I was merely echoing an oft-repeated characterization of the Quebecois. You're supposed to hate the English speakers not because you speak French, but because they have the audacity to speak English in Quebec.
Disclaimer: all I know about the Quebecois I've learned from listening to Canadian stand-up comedy.
Perhaps to you, calling out the distinction between US Customary and Imperial is little more than a niggle. Perhaps you don't care if you ask for a pint of beer and find more than 5% of the volume missing. Perhaps you don't drink beer at all!
But to some of us, this is serious business! Any unit that beer is measured in ought to be clearly defined! You bandy about these units as though they were of no consequence, but forsooth, many men's livelihood depends upon them!
You, sir, are the quintessential American. You're suffering from the delusion that the US is the only place in the world. Lane splitting is legal in countless places other than California. They're just not in the US, which I explicitly noted in my original post. The citation I provided corroborates my claim.
Additionally, your claim that fucks like me fuck up everything for everyone else is quite false, at least in this context. I've never ridden a motorcycle on a public road, and I've never engaged in lane splitting. Unless you're suggesting that I'm fucking up everything for everyone else by informing them about the laws that pertain to this issue. If that's the case, them I apologize for trying to alleviate you of your ignorance.
My apologies, but you really could've worded that a little better. You came across as the kind of know-it-all that with great smugness repeats back what was just said in an absurd attempt to seem insightful. I apologize for my brusque response.
It helps no one if there is a large discrepancy between the law and reality.
If we, as a society, decide we want to prohibit all jaywalking (as we apparently have now), then we should have jaywalking statutes that reflect that (and we do). If we, as a society, decide that there should be exceptions to this statute, they ought to be codified in law, not left to law enforcement to judge.
We want this, not this. As Cicero said, "We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation
This would be a great thing.
I say that not because I have a stick up my ass, but because I recognize that selective enforcement is a huge problem in this society. The problem isn't that some people get away with some offenses. The problem is that it creates a society that is complacent with criminalization or prohibition of huge ranges of activities based on the understanding that cops will be reasonable people and will exercise good judgement to pursue only "the right" infractions. This is terrible for two reasons, primarily.
The first reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it allows for an absurd legal code. Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day" outlines how our current system ensures that virtually everyone is guilty of something. Selective enforcement is the only reason that 99% of our population is able to be free from prison at any given point in time. The elimination of selective enforcement would force a long-overdue overhaul of our legal code in order to avoid a 100% incarceration rate.
The second reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it affords law enforcement officials entirely too much power, power which is frequently abused. The problem is that cops are the ones that decide who gets away with what. Not only does that create a huge conflict of interest which prevents police from being able to police each other, but it also opens up other avenues of favoritism, encourages bribery, and overall corrupts our system of justice.
If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.
So you're saying that by "Imperial", he meant "US Customary"? That's interesting. If he had instead meant "Imperial", what would he have said? "US Customary"?
The irony of a facebook kid telling me to go back to reddit. I hang out on fark and on Undernet. Get off my lawn, you pimply-faced youth.
My source was "The History of the English Paragraph" by Edwin Herbert Lewis. It was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1894. I'm not aware of Lewis' methodology, so you'll have to ask him.
No. I'm defininately replying to the guy who spewed a bunch of ridiculous drivel, compaining that some people should be able to suggest stories and other news items to slashdot and others should not. The same post that now has numerous people trying to explain to yo why your post was idiotic.
You're displaying an unwillingness to admit that your accusation was mistaken. I suppose the name-calling is intended to distract me from that? In any case, I don't remember ever making any claims about who "should be able to suggest stories" and who should not. I was merely informing readers about the submitter of this story. I did explicitly state my assumptions about the nature of this site, although I don't see how you could mistake that for a value judgement regarding certain submitters.
Take the boy who cried wolf, change it so there really is a wolf every time, and let me know what that story teaches.
I suppose such a variation would teach that a messenger that is deemed to be reliable should continue to be deemed reliable until proven otherwise? I'm not sure how that's relevant to the issue at hand, since I never questioned the reliability of paroneayea (nor even the veracity of his claims). Regardless, I only mentioned this fable as a counterexample to your claim that "judging a message by the nature of the messenger is just flat stupid", since as a society we choose to teach our children (through this fable) that judging a message by the nature of the messenger is precisely what one ought to do. Since you don't contest this, I'll take this as tacit agreement that this claim of yours was indeed false. In any case, this doesn't really have much to do with the importance (or lack thereof) of the undisclosed relationship between the submitter and MediaGoblin, as we've digressed quite a bit from the original topic.
