Well the point of this article is the reactions of five people in different industries giving a stereotypical reaction to the image based on what someone feels a person in that industry would say as a representative of that industry.
I'm guessing somewhere within the first 2-3 minutes of that 5 hours the Moose would realize that it could kick your ass anyway. Those guys are vicious.
This is what is meant when someone says "then my training took over..."
Training repetition until you do it without even have to think about it. Guess it works!
I'm likely paid significantly lower than this executive, and definitely was paid WAY lower when I got a credit card from AmEx (Blue) and eventually granted a $25,000 limit. I could/can request higher. But I got it to buy a used car at a rate much lower (0.9%) than I could have gotten at a bank. So I would imagine someone who likely makes in mid-six figures or even low-mid could easily get up to that. I had/have awesome credit rating, so that helps too.
The name is just a symptom. I remember initially DSL being just SBC in my area. Then resellers got to brand it their own, and make whatever value proposition they could to try to be the one you'd choose. A brief explosion of ISPs with all manner of weird names. Some were good companies, some were terrible. But now, at least in my general area, if I decide to go with DSL, it's AT&T. I can't say for certain there aren't any branded resellers, but if there are, they aren't in my area. Similar thing happened with dial-up. I remember pages and pages of dial-up service providers to choose from back in the day. Now there are a small handful of very large providers. Same thing with cars right? Car analogy is always good. Seems to be a pretty common way that a product category expands these days.
Careful with expressing such terribly libertarian viewpoints on Slashdot. You may get drone attacked. And you're darn right we should be looking for and using every write-off under the sun as long as it's there to be used legally. If you don't you're just giving away money to a mostly (by %) useless government.
Why? Because you don't work at Google. Too bad, so sad. I get free water where I work. And free toilets. Do I have to pay taxes on that? You'd rather peopel be even more dependent on their federal government masters? No thanks.
The day may actually come when personal gun ownership is no longer something anyone feels is necessary. But there are so many ridiculous things that would have to happen first that it won't be happening in any of our lifetime, or likely for many generations after ours. Crime would have to no longer exist. War would have to be no longer possible. All governments would have to be passive entities providing mostly ambassadorial functions. All dangerous animals would have to be extinct. And the list would go on. Just tell me when even one of those things happens. The U.S. was born out of an understanding that government cannot be trusted and that the checks and balances include the ability for people to defend themselves from the tyranny of government. Our hard fought independence from the tyrannical power that was England may be centuries in the past, but I guarantee you that the type of people who would take our freedom by force still exist and will continue to exist. The second amendment may not be the only thing between us and that sort of thing happening again, but it's a darn important piece of it. The US is a very safe place to live compared to the rest of the world. Turn your attention to gang rapes in India, the wholesale slaughter of villages in Afghanistan, the torture, mutilation and killing of people by drug cartels in Mexico. The killing of 20 innocent children still tears at my soul, and will for as long as I'm alive. Can you tell me that taking all civilian guns away would have prevented this? No you can't. If infringing on the rights of an entire country was worth stopping a crime from happening, we would have no rights left. Just because you don't seem to respect freedom, doesn't mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
It depends on the scenario...hard to carry a rifle around with you for self defense. A compact but powerful handgun is ideal for defense on the street. Compact shotgun along with it is ideal for in-home defense. And as far as not wanting to shoot anybody for self defense. You can't claim to know their intentions. If you pull a gun it better be to shoot it because if you pull it and hesitate, they may pull theirs and fire before you have a chance to react. Regardless though, this poster you replied to is a moron. Don't take self defense advice from him...
"So yes, if there were no guns then no one would need guns"
Not true. Guns don't exist for the sole reason of protecting yourself from others with guns. If someone attacks you with a knife, do you think a knife is sufficient defense? You better believe I would rather bring a gun to a knife fight. And I'd rather bring a tank to a gun fight, but it's a little harder to carry a tank around in a holster. Regardless of what kind of weapon a person is attacking you with, I'd want to meet it with a gun in defense. And this scales up to when they invent phasers and other such things. I want the biggest bang that balances speed and accessibility so that the attack lasts as short a time as possible. The longer it lasts, the more likely I get hurt or killed. Even if someone doesn't have a weapon, if there are more of them than there are of you, a gun is STILL needed. A knife or bat may get the odds closer, but unless they attack you like a jackie chan movie, they'll quickly overwhelm you.
You are wrong. The tea party is very much like its namesake. People who do not believe the government has the right to be doing what it is doing both fiscally with spending and taxes, and with other laws that the federal government has no business making. Yes, as the group has grown people who have seem to have similar views but eventually are outed for their special interests have temporarily identified themselves with the tea party. Your view is based on a media which is complicit in the representation of people who have become successful in earning money as bad people who should be penalized.
