It's not a matter of smoking anything. In the U.S. (at least in my experience), all of the college-bound students try to create at least some distance between themselves and their parents, usually on the order of a three-hour drive at least. Many just move across the country.
What relevance does this have to the topic at hand? I certainly won't debate that many people in the US choose to move away from their families when they go to college. I also wouldn't debate that many people prefer the taste of a flame broiled Whopper to a Big Mac. But so what?
Just because your morality has such a strong sense of community (which I could easily rephrase in more disparaging terms---try, perhaps, "tying down young people to the same backward lives as their parents"), that doesn't mean it should be the one to receive government funding. Lemme repeat: it is not the government's job to enforce your morality.
I could give a fuck if the young people move or stay. What I am talking about is people saying "You don't like where you live? Then move! Give up your property and your history and move!" and how that attitude is missing a rather large point.
That point being this:
3,000 people would be abandoning their land and homes if they "just moved." Who would buy thier land and homes? Nobody. So now you have 3,000 people in the EU who have given up the vast majority of their assets. Do you seriously think that economic fallout from 3,000 people suddenly being broke is going to be less, long term, than $1.2 million bucks? I daresay I'd be surprised if such a move didn't actually result in more expenditures on the part of other EU members than the mirror plan.
So even "just" economically, "move!" is a stupid idea.
Now add in the loss of history and community, and it becomes even dumber.
Furthermore, as the EU is paying, I'm pretty sure that it's everyone in the EU's money, not just "THEIR OWN" money. Now I don't know about you, but if I lived in, e.g., France, I'd be pissed that these random guys were getting some of my money to install a mirror to create "hot spots" around their town. (Of course, if I lived in France, I'd be pissed for a lot of reasons... but that's another topic). But IANAEUTL (EU tax lawyer).
Population of the EU: 457,030,418 Cost, per citizen of the EU, of this project:.002735 euros (or dollars, or whatever the unit in discussion is)
Are you seriously suggesting that 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever per citizen is some kind of major expenditure? You do realize that the amount in question is likely flushed down the toilet hourly through random administrative seepage? Some clerk in Belgium gives his wang an extra shake while at the john and boom - 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever just got spent.
Given the choice between subsiding some beaurocrat rubbing one out during a coffee break or having a place I could visit that has ginormous mirrors, I'll take the mirrors.
What gives them the "right" to spend someone else's money?
They're part of the EU.
When various nations joined the EU, one of the things that was certainly part of the deal is that the union might spend some of their money in ways that might not directly benefit them.
Not to take away from the guys accomplishments but will a time come when we all but do away with the need to press the flesh?
Why would we want to? People gather in person because they enjoy the proximity of other people. Some people like that a lot, some people don't like it at all. What possible reason could there be for suggesting that everyone give up actual physical proximity, if that's their thing?
Why do we need to gather and mingle in the face of the web, the very essence of which is near instantaneous communication at a distance.
Because we're humans? Because meeting people face to face is, generally, for humans who don't have some sort of social anxiety disorder, a pleasant thing? Because instantaneous communications is a nice trick, but ultimately is just another tool in the box, not a replacement for every other kind of human-human interface?
This reminds me of those who need to print out hard copies of material in order to study it properly.
I'm one of those people, and until someone comes up with a way for me to have a digital copy that I can comfortably read while in a comfy chair, while on the bus, or standing in line, have an interface as easy to mark up and annotate with as a pen to paper is, and can be folded up and stuffed in a purse or pocket, I'll continue printing things out. Oh, and, let us not forget that it'd have to have the same optical qualities as paper - easy on the eyes, dontcha know.
You seem to be an advocate of using tech for tech's sake, rather than using the right tool for the job, whatever that tool is, whatever that job is.
Do we gain or lose signal to noise when we gather to celebrate our heroes?
What if the noise is part of the signal? Some people - this may shock you - *enjoy* the "grit" of a crowd. Some people like the smell, the feel, the sound, the whole experience of being near thousands of other people who are all sharing an event, a purpose.
I keep a few fundamental books at hand's reach but other than those and the turn over of new material taken out from a library, I'm much more comfortable and able to take from an e format than from dead tree material, and, I can learn more from another at a distance than when merged in a touchy feely mind meld.
