Stories that talk of the horrors of war will make young men feel that they need this horror to have real feeling.
Stupid young men that is, and you can never reason with people like that. I read All Quiet on the Western Front in 7th grade and I quickly figured out that I did not want any part of that shit.
"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die" --Tennyson
Regardless of whatever arbitrary definition of "need" you wish to employ, the fact is the founding fathers most definitely used anonymity and furthermore our supreme court has long recognized that anonymous speech is an integral part of the right of free speech.
Furthermore, you make the rather silly error of conflating the right to face your accuser when you are put on trial with a right to know who is merely calling you names. Absent being formally charged with a crime and facing legal conviction, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest your interpretation has any merit.
Intel 8945J integrated wireless on my laptop. Dual boot, Zenwalk Linux and XP MCE 2005. Until the most recent driver from Intel, the wireless card was *significantly* stabler under Linux.
Who needs wireless - I've got an Atherlos L1 gigabit ethernet controller on the motherboard - despite it being years old, all vista drivers for it are dogshit slow AND crash under any significant load. Under linux it works just fine. For the one vista system I must run I had to waste as slot on a PCIe gig-e card and use that instead.
Maybe the 8 was made up shit, but the years part wasn't.
Lol. and neither was the "had" part or the "reputation" part!
Look at this statement. "No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation. His inauguration protests prove that the hatred toward him had nothing to do with anything he did in office as they started before his inauguration!"
If that's what you are reduced to, then that's pathetic because all he is doing is reasserting his original statement without any new supporting evidence -- in the face of my moderating claims that ALL presidents get some form of protest and that thousands is small beans. That I wouldn't give him credit for that bullshit should be no surprise.
Chill out dude, everyone's friends here.
Really? Is that why you and Archerwtf are cherry-picking in such a ludicrously misleading manner? Because you are my friend?
(a) see the number 8 in that sentence and (b) couldn't read the next line where I said "Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term"
?????
Hang your head in shame dumbfuck. At least Archer8 knew enough to shut up when he got caught failing basic reading comprehension.
No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation.
No I didn't. Quit making up shit. You betray your bias by presenting distortions. For example, this one is also blatantly obvious:
Do you really believe that if Bush had FORCED banks to take tax payer money in exchange for more government control that the press would have ignored it?
Apparently they did, because the forcing of funds on banks happened while Bush was in office.
Bush's anti-following was born, ready made, from the Florida fiasco, which before anyone starts in, even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
Yeah, that's true. IF you ignore all the people illegally turned away from the polls because of the over-zealous anti-felon enforcement.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party.
Big deal, all presidents get some kind of protest - "thousands" really isn't much, more of a snowball than an avalanche. Bush got an inauguration party too - about as big as Obama's for his 2nd term even - `$42M for Bush and ~$41M for Obama.
With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
And Obama has had no criticism at all, eh? Oh wait, it is some immeasurable way "less" than Bush. Right.
I really wonder if the whole reason for stepping in is truly nefarious or if its to keep a few things secret to stop the lynching mob from going after Bush.
I sure hope not. That's the kind of thinking that pardoned Nixon and all it does is lower the bar for someone else to come along and do even worse.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
"Nya nya nya nya nya, you are a fag and the devil's butt monkey" - It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
One might even say that is wasn't very Christian of them to do that.
assuming everything that appears more likely to succeed which has equal or less cost has already been tried,
Crux of your argument is pure speculation. Anyone can make up additional parameters to justify a bullshit argument. You might as well have said that the queen of the drow gave them an ultimatum - stop selling PDFs or her she will teleport the corporate headquarters to one of the planes of hell.
Actually "do no evil" was Google shtick, not Apples. Apple has never claimed not to be evil, they're just very stylish about it.
I was in a Target store yesterday and I noticed they had posters all over that said "5% good." I couldn't help but think that meant they were 95% evil.
As has been proven multiple times in the last 5-6 years or so, the GOP and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing. Limbaugh was speaking to the latter at CPAC.
And is Dick Cheney not "the GOP" either? Because he sure seems to like to show up on Limbaugh's show.
I remember a few years back when Bush was trying to push a friend from texas for the job of AG or maybe it was as a nominee for the supreme court. Whatever the job was, she was woefully underqualified and everybody knew it. On the day of the announcement, Cheney called in for an "interview" with Limbaugh in order to promote this woman. I don't listen to Rush anymore, but I've heard that Cheney has made several more appearances on the show.
What is it about WORMS that you think prevents wholesale replacement with copies of all the original data except that of any clandestine fixes? After all, if they signed it once, they sure as shit can sign it again.