And because you're Dutch, your opinion on US debt/tax rate/spending is worthless. And because I'm a US citizen who is not part of Congress, my opinion on US debt/tax rate/spending is also worthless...however, I can absolutely debate you on tax rates. Just because you are okay paying nearly half your income as taxes doesn't make it right. You don't get why people have a problem with the concept that people who have done what it takes to earn more income shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of that in taxes? What extra representation are "filthy" rich people getting? None. In fact, government services such as Medicare are LESS available to rich people because of means testing. And they want to do the same thing with Social Security. So rich people are paying for services they can't even use. That's ridiculous! The United States is founded on personal freedom, not collective good. We have done a way better job on an individual level of helping our poor/infirm than any country that is outright communist/socialist. In fact, most of those who we say are poor in our country would be considered well-off by many country's standards. It's not popular to say that we will have to cut services like medicare and social security, but it's true. Cut first, raise taxes second and only if there is an debt issue that will not resolve itself in a reasonable amount of time due to the cuts.
Natural selection doesn't give a crap about what YOU think is good or bad. Sometimes natural selection seems to favor traits that aren't what appear to be the strongest. But, pretending like Amiga having some cool features is all that it takes for a product to dominate and drive the market is silly, not insightful. While there were many cool things about the Amiga, it was released after IBM was already fairly well-established. People actually cared if software and hardware was "IBM compatible" long after even IBM faded into the background of the consumer hardware market. If Amigas were actually better considering all what defines better (including compatibility, company management, marketing, not just some hardware specs) they would have won out.
Which some people seem to think is okay. Yet one reason this right exists is to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. And as our government has no limits on their available firepower, I resent any limitations on what I can have. This applies perpetually. If phasers get invented, the government will have them so I better be able to have them. Otherwise I will be unable to defend myself from the government and eventually that is something they will use against me.
there are a lot of people who will continue to react towards technology in general with a skeptical and very negative attitude. There are still people today who think a microwave is scary. However, as the devices become more prevalent, and as more of them assume more autonomous capabilities, each new generation will be less and less likely to hold prejudice against robotic humanoids. Prejudice as has been explored in such science fictional characters as Data and iRobot also helps society understand that potential before it actually happens. There are likely still numbers of people in the billions who would be extremely uncomfortable, many to the point of violent action, with the creation of a very human-like artificial lifeform that for many purposes replaces a human.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the point of this article is the reactions of five people in different industries giving a stereotypical reaction to the image based on what someone feels a person in that industry would say as a representative of that industry.
You have tasty meat to cook and eat while you watch sports?
I'm guessing somewhere within the first 2-3 minutes of that 5 hours the Moose would realize that it could kick your ass anyway. Those guys are vicious.
This is what is meant when someone says "then my training took over..." Training repetition until you do it without even have to think about it. Guess it works!
sure, but the snacks cost extra...
I'm likely paid significantly lower than this executive, and definitely was paid WAY lower when I got a credit card from AmEx (Blue) and eventually granted a $25,000 limit. I could/can request higher. But I got it to buy a used car at a rate much lower (0.9%) than I could have gotten at a bank. So I would imagine someone who likely makes in mid-six figures or even low-mid could easily get up to that. I had/have awesome credit rating, so that helps too.
When did all this anonymous post spamming start...I was off slashdot for only a few months, so is this pretty new?
The name is just a symptom. I remember initially DSL being just SBC in my area. Then resellers got to brand it their own, and make whatever value proposition they could to try to be the one you'd choose. A brief explosion of ISPs with all manner of weird names. Some were good companies, some were terrible. But now, at least in my general area, if I decide to go with DSL, it's AT&T. I can't say for certain there aren't any branded resellers, but if there are, they aren't in my area. Similar thing happened with dial-up. I remember pages and pages of dial-up service providers to choose from back in the day. Now there are a small handful of very large providers. Same thing with cars right? Car analogy is always good. Seems to be a pretty common way that a product category expands these days.
Quick google search says Apple 5000, Google 5500. But can't vouch for those numbers. So yeah, WWDC sold out way faster. But whoopie dee doo right?
Careful with expressing such terribly libertarian viewpoints on Slashdot. You may get drone attacked. And you're darn right we should be looking for and using every write-off under the sun as long as it's there to be used legally. If you don't you're just giving away money to a mostly (by %) useless government.
Why? Because you don't work at Google. Too bad, so sad. I get free water where I work. And free toilets. Do I have to pay taxes on that? You'd rather peopel be even more dependent on their federal government masters? No thanks.
Also, death to director and director shockwave!