How's life in the Collective?
Here's how I roll (can ya believe I said that?)
Entertainment: Dead tree books I can snuggle up with, movies in the theatre, plays every couple of months, music preferably live, comedy in clubs while drinking beer, the way nature intended, friends face to face and even *gasp* touching every once in awhile.
Work: Digital books - easily searchable. Communications - instant but not intrusive (IM/email, no phone if I can manage it). Meetings - first meeting in meatspace, but after that it should be a mailing list/im kinda thing.
So, for me, work = digital, life = analogue, and I'm rather happy that way. Note that I said *I* am happy that way. Maybe other people want other things, and that's great - they can have them.
Those who want to give $3,000 to the project can do so of their own free will; they have no right to force those opposed to the project to cover the costs.
They have every right - just as much right as any other group does, at least, to try and get tax money for various projects. If those neighbors don't like the fact that they won't always get their way when deciding where tax money goes, they can leave the EU and never have to worry about their neighbors spending their money in a way that they disagree with.
After all, given the "Hey, if you don't like it, just leave rather than try to fix it" logic people are trying to use here, walking away is a great solution to all life's problems, right? Hey, let's take it further:
Let's abandon Vienna, rather than pay upkeep on the canal system. Let's evacuate Amsterdam, cause paying for all those dikes is just pointlessly expensive! Hey, all you people living in places that require any kind of enviornmental adaptation: MOVE! Let's all just live in one big huge megacity - that'd solve all our problems.
Lemme guess - you don't own a home? Don't live in the same area your parents, their parents, and their parents lived? Don't have any sense of community or history where you reside? If any of the above are true, then let me ask you this: what the fuck are you smoking, and may I please have some?
It's not as simple as "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" You're basically suggesting that people give up their history and property in order to spare ~$3,000 of THEIR OWN money per person (taxes) trying to fix a problem.
I find it really ironic that a comment modified as "insightful" suggests that, rather than spending a trivial sum, they should just let a community with roots fade into nothing.
Yes, but the 'lie-detector' isn't one of them. A reasonable precaution that actually helps security in a real way, is the one where the cabin door is closed and shut during the flight, so no-one can get to the pilots.
And I did, indeed, say that I thought the voice stress thing was dumb. My original post, as I said in the one you are now replying to, was to a guy wanting a "tyranny free" departure lounge where they don't bother with security. I said that in the post you're responding to - was it not clear?
As for your example with booze: actually, around here people have a far more relaxed attitude towards that. We don't require people to be 21 before they can buy it, and we don't have shopkeepers asking for your ID neither, even if you're below 18. And yet, we don't have all the preceived problems you seem to think it would cause.
That's wonderful for you, but unfortunately, we do actually have problems that arise from underage drinking here. Hell, we have problems with of age drinking here. Different cultures, different problems. Underage drinking in, say, Finland (or wherever, I'm just throwing that out there) may not lead to people wrapping their cars around telephone poles (or other cars) but in the US it does seem to go that route often enough. Note that I don't say that problems as a result of underage drinking *might* happen, but that they *do* happen.
Anyway - your comment still doesn't address the actual argument that was made: there *are* problems that come about from underage drinking, and, while carding people doesn't completely solve the problem, it does, at least, make it somewhat less likely that a kid'll get metaphorically smashed and then get literally smashed, and does so without causing an absurd inconvenience to everyone involved.
Just to show you that, while you may be thinking it is needed and a good thing to do, it doesn't mean that really is the case, nor that it helps anything.
I assure you, in the US it is a very useful measure that does help save some lives. Our problems with underage drinkers are emphatically not hypothetical.
Do I think it will solve the problem? Hell no. But until we can figure out how to solve the underlying issues, it's better than nothing.
See, here's the problem - I *don't* think it's worth wiping my ass with the Bill of Rights in order to protect people.
The problem with many of the responses to my post is that they assume that the statement can be taken all the way to the extreme - as you do with the comments about Gitmo etc. ANYTHING when taken to the extreme can be made to sound incredibly stupid.