Just accept that you have an absurd complaint that is much ado about nothing, and everyone knows it.
That's a strong argument. Actually, I'm kidding; you've left the realm of reason and turned instead to rhetoric. The idea of rational debate seems new to you, and your inability to make a coherent logical argument has exhausted my patience.
I'm not sure being an active participant on an open-source project like this counts as "undisclosed relationship".
In a literal sense, it most definitely does. Being a participant on an open-source project is inarguably a relationship of some sort. If this relationship isn't disclosed, it's an undisclosed relationship.
Whether or not such an undisclosed relationship matters in any meaningful sense, well, that's a subjective matter. I'd guess that it probably doesn't matter to most people. The responses I've gotten so far would corroborate that. Most people seem to think it matters so little that they're upset with me for even bringing it up. I'm confused as to why people find their ignorance of the submitter's relation to the submission so valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
MechWarrior (mechwars.exe) was terrible! MechWarrior 2, on the other hand, was quite awesome. The soundtrack alone should land it on this list.
Also, I'd add Star Control 2, which is now available as FOSS under the title The Ur-Quan Masters. This is my favorite video game of all time.
Warcraft 2 should be mentioned also. Maybe even Syndicate.
Defense official says Pentagon has evidence Russia firing missiles inside Ukraine
Russian troops 'directly' involved in Ukraine conflict: US, Kiev
Of course, if you don't believe US officials, let's instead turn to something we can all trust: money.
Markets take fright as Russian tanks roll into Ukraine
And as gas is fungible, it doesn't matter to Russia if we stop buying it from them
And as gas is fungible, Europe could just buy from someone other than Russia, right? ... Right?
In Soviet Russia, border crosses troops!
IIRC, most standard CRTs are around as poor as LCDs at displaying green, and probably worse than decent LCDs.
I dunno, but if you ask me, it seems like green was the only color standard CRTs were good at displaying.
Non.
I was merely echoing an oft-repeated characterization of the Quebecois. You're supposed to hate the English speakers not because you speak French, but because they have the audacity to speak English in Quebec.
Disclaimer: all I know about the Quebecois I've learned from listening to Canadian stand-up comedy.
Or 4.2.2.1 or 4.2.2.2 if you want to go right to the source.
Ehhh, fuck you anglais!
Perhaps to you, calling out the distinction between US Customary and Imperial is little more than a niggle. Perhaps you don't care if you ask for a pint of beer and find more than 5% of the volume missing. Perhaps you don't drink beer at all!
But to some of us, this is serious business! Any unit that beer is measured in ought to be clearly defined! You bandy about these units as though they were of no consequence, but forsooth, many men's livelihood depends upon them!
You, sir, are the quintessential American. You're suffering from the delusion that the US is the only place in the world. Lane splitting is legal in countless places other than California. They're just not in the US, which I explicitly noted in my original post. The citation I provided corroborates my claim.
Additionally, your claim that fucks like me fuck up everything for everyone else is quite false, at least in this context. I've never ridden a motorcycle on a public road, and I've never engaged in lane splitting. Unless you're suggesting that I'm fucking up everything for everyone else by informing them about the laws that pertain to this issue. If that's the case, them I apologize for trying to alleviate you of your ignorance.
False dichotomy.
My apologies, but you really could've worded that a little better. You came across as the kind of know-it-all that with great smugness repeats back what was just said in an absurd attempt to seem insightful. I apologize for my brusque response.
It helps no one if there is a large discrepancy between the law and reality.
If we, as a society, decide we want to prohibit all jaywalking (as we apparently have now), then we should have jaywalking statutes that reflect that (and we do).
If we, as a society, decide that there should be exceptions to this statute, they ought to be codified in law, not left to law enforcement to judge.
We want this, not this. As Cicero said, "We are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free."
Lane splitting is legal in many places, including Calilfornia (but probably not the rest of the US).
Did you also not know that it was not disclosed? Or are you always this dense?