No financial institution that I am aware of actually emails you the paperless document. They email you a link or notification to log in and view it online with the option to download a copy. It is difficult to automate the log in and download process based on receipt of an email, probably beyond the ability of 99.999% of their customers. That means that there is plenty of opportunity for manipulation of the "paperless document" on their servers at least until the user actually saves a copy and I'll bet you that most users don't save copies - they view them and then rely on them being available online indefinitely.
Without advertising you often have to either charge for access to your website, or rake in donations. You are being very naive with your assumptions.
Seems to me that you are the one being naive. The market determines the viability of the business model - not how much effort you put into it. If the market decides that advertising support is unacceptable, then that's just the way it is. You might as well be claiming that your website needs bailout money.
I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. Basically if you act like a smart ass to other people, they will act like smart asses back to you. Cops are people. That's how it goes.
No, that's not "how it goes."
Ask any real cop, like my uncle for example, and they will tell you that not responding to provocation is part of their training. Because of the responsibility they hold as part of their function in society it is their duty to hold to a higher standard of behaviour than the average citizen.
So, while being a smart ass to a cop may be stupid, stupidity is not a crime.
No.... we're not "better," just much less likely to use them against others. I guess it may be a fine distinction, but I think its there.
My impression is that N Korea doesn't really plan to use them against anyone. Although a little sabre-rattling always seems to help out their negotiating position wrt to food aid. Seoul has been within easy range of their weapons since the day the armistice was signed and they only need to hold them hostage to effectively hold the US hostage. Japan isn't necessary for that scenario.
Instead, I think N Korea needs to demonstrate that their missiles work so that they can sell them to other countries. After all, weapons production is their largest industry by far.
Slashdot Mirror
Stories that talk of the horrors of war will make young men feel that they need this horror to have real feeling.
Stupid young men that is, and you can never reason with people like that.
I read All Quiet on the Western Front in 7th grade and I quickly figured out that I did not want any part of that shit.
"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die"
--Tennyson
You are reaching for straws.
Regardless of whatever arbitrary definition of "need" you wish to employ, the fact is the founding fathers most definitely used anonymity and furthermore our supreme court has long recognized that anonymous speech is an integral part of the right of free speech.
Furthermore, you make the rather silly error of conflating the right to face your accuser when you are put on trial with a right to know who is merely calling you names. Absent being formally charged with a crime and facing legal conviction, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest your interpretation has any merit.
Few Florida counties even bothered to pay attention to those felons lists because of the fuss that had been kicked up
Let's see some supporting evidence for that claim.
I just spent 10 minutes in google looking for it and didn't find any, not even dittoheads making that claim.
So show me why you believe it to be true.
Intel 8945J integrated wireless on my laptop. Dual boot, Zenwalk Linux and XP MCE 2005. Until the most recent driver from Intel, the wireless card was *significantly* stabler under Linux.
Who needs wireless - I've got an Atherlos L1 gigabit ethernet controller on the motherboard - despite it being years old, all vista drivers for it are dogshit slow AND crash under any significant load. Under linux it works just fine. For the one vista system I must run I had to waste as slot on a PCIe gig-e card and use that instead.
How can enforcement of the rules be illegal? Unless the rules were unconstitutional...
Uh, when they are over-zealous?
Tell me you aren't playing the coquettishly ignorant game here.
Do you really not know what went down there? Try googling for it.
Maybe the 8 was made up shit, but the years part wasn't.
Lol. and neither was the "had" part or the "reputation" part!
Look at this statement. "No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation. His inauguration protests prove that the hatred toward him had nothing to do with anything he did in office as they started before his inauguration!"
If that's what you are reduced to, then that's pathetic because all he is doing is reasserting his original statement without any new supporting evidence -- in the face of my moderating claims that ALL presidents get some form of protest and that thousands is small beans. That I wouldn't give him credit for that bullshit should be no surprise.
Chill out dude, everyone's friends here.
Really? Is that why you and Archerwtf are cherry-picking in such a ludicrously misleading manner? Because you are my friend?
"Bush had years to build up a reputation."
???
Are you really so self-deluded that you:
(a) see the number 8 in that sentence and
(b) couldn't read the next line where I said "Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term"
?????
Hang your head in shame dumbfuck. At least Archer8 knew enough to shut up when he got caught failing basic reading comprehension.
No, you said that Bush had eight years to build up a reputation.
No I didn't. Quit making up shit. You betray your bias by presenting distortions. For example, this one is also blatantly obvious:
Do you really believe that if Bush had FORCED banks to take tax payer money in exchange for more government control that the press would have ignored it?