As an example of an argument taken to the extreme the way you just took mine, let's take underage drinking. I am more than willing to deal with the "hassle" of getting carded when I go to buy booze if it means that Little Joey 6-Pack will have a slightly harder time getting a case of Old Milwaukee, drinking 4 of em, and wrapping mom's Suburban around a telephone poll. Does this mean then, that I am in favor of all manner of invasive processes prior to someone getting a drink? Am I suddenly in favor of requiring that every establishment that sells booze have a social worker on call there to monitor and intervene when it seems like someone might be developing a problem?
No. It doesn't. What it means is that I don't mind getting carded to buy beer because I can see a value in what the carding is trying to prevent, and I think the hassle is minor and vastly outweighed by the benefit. If the hassle were greater - 3 forms of ID and a note from my mom - then I wouldn't be supportive.
In the case of airline security, I do, actually, think that vast sums are wasted. I do, actually, think that there are gaping holes in the security process, and that if someone were sufficiently motivated, they could likely get through. BUT! I don't think that just because people *can* get through, we should make it easy for them. In the case of this specific story - the voice stress testing - I think that's absurd. Duh, it's a fucking airport, of COURSE people will be stressed. But in the general sense of having security, I'm all in favor AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GET ABSURD. And, my response was to someone who wanted "tyranny free" departure lounges where they don't bother with all this security stuff.
And I called bullshit on that. I did not, however, add "And let's start wiping our asses with the Bill of Rights, too!"
SOME security is necessary - even if it isn't done in the most efficient way. SOME security will help to prevent SOME problems. Not all of them. But enough to make it worthwhile, to me, in my opinion.
You are essentially using the "slippery slope" argument against me - and that's a bad argument. I do not accept that "10-15 minutes of my time" must lead inevitably to "people being locked away to rot in Gitmo" - I'm a reasonable person, and I can see reasonable limits and unreasonable ones. Now, I do accept that there are many unreasonable people out there, ones who think that spending even a second on security will lead to carpet bombing villages full of brown people, or people who think that the only way to be secure is to lock down everyone and require permits to be out past 6:00 pm. I'm not one of those, okay?
What ever happened to the concept of moderation? There *are* reasonable precautions that can be taken, that *don't* require rounding up all the usual suspects Inquisition style. That's what I'm in favor of. I had thought it might go without saying, but, well, this is/., where you're either an extremist, or you need to spend 30 fucking minutes spelling out shit in minute detail.
On the plus side, I got my first "Troll" moderation, so at least it wasn't a total waste:D
When they stop selling at that price, or it is decided that the increase in unit sales at a slightly lower price will lead to more profits than the current price point.
I'm the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice.
I've got a healing factor that's through the roof - shoot me full of lead, and I'm back on my feet and tearing you a new one before the echo of the gunshots fades.
I've got an unbreakable adamantium skeleton, claws equipped with diamond coating that'll just tear through anything, and now the boys with the high foreheads just went and made me fearless.
What's the point of a government saying "Stay away from drugs!" on the one hand and willingly giving it to soldiers on the other?
Soldiers aren't civilians - different expectations, different situations.
What's the point of a government saying "Don't kill people!" to civilians on the one hand and then training soldiers to go out and do just that? (Just using that as an example of the dichotomy - not making an editorial statement)
That's not possible! I have a DVD here called "Batman Begins" so you see, Batman BEGINS in the movies, and then the media companies use their time machines to travel back into the past, seeding the world with evidence that Batman has existed for decades - you know, to test our faith.
Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?
Because that's what you're saying, even if you don't realize it.
I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly.
To me, *OLD* school is Pong. Old School - but not quite *OLD* school would be Aztec, Apple Panic, Eamon, Alien Rain and even Hadron.
What I really yearn for is a copy of Blackdragon - the game that was on The Source - where I never managed to kill Asmodeus because I'd always wind up getting killed by Vendors. Anyone know about that?
It's annoying, but the person you should be annoyed with lives in your mirror.
THERE'S A PERSON LIVING IN MY MIRROR!?!?!
Oh, shit... call the police... call Homeland Security... there's a person living in my mirror! I'm looking right at her right now! She looks terrified!
I agree 110%. I think the people who saw it as anything other than a joke should spend less time developing software and more time developing a basic emotional inventory or, at least, a sense of humor.