You dumb fuck, do you even attempt to read the posts you're replying to?
I specifically cited that book in my own post, you asshat.
The problem with this is that if all cops feel like they're being audited all of the time, they're less likely to let you off the hook for a minor violation
This would be a great thing.
I say that not because I have a stick up my ass, but because I recognize that selective enforcement is a huge problem in this society. The problem isn't that some people get away with some offenses. The problem is that it creates a society that is complacent with criminalization or prohibition of huge ranges of activities based on the understanding that cops will be reasonable people and will exercise good judgement to pursue only "the right" infractions. This is terrible for two reasons, primarily. The first reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it allows for an absurd legal code. Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day" outlines how our current system ensures that virtually everyone is guilty of something. Selective enforcement is the only reason that 99% of our population is able to be free from prison at any given point in time. The elimination of selective enforcement would force a long-overdue overhaul of our legal code in order to avoid a 100% incarceration rate.
The second reason why selective enforcement is terrible is because it affords law enforcement officials entirely too much power, power which is frequently abused. The problem is that cops are the ones that decide who gets away with what. Not only does that create a huge conflict of interest which prevents police from being able to police each other, but it also opens up other avenues of favoritism, encourages bribery, and overall corrupts our system of justice.
If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.
Interesting and informative. Thank you.
So you're saying that by "Imperial", he meant "US Customary"? That's interesting. If he had instead meant "Imperial", what would he have said? "US Customary"?
The irony of a facebook kid telling me to go back to reddit. I hang out on fark and on Undernet. Get off my lawn, you pimply-faced youth.
My source was "The History of the English Paragraph" by Edwin Herbert Lewis. It was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1894. I'm not aware of Lewis' methodology, so you'll have to ask him.
What the hell is up with you people over there in the US. Still using Imperial measurements?
The US has never used Imperial measurements. We use US customary units. They're both derived from the same English units, but they do actually have several differences.
OMG ad hominem Blah Blah Blah strawman.
No. I'm defininately replying to the guy who spewed a bunch of ridiculous drivel, compaining that some people should be able to suggest stories and other news items to slashdot and others should not. The same post that now has numerous people trying to explain to yo why your post was idiotic.
You're displaying an unwillingness to admit that your accusation was mistaken. I suppose the name-calling is intended to distract me from that? In any case, I don't remember ever making any claims about who "should be able to suggest stories" and who should not. I was merely informing readers about the submitter of this story. I did explicitly state my assumptions about the nature of this site, although I don't see how you could mistake that for a value judgement regarding certain submitters.
Take the boy who cried wolf, change it so there really is a wolf every time, and let me know what that story teaches.
I suppose such a variation would teach that a messenger that is deemed to be reliable should continue to be deemed reliable until proven otherwise? I'm not sure how that's relevant to the issue at hand, since I never questioned the reliability of paroneayea (nor even the veracity of his claims). Regardless, I only mentioned this fable as a counterexample to your claim that "judging a message by the nature of the messenger is just flat stupid", since as a society we choose to teach our children (through this fable) that judging a message by the nature of the messenger is precisely what one ought to do. Since you don't contest this, I'll take this as tacit agreement that this claim of yours was indeed false. In any case, this doesn't really have much to do with the importance (or lack thereof) of the undisclosed relationship between the submitter and MediaGoblin, as we've digressed quite a bit from the original topic.
Just accept that you have an absurd complaint that is much ado about nothing, and everyone knows it.
That's a strong argument. Actually, I'm kidding; you've left the realm of reason and turned instead to rhetoric. The idea of rational debate seems new to you, and your inability to make a coherent logical argument has exhausted my patience.
undisclosed, adj., not revealed or made known publicly.
I'm not sure being an active participant on an open-source project like this counts as "undisclosed relationship".
In a literal sense, it most definitely does. Being a participant on an open-source project is inarguably a relationship of some sort. If this relationship isn't disclosed, it's an undisclosed relationship.
Whether or not such an undisclosed relationship matters in any meaningful sense, well, that's a subjective matter. I'd guess that it probably doesn't matter to most people. The responses I've gotten so far would corroborate that. Most people seem to think it matters so little that they're upset with me for even bringing it up. I'm confused as to why people find their ignorance of the submitter's relation to the submission so valuable.