Apparently they did, because the forcing of funds on banks happened while Bush was in office.
Bush's anti-following was born, ready made, from the Florida fiasco, which before anyone starts in, even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
Yeah, that's true.
IF you ignore all the people illegally turned away from the polls because of the over-zealous anti-felon enforcement.
Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration while Obama got a party.
Big deal, all presidents get some kind of protest - "thousands" really isn't much, more of a snowball than an avalanche.
Bush got an inauguration party too - about as big as Obama's for his 2nd term even - `$42M for Bush and ~$41M for Obama.
With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.
And Obama has had no criticism at all, eh? Oh wait, it is some immeasurable way "less" than Bush. Right.
I really wonder if the whole reason for stepping in is truly nefarious or if its to keep a few things secret to stop the lynching mob from going after Bush.
I sure hope not. That's the kind of thinking that pardoned Nixon and all it does is lower the bar for someone else to come along and do even worse.
Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?
Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.
"Nya nya nya nya nya, you are a fag and the devil's butt monkey" - It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
One might even say that is wasn't very Christian of them to do that.
assuming everything that appears more likely to succeed which has equal or less cost has already been tried,
Crux of your argument is pure speculation. Anyone can make up additional parameters to justify a bullshit argument. You might as well have said that the queen of the drow gave them an ultimatum - stop selling PDFs or her she will teleport the corporate headquarters to one of the planes of hell.
Actually "do no evil" was Google shtick, not Apples. Apple has never claimed not to be evil, they're just very stylish about it.
I was in a Target store yesterday and I noticed they had posters all over that said "5% good."
I couldn't help but think that meant they were 95% evil.
I agree. He was totally projecting his own pet peeve onto someone he knew nothing about.
As has been proven multiple times in the last 5-6 years or so, the GOP and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing. Limbaugh was speaking to the latter at CPAC.
And is Dick Cheney not "the GOP" either? Because he sure seems to like to show up on Limbaugh's show.
I remember a few years back when Bush was trying to push a friend from texas for the job of AG or maybe it was as a nominee for the supreme court. Whatever the job was, she was woefully underqualified and everybody knew it. On the day of the announcement, Cheney called in for an "interview" with Limbaugh in order to promote this woman. I don't listen to Rush anymore, but I've heard that Cheney has made several more appearances on the show.
Bubble not burst.
What is it about WORMS that you think prevents wholesale replacement with copies of all the original data except that of any clandestine fixes?
After all, if they signed it once, they sure as shit can sign it again.
No financial institution that I am aware of actually emails you the paperless document. They email you a link or notification to log in and view it online with the option to download a copy. It is difficult to automate the log in and download process based on receipt of an email, probably beyond the ability of 99.999% of their customers. That means that there is plenty of opportunity for manipulation of the "paperless document" on their servers at least until the user actually saves a copy and I'll bet you that most users don't save copies - they view them and then rely on them being available online indefinitely.
Without advertising you often have to either charge for access to your website, or rake in donations. You are being very naive with your assumptions.
Seems to me that you are the one being naive. The market determines the viability of the business model - not how much effort you put into it. If the market decides that advertising support is unacceptable, then that's just the way it is. You might as well be claiming that your website needs bailout money.
Doh, he said he posted it to youtube years before the scammer did. Clearly it has been published.
I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. Basically if you act like a smart ass to other people, they will act like smart asses back to you. Cops are people. That's how it goes.
No, that's not "how it goes."
Ask any real cop, like my uncle for example, and they will tell you that not responding to provocation is part of their training. Because of the responsibility they hold as part of their function in society it is their duty to hold to a higher standard of behaviour than the average citizen.
So, while being a smart ass to a cop may be stupid, stupidity is not a crime.
No.... we're not "better," just much less likely to use them against others. I guess it may be a fine distinction, but I think its there.
My impression is that N Korea doesn't really plan to use them against anyone. Although a little sabre-rattling always seems to help out their negotiating position wrt to food aid. Seoul has been within easy range of their weapons since the day the armistice was signed and they only need to hold them hostage to effectively hold the US hostage. Japan isn't necessary for that scenario.
Instead, I think N Korea needs to demonstrate that their missiles work so that they can sell them to other countries. After all, weapons production is their largest industry by far.
Psssssttttt! Wanna guess what I'm typing this post with?
Your arm?
Actually I was asking what you would have done in that situation. Not whether you would collect certain evidence.
So, I asked a question and you responded with an unrelated question? Thanks for the help buddy.