Please allow me to make some slight modifications to your comment (my corrections in bold):
Strewth, SOME Americans really have a thing about socialism. Just invoking the word scares SOME people, even though MUCH OF the rest of the Western world has, to some degree or other, accepted and embraced facets socialism (the Welfare State, socialised medicine). When SOME OF your elderly people have to travel to Canada OR JUST GO ONLINE TO A CANADIAN PHARMACY WEB SITE to buy cheap drugs, it's socialism that they're benefiting from.
I, personally, am a big fan of limited socialism. I strongly believe that there are some things best handled by private concerns, and some things that do very well when handled by the government. In fact, I'm not alone, and there are large numbers of Americans who feel the same way, and who are trying to get such programs put forward.
I won't comment on your comments about socialism + bearded guy on a stick = christianity except to say that, if the US had *less* Christianity, we'd have *more* socialized programs. Look at the people who vote for the party that claims to be opposed to socialized programs and big government, and then look at the people who are also of the more... aggressive... Christian sects, and you'll see a surprising overlap.
The snake is fun - I still have my original, and also about a dozen very recent knockoffs that I picked up while at a dollar store.
My favorite was the pyramid. I got to where I could solve that one in about 15-20 seconds. Not nearly as tricky as the cube to do, but it was good for winning beers back in college:)
I've played CoH on and off since launch, and did a bit of Beta for CoV, and am, in fact, currently playing CoV (waiting for my teammates to get back from walking their dogs) while I write this.
What's good is that there are now more archetypes/classes, and they are closer (for me, anyway) to what I'd wanted in the first place.
Also, there are some new graphics tweaks that I'm really liking, and a change to ragdoll physics which makes for some more smash-up fun when beating the crap out of things.
What's bad is that it's the exact same thing, just with naughty names. Instead of beating up Hellions to bring them to justice, I'm beating them up because they're on my turf. Instead of Rescuing Dr. Petersen from the Circle of Thorns, I'm kidnapping her from the Circle who just kidnapped her originally.
What's indifferent (for me) is the base building. It's a neat thing, glad they added it, but enh...
Overall, I really enjoy the game because it allows me to smash things while being semi-social, and I get some fun out of trying new concepts out with my friends who also play. I am currently running around with a brute based on the idea of a Very Upset Child.
I don't know, but I have a guess based on tangential conversations with biologists: see, the problem is, how do you tell the cells, even if they're willing to divide and grow, to organize themselves into some macroscopic shape, like a sac with tubes and various layers? They don't response to yelled commands, you know.
Your cells lack discipline! I'm going to ask them a bunch of questions, and I want to have them answered immediately!/Ahnuld
Why would printing a new human be "the greatest achievement of mankind"?
People fuck and make new humans all the time (obvious joke: maybe not Slashdotters) - why is printing one and building it from a kit so special? It's a neat hack, sure, but it creates nothing new.
Making more humans is a solved problem that is much more efficiently (and entertainingly) handled by natural processes. What we need are better ones.
Actually, places have to get liquor licenses and noise permits - why shouldn't they have to get permits for any other enviornmental toxin, such as smoke? (But, I do agree - anyone who goes to a bar and imagines that it won't be smokey is not terribly bright)
However, my point was to the OP's comment that secondhand smoke may not be poisonous, so why get upset about it? My response - urine *is* non-toxic, so nobody should complain if I spray them with cat piss - used the same logic.
I don't care if second hand smoke is harmless or not - it smells horribly, and I don't want to have to smell it.
But tell you what - urine is supposedly harmless, so you can innundate me with cigarette smoke, and I can spritz you with cat piss. Fair?
Unhealthy or not isn't the point. The point is that it is something that bothers other people. We have laws against playing music too loud, or walking down the street screaming like a lunatic, or against being a drunk and disorderly asshole - why should forcing other people to deal with foul smelling shit like tobacco smoke be any different?
(Note: I am also really pissy with people who wear too much cologne/perfume, and have been known to make bitchy comments about how, if they just, like, washed their *ass* they wouldn't need so much stink juice. But that's just me, and I can be a little angsty sometimes.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of smoking anything. In the U.S. (at least in my experience), all of the college-bound students try to create at least some distance between themselves and their parents, usually on the order of a three-hour drive at least. Many just move across the country.