The day may actually come when personal gun ownership is no longer something anyone feels is necessary. But there are so many ridiculous things that would have to happen first that it won't be happening in any of our lifetime, or likely for many generations after ours. Crime would have to no longer exist. War would have to be no longer possible. All governments would have to be passive entities providing mostly ambassadorial functions. All dangerous animals would have to be extinct. And the list would go on. Just tell me when even one of those things happens. The U.S. was born out of an understanding that government cannot be trusted and that the checks and balances include the ability for people to defend themselves from the tyranny of government. Our hard fought independence from the tyrannical power that was England may be centuries in the past, but I guarantee you that the type of people who would take our freedom by force still exist and will continue to exist. The second amendment may not be the only thing between us and that sort of thing happening again, but it's a darn important piece of it. The US is a very safe place to live compared to the rest of the world. Turn your attention to gang rapes in India, the wholesale slaughter of villages in Afghanistan, the torture, mutilation and killing of people by drug cartels in Mexico. The killing of 20 innocent children still tears at my soul, and will for as long as I'm alive. Can you tell me that taking all civilian guns away would have prevented this? No you can't. If infringing on the rights of an entire country was worth stopping a crime from happening, we would have no rights left. Just because you don't seem to respect freedom, doesn't mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
It depends on the scenario...hard to carry a rifle around with you for self defense. A compact but powerful handgun is ideal for defense on the street. Compact shotgun along with it is ideal for in-home defense. And as far as not wanting to shoot anybody for self defense. You can't claim to know their intentions. If you pull a gun it better be to shoot it because if you pull it and hesitate, they may pull theirs and fire before you have a chance to react. Regardless though, this poster you replied to is a moron. Don't take self defense advice from him...
"So yes, if there were no guns then no one would need guns"
Not true. Guns don't exist for the sole reason of protecting yourself from others with guns. If someone attacks you with a knife, do you think a knife is sufficient defense? You better believe I would rather bring a gun to a knife fight. And I'd rather bring a tank to a gun fight, but it's a little harder to carry a tank around in a holster. Regardless of what kind of weapon a person is attacking you with, I'd want to meet it with a gun in defense. And this scales up to when they invent phasers and other such things. I want the biggest bang that balances speed and accessibility so that the attack lasts as short a time as possible. The longer it lasts, the more likely I get hurt or killed. Even if someone doesn't have a weapon, if there are more of them than there are of you, a gun is STILL needed. A knife or bat may get the odds closer, but unless they attack you like a jackie chan movie, they'll quickly overwhelm you.
So that would be the people who get the highest percentage return compared to what they put in? RIGHT?
You are wrong. The tea party is very much like its namesake. People who do not believe the government has the right to be doing what it is doing both fiscally with spending and taxes, and with other laws that the federal government has no business making. Yes, as the group has grown people who have seem to have similar views but eventually are outed for their special interests have temporarily identified themselves with the tea party. Your view is based on a media which is complicit in the representation of people who have become successful in earning money as bad people who should be penalized.
And because you're Dutch, your opinion on US debt/tax rate/spending is worthless. And because I'm a US citizen who is not part of Congress, my opinion on US debt/tax rate/spending is also worthless...however, I can absolutely debate you on tax rates. Just because you are okay paying nearly half your income as taxes doesn't make it right. You don't get why people have a problem with the concept that people who have done what it takes to earn more income shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of that in taxes? What extra representation are "filthy" rich people getting? None. In fact, government services such as Medicare are LESS available to rich people because of means testing. And they want to do the same thing with Social Security. So rich people are paying for services they can't even use. That's ridiculous! The United States is founded on personal freedom, not collective good. We have done a way better job on an individual level of helping our poor/infirm than any country that is outright communist/socialist. In fact, most of those who we say are poor in our country would be considered well-off by many country's standards. It's not popular to say that we will have to cut services like medicare and social security, but it's true. Cut first, raise taxes second and only if there is an debt issue that will not resolve itself in a reasonable amount of time due to the cuts.
Payroll tax?
Natural selection doesn't give a crap about what YOU think is good or bad. Sometimes natural selection seems to favor traits that aren't what appear to be the strongest. But, pretending like Amiga having some cool features is all that it takes for a product to dominate and drive the market is silly, not insightful. While there were many cool things about the Amiga, it was released after IBM was already fairly well-established. People actually cared if software and hardware was "IBM compatible" long after even IBM faded into the background of the consumer hardware market. If Amigas were actually better considering all what defines better (including compatibility, company management, marketing, not just some hardware specs) they would have won out.
Which some people seem to think is okay. Yet one reason this right exists is to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. And as our government has no limits on their available firepower, I resent any limitations on what I can have. This applies perpetually. If phasers get invented, the government will have them so I better be able to have them. Otherwise I will be unable to defend myself from the government and eventually that is something they will use against me.
Mao was okay, he didn't kill as many people as death.
there are a lot of people who will continue to react towards technology in general with a skeptical and very negative attitude. There are still people today who think a microwave is scary. However, as the devices become more prevalent, and as more of them assume more autonomous capabilities, each new generation will be less and less likely to hold prejudice against robotic humanoids. Prejudice as has been explored in such science fictional characters as Data and iRobot also helps society understand that potential before it actually happens. There are likely still numbers of people in the billions who would be extremely uncomfortable, many to the point of violent action, with the creation of a very human-like artificial lifeform that for many purposes replaces a human.
You could try that stuff they have for nail biters. horribly bitter taste. Not sure if it would be safe for the plastic of a tablet though.
This is a very helpful and applicable response to the asker's question. If I had mod points, I'd be modding you up.