding into funding kitchen safety and stair railings?
Maybe you should consider the idea that all this money we are spending on fighting terrorism is working.
Okay, let's see here...strokes kill about 150000 people each year in the U.S., and the government spends about $400 million on stroke research. Terrorists with radioactive materials have killed approximately zero people ever, and the government spends $650 million+ on (admittedly clever) directional radiation detectors. Yeah, we're clearly doing a great job of rationally allocating our money.
using your logic:
100% of our security budget should go towards death prevention since 100% of people will die at some point.
Zero people died in plane hijackings last year, so we should eliminate airport security altogether.
So Seymour is back? I see that they took the threats from the SRF seriously!
Isn't most illegal file transfer done by BitTorrent?
As far as I know, yes. However, the donkey clones seem to be pretty popular. Of course, you will always have people who do it the old fashion way and put up FTP sites or trade vie IRC.
My question is, how do they know which traffic is illegal. I download my Linux distro's via BitTorrent.
So if universities do priorization, why not corporations, why not ISP's?
Because a university is a private network. Same with a business. Your house is also a private network.
So if I do priorization in my own home, why not corporations, why not ISP's?
Do you want the government telling you that you can't prioritize you WOW session over you daughters MySpace traffic?
When there is only one choice of ISP in a given area, that ISP becomes a public utility, not a private university, company or home. This is where net nutrality rules will apply. Once that traffic is delivered to the ISP's customers, it becomes private data and is not governed by Internet rules.
Now what about all the Righties fringe folks? Your are hardly in a position to complain about a splinter in the Dems' eye when the GOP has a log!
I think you are missing the point. Republicans go out of their way to distance themselves from the likes of David Duke. We shun our wing-nuts and disown them. The left embraces those like Code Pink who will sing the praises of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Why? Not because they offer a beacon of freedom in Latin America. Quite the opposite. They have shut down elections, silenced all opposing voices, and turned a formerly free press into a government mouthpiece. The lefty's hatred of Bush has blinded them to the point where they actually believe that these dictators offer more freedoms than the US, who has free elections, a free press and political opposition. Still, the more moderate left doesn't seem to mind. They gladly support their wing-nuts and don't say a word.
So really, there is no comparison. The GOP pulls the splinters out their own eyes while the left allows it to blind them.
As for what one member may have done to a door at Walter Reed Medical Center, that is just plain graffiti and wrong. I'd be surprised if all felt that way.
The Walter Reed Medical Center protests went on for months by much more than one member. They got a permit and protested on the front steps of Walter Reed every single day. Counter protectors who were there to support the troops were forced to stand across the street because Code Pink had the permit. If you think that it was simply a little graffiti, you are completely ignorant of what really happened. I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look stupid again. Any way, it proves my point. All you said was "I'd be surprised if they all felt that way" when you should have said, "They were fucking wrong and they don't represent me."
Not again!
During the day you SELL the electricity.
During the night you buy (CHEAP!) electricity to charge your car.
Not again!
The laws of supply and demand determine price. When demand is up, price is up. When demand is down, price is down. Demand for electricity is down at night, that's why the price is CHEAP. When everyone has their cars plugged in from 6:00pm to 8:00am, demand for electricity will rise (substantially) so night time electricity won't be CHEAP any more.
The GGP said that charging electric cars would create a strain on the electrical grid. The GP said this could be fixed by using solar. I (the P) pointed out that most cars will be charging at night, when solar is not an option. So if everyone's electrical cars will be a problem at night, how will solar power help?
What does selling electricity during the day and buying it at night going to do to help the problem with an overloaded electrical grid at night? You'll be buying along with everyone else, thus the problem!