.002735 euros (or dollars, or whatever the unit in discussion is)
What relevance does this have to the topic at hand? I certainly won't debate that many people in the US choose to move away from their families when they go to college. I also wouldn't debate that many people prefer the taste of a flame broiled Whopper to a Big Mac. But so what?
Just because your morality has such a strong sense of community (which I could easily rephrase in more disparaging terms---try, perhaps, "tying down young people to the same backward lives as their parents"), that doesn't mean it should be the one to receive government funding. Lemme repeat: it is not the government's job to enforce your morality.
I could give a fuck if the young people move or stay. What I am talking about is people saying "You don't like where you live? Then move! Give up your property and your history and move!" and how that attitude is missing a rather large point.
That point being this:
3,000 people would be abandoning their land and homes if they "just moved." Who would buy thier land and homes? Nobody. So now you have 3,000 people in the EU who have given up the vast majority of their assets. Do you seriously think that economic fallout from 3,000 people suddenly being broke is going to be less, long term, than $1.2 million bucks? I daresay I'd be surprised if such a move didn't actually result in more expenditures on the part of other EU members than the mirror plan.
So even "just" economically, "move!" is a stupid idea.
Now add in the loss of history and community, and it becomes even dumber.
Furthermore, as the EU is paying, I'm pretty sure that it's everyone in the EU's money, not just "THEIR OWN" money. Now I don't know about you, but if I lived in, e.g., France, I'd be pissed that these random guys were getting some of my money to install a mirror to create "hot spots" around their town. (Of course, if I lived in France, I'd be pissed for a lot of reasons... but that's another topic). But IANAEUTL (EU tax lawyer).
Population of the EU: 457,030,418
Cost, per citizen of the EU, of this project:
Are you seriously suggesting that 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever per citizen is some kind of major expenditure? You do realize that the amount in question is likely flushed down the toilet hourly through random administrative seepage? Some clerk in Belgium gives his wang an extra shake while at the john and boom - 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever just got spent.
Given the choice between subsiding some beaurocrat rubbing one out during a coffee break or having a place I could visit that has ginormous mirrors, I'll take the mirrors.
What gives them the "right" to spend someone else's money?
They're part of the EU.
When various nations joined the EU, one of the things that was certainly part of the deal is that the union might spend some of their money in ways that might not directly benefit them.
Not to take away from the guys accomplishments but will a time come when we all but do away with the need to press the flesh?
Why would we want to? People gather in person because they enjoy the proximity of other people. Some people like that a lot, some people don't like it at all. What possible reason could there be for suggesting that everyone give up actual physical proximity, if that's their thing?
Why do we need to gather and mingle in the face of the web, the very essence of which is near instantaneous communication at a distance.
Because we're humans? Because meeting people face to face is, generally, for humans who don't have some sort of social anxiety disorder, a pleasant thing? Because instantaneous communications is a nice trick, but ultimately is just another tool in the box, not a replacement for every other kind of human-human interface?
This reminds me of those who need to print out hard copies of material in order to study it properly.
I'm one of those people, and until someone comes up with a way for me to have a digital copy that I can comfortably read while in a comfy chair, while on the bus, or standing in line, have an interface as easy to mark up and annotate with as a pen to paper is, and can be folded up and stuffed in a purse or pocket, I'll continue printing things out. Oh, and, let us not forget that it'd have to have the same optical qualities as paper - easy on the eyes, dontcha know.
You seem to be an advocate of using tech for tech's sake, rather than using the right tool for the job, whatever that tool is, whatever that job is.
Do we gain or lose signal to noise when we gather to celebrate our heroes?
What if the noise is part of the signal? Some people - this may shock you - *enjoy* the "grit" of a crowd. Some people like the smell, the feel, the sound, the whole experience of being near thousands of other people who are all sharing an event, a purpose.
I keep a few fundamental books at hand's reach but other than those and the turn over of new material taken out from a library, I'm much more comfortable and able to take from an e format than from dead tree material, and, I can learn more from another at a distance than when merged in a touchy feely mind meld.
How's life in the Collective?
Here's how I roll (can ya believe I said that?)
Entertainment:
Dead tree books I can snuggle up with, movies in the theatre, plays every couple of months, music preferably live, comedy in clubs while drinking beer, the way nature intended, friends face to face and even *gasp* touching every once in awhile.
Work:
Digital books - easily searchable. Communications - instant but not intrusive (IM/email, no phone if I can manage it). Meetings - first meeting in meatspace, but after that it should be a mailing list/im kinda thing.
So, for me, work = digital, life = analogue, and I'm rather happy that way. Note that I said *I* am happy that way. Maybe other people want other things, and that's great - they can have them.
Those who want to give $3,000 to the project can do so of their own free will; they have no right to force those opposed to the project to cover the costs.
They have every right - just as much right as any other group does, at least, to try and get tax money for various projects. If those neighbors don't like the fact that they won't always get their way when deciding where tax money goes, they can leave the EU and never have to worry about their neighbors spending their money in a way that they disagree with.
After all, given the "Hey, if you don't like it, just leave rather than try to fix it" logic people are trying to use here, walking away is a great solution to all life's problems, right? Hey, let's take it further:
Let's abandon Vienna, rather than pay upkeep on the canal system. Let's evacuate Amsterdam, cause paying for all those dikes is just pointlessly expensive! Hey, all you people living in places that require any kind of enviornmental adaptation: MOVE! Let's all just live in one big huge megacity - that'd solve all our problems.
Lemme guess - you don't own a home? Don't live in the same area your parents, their parents, and their parents lived? Don't have any sense of community or history where you reside? If any of the above are true, then let me ask you this: what the fuck are you smoking, and may I please have some?
It's not as simple as "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" You're basically suggesting that people give up their history and property in order to spare ~$3,000 of THEIR OWN money per person (taxes) trying to fix a problem.
I find it really ironic that a comment modified as "insightful" suggests that, rather than spending a trivial sum, they should just let a community with roots fade into nothing.
When did he get a bling coating?
He didn't - I just made that part up to avoid copyright issues.
Yes, but the 'lie-detector' isn't one of them. A reasonable precaution that actually helps security in a real way, is the one where the cabin door is closed and shut during the flight, so no-one can get to the pilots.
And I did, indeed, say that I thought the voice stress thing was dumb. My original post, as I said in the one you are now replying to, was to a guy wanting a "tyranny free" departure lounge where they don't bother with security. I said that in the post you're responding to - was it not clear?
As for your example with booze: actually, around here people have a far more relaxed attitude towards that. We don't require people to be 21 before they can buy it, and we don't have shopkeepers asking for your ID neither, even if you're below 18. And yet, we don't have all the preceived problems you seem to think it would cause.
That's wonderful for you, but unfortunately, we do actually have problems that arise from underage drinking here. Hell, we have problems with of age drinking here. Different cultures, different problems. Underage drinking in, say, Finland (or wherever, I'm just throwing that out there) may not lead to people wrapping their cars around telephone poles (or other cars) but in the US it does seem to go that route often enough. Note that I don't say that problems as a result of underage drinking *might* happen, but that they *do* happen.
Anyway - your comment still doesn't address the actual argument that was made: there *are* problems that come about from underage drinking, and, while carding people doesn't completely solve the problem, it does, at least, make it somewhat less likely that a kid'll get metaphorically smashed and then get literally smashed, and does so without causing an absurd inconvenience to everyone involved.
Just to show you that, while you may be thinking it is needed and a good thing to do, it doesn't mean that really is the case, nor that it helps anything.
I assure you, in the US it is a very useful measure that does help save some lives. Our problems with underage drinkers are emphatically not hypothetical.
Do I think it will solve the problem? Hell no. But until we can figure out how to solve the underlying issues, it's better than nothing.
See, here's the problem - I *don't* think it's worth wiping my ass with the Bill of Rights in order to protect people.
/., where you're either an extremist, or you need to spend 30 fucking minutes spelling out shit in minute detail.
:D
The problem with many of the responses to my post is that they assume that the statement can be taken all the way to the extreme - as you do with the comments about Gitmo etc. ANYTHING when taken to the extreme can be made to sound incredibly stupid.
As an example of an argument taken to the extreme the way you just took mine, let's take underage drinking. I am more than willing to deal with the "hassle" of getting carded when I go to buy booze if it means that Little Joey 6-Pack will have a slightly harder time getting a case of Old Milwaukee, drinking 4 of em, and wrapping mom's Suburban around a telephone poll. Does this mean then, that I am in favor of all manner of invasive processes prior to someone getting a drink? Am I suddenly in favor of requiring that every establishment that sells booze have a social worker on call there to monitor and intervene when it seems like someone might be developing a problem?
No. It doesn't. What it means is that I don't mind getting carded to buy beer because I can see a value in what the carding is trying to prevent, and I think the hassle is minor and vastly outweighed by the benefit. If the hassle were greater - 3 forms of ID and a note from my mom - then I wouldn't be supportive.
In the case of airline security, I do, actually, think that vast sums are wasted. I do, actually, think that there are gaping holes in the security process, and that if someone were sufficiently motivated, they could likely get through. BUT! I don't think that just because people *can* get through, we should make it easy for them. In the case of this specific story - the voice stress testing - I think that's absurd. Duh, it's a fucking airport, of COURSE people will be stressed. But in the general sense of having security, I'm all in favor AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GET ABSURD. And, my response was to someone who wanted "tyranny free" departure lounges where they don't bother with all this security stuff.
And I called bullshit on that. I did not, however, add "And let's start wiping our asses with the Bill of Rights, too!"
SOME security is necessary - even if it isn't done in the most efficient way. SOME security will help to prevent SOME problems. Not all of them. But enough to make it worthwhile, to me, in my opinion.
You are essentially using the "slippery slope" argument against me - and that's a bad argument. I do not accept that "10-15 minutes of my time" must lead inevitably to "people being locked away to rot in Gitmo" - I'm a reasonable person, and I can see reasonable limits and unreasonable ones. Now, I do accept that there are many unreasonable people out there, ones who think that spending even a second on security will lead to carpet bombing villages full of brown people, or people who think that the only way to be secure is to lock down everyone and require permits to be out past 6:00 pm. I'm not one of those, okay?
What ever happened to the concept of moderation? There *are* reasonable precautions that can be taken, that *don't* require rounding up all the usual suspects Inquisition style. That's what I'm in favor of. I had thought it might go without saying, but, well, this is
On the plus side, I got my first "Troll" moderation, so at least it wasn't a total waste
When they stop selling at that price, or it is decided that the increase in unit sales at a slightly lower price will lead to more profits than the current price point.
I'm the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice.
I've got a healing factor that's through the roof - shoot me full of lead, and I'm back on my feet and tearing you a new one before the echo of the gunshots fades.
I've got an unbreakable adamantium skeleton, claws equipped with diamond coating that'll just tear through anything, and now the boys with the high foreheads just went and made me fearless.
Oh, I'm the best there is at what I do, bub.
I am... THE MOUSEVERINE! *SKNIT*
What's the point of a government saying "Stay away from drugs!" on the one hand and willingly giving it to soldiers on the other?
Soldiers aren't civilians - different expectations, different situations.
What's the point of a government saying "Don't kill people!" to civilians on the one hand and then training soldiers to go out and do just that? (Just using that as an example of the dichotomy - not making an editorial statement)
That's not possible! I have a DVD here called "Batman Begins" so you see, Batman BEGINS in the movies, and then the media companies use their time machines to travel back into the past, seeding the world with evidence that Batman has existed for decades - you know, to test our faith.
Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?
Because that's what you're saying, even if you don't realize it.
I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly.
... we use a process called MTCOADBAFM.
Measure Twice, Cut Once, And Don't Be A Fucking Moron.
It works really well. Our stuff gets done on time, at budget, and passes all quality control checks.
I know, I know - our process doesn't have a nice EXTREME TO THE MAX buzzword, but it works for us.
if(album.marketing_budget >= metric_fuckton){
album.chart_position = 1;
}
Academics is easy!
To me, *OLD* school is Pong. Old School - but not quite *OLD* school would be Aztec, Apple Panic, Eamon, Alien Rain and even Hadron.
What I really yearn for is a copy of Blackdragon - the game that was on The Source - where I never managed to kill Asmodeus because I'd always wind up getting killed by Vendors. Anyone know about that?
It's annoying, but the person you should be annoyed with lives in your mirror.
THERE'S A PERSON LIVING IN MY MIRROR!?!?!
Oh, shit... call the police... call Homeland Security... there's a person living in my mirror! I'm looking right at her right now! She looks terrified!
I agree 110%. I think the people who saw it as anything other than a joke should spend less time developing software and more time developing a basic emotional inventory or, at least, a sense of humor.
Please allow me to make some slight modifications to your comment (my corrections in bold):
... aggressive ... Christian sects, and you'll see a surprising overlap.
Strewth, SOME Americans really have a thing about socialism. Just invoking the word scares SOME people, even though MUCH OF the rest of the Western world has, to some degree or other, accepted and embraced facets socialism (the Welfare State, socialised medicine). When SOME OF your elderly people have to travel to Canada OR JUST GO ONLINE TO A CANADIAN PHARMACY WEB SITE to buy cheap drugs, it's socialism that they're benefiting from.
I, personally, am a big fan of limited socialism. I strongly believe that there are some things best handled by private concerns, and some things that do very well when handled by the government. In fact, I'm not alone, and there are large numbers of Americans who feel the same way, and who are trying to get such programs put forward.
I won't comment on your comments about socialism + bearded guy on a stick = christianity except to say that, if the US had *less* Christianity, we'd have *more* socialized programs. Look at the people who vote for the party that claims to be opposed to socialized programs and big government, and then look at the people who are also of the more
The snake is fun - I still have my original, and also about a dozen very recent knockoffs that I picked up while at a dollar store.
:)
My favorite was the pyramid. I got to where I could solve that one in about 15-20 seconds. Not nearly as tricky as the cube to do, but it was good for winning beers back in college
I've played CoH on and off since launch, and did a bit of Beta for CoV, and am, in fact, currently playing CoV (waiting for my teammates to get back from walking their dogs) while I write this.
What's good is that there are now more archetypes/classes, and they are closer (for me, anyway) to what I'd wanted in the first place.
Also, there are some new graphics tweaks that I'm really liking, and a change to ragdoll physics which makes for some more smash-up fun when beating the crap out of things.
What's bad is that it's the exact same thing, just with naughty names. Instead of beating up Hellions to bring them to justice, I'm beating them up because they're on my turf. Instead of Rescuing Dr. Petersen from the Circle of Thorns, I'm kidnapping her from the Circle who just kidnapped her originally.
What's indifferent (for me) is the base building. It's a neat thing, glad they added it, but enh...
Overall, I really enjoy the game because it allows me to smash things while being semi-social, and I get some fun out of trying new concepts out with my friends who also play. I am currently running around with a brute based on the idea of a Very Upset Child.
I don't know, but I have a guess based on tangential conversations with biologists: see, the problem is, how do you tell the cells, even if they're willing to divide and grow, to organize themselves into some macroscopic shape, like a sac with tubes and various layers? They don't response to yelled commands, you know.
/Ahnuld
Your cells lack discipline! I'm going to ask them a bunch of questions, and I want to have them answered immediately!
Why would printing a new human be "the greatest achievement of mankind"?
People fuck and make new humans all the time (obvious joke: maybe not Slashdotters) - why is printing one and building it from a kit so special? It's a neat hack, sure, but it creates nothing new.
Making more humans is a solved problem that is much more efficiently (and entertainingly) handled by natural processes. What we need are better ones.
Actually, places have to get liquor licenses and noise permits - why shouldn't they have to get permits for any other enviornmental toxin, such as smoke? (But, I do agree - anyone who goes to a bar and imagines that it won't be smokey is not terribly bright)
However, my point was to the OP's comment that secondhand smoke may not be poisonous, so why get upset about it? My response - urine *is* non-toxic, so nobody should complain if I spray them with cat piss - used the same logic.
I don't care if second hand smoke is harmless or not - it smells horribly, and I don't want to have to smell it.
But tell you what - urine is supposedly harmless, so you can innundate me with cigarette smoke, and I can spritz you with cat piss. Fair?
Unhealthy or not isn't the point. The point is that it is something that bothers other people. We have laws against playing music too loud, or walking down the street screaming like a lunatic, or against being a drunk and disorderly asshole - why should forcing other people to deal with foul smelling shit like tobacco smoke be any different?
(Note: I am also really pissy with people who wear too much cologne/perfume, and have been known to make bitchy comments about how, if they just, like, washed their *ass* they wouldn't need so much stink juice. But that's just me, and I can be a little angsty sometimes.)