Given that pigeons can deliver your email faster and more reliably than the Internet (according to experimental evidence), you might want to think about that
I reliably get email from the across the world. It usually arrives in a matter of seconds. I think somebody is pulling your chain.
If you can find any carrier pigeons, I'd be impressed - the US exterminated them all
OK, I guess I made my own position clear enough in the last sentence. Yes, I still write with a fountain-pen (and sometimes even a quill) on paper in addition to using a keyboard.
And this newfangled email! Who needs it when we already have carrier pigeons?
Since this threat, I've had five posts in other stories modded troll. No problem, I've got karma to burn, but it's not exactly a method of argument that warrants respect.
Maybe it wasn't you, but you made the threat so you'll just have to wear the reputation as well. Mods, check my posting history please.
I'm pretty sure that heterosexuals do. However, I'm equally sure that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of getting their ass kicked simply for daring to ask out someone who doesn't match their sexuality.
Fair point. The people I hang around wouldn't do that, so I didn't think of it. Hit on the wrong woman in a bar and you can still get beat up by her boyfriend as a heterosexual though, but you're right, it's not a standard expectation.
But this was about being embarrassed when rejected due to the rejector being heterosexual. How can you not understand that!?
There's a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. I'm not discriminated against because of sexual preference, being heterosexual. I can assure you that a lack of discrimination does not at all alleviate the embarrassment of rejection. Possibly homosexuals experience heights of embarrassment I'm unaware of, in which case I'd be wrong, but I doubt it. I've had some pretty humiliating rejections.
Having personally rejected advances from homosexuals, I doubt they found it pleasant simply because I was polite. Similarly, had I been rude, surely that would reflect badly on me rather than them, no?
To the person who modded me troll, try this: go to a shop with 100's of choices. When you speak the sales staff they will talk to you about two or three of them only. Otherwise, search the phrase "don't offer too many choices". You will find I am merely correct, not trolling.
You included a palatable way, "no, I'm not gay" I've said "no, I'm not gay or bi" myself, and yes I was asked out for a date a few tymes by other men.
Well, there's no need to be rude about rejecting someone's advances, nevertheless, in my experience rejection always hurts. I was told by a woman "I don't think of you that way". We had been friends for a few years. She seemed to be trying to be nice about it, but hell! She didn't think of me as a man? I doubt I would have been more hurt if she had said "Fuck off, you disgusting loser!"
I'm not saying it's impossible for the person doing the rejecting to be polite, but I can handle other peoples rudeness. That doesn't bother me. Rejection on the other hand is still rejection, it hurts even if done politely. Other people may feel differently. Thankfully I'm married now and don't have to go through that sort of thing anymore.
I'm not offtopic and it's you who don't understand the chain of replies. I didn't accuse you of anything. I explained to you that even people in socially accepted groups fear embarrassment and rejection when asking people out, thus social acceptance of homosexuals will not solve that problem.
and then me who say that the embarrassment wouldn't occurr in the first place if homosexuals were socially accepted.
I'll be more direct: You are wrong. Homosexuals will still experience that embarrassment even if they are socially accepted because it is a dynamic of initiating relationships regardless of sexual preference.
That's not an argument for not socially accepting homosexuals, just that it won't do much to solve that particular problem.
Not really. If you say "Here, use Ubuntu" all sorts of people will flock to it, it won't be exactly what they expected, and many will leave disappointed. If you say 'Linux', they jump on Google, search for 'Linux' and find out that there are hundreds of distros, find the one that works for them, and are happy.
You have obviously never studied marketing. If you want to get a decision out of people, you want to give them two choices, maximum three. Give them a hundred choices and they won't decide at all.
It also depends on the reason you want them to switch. Someone paying for advertising is likely looking to sell support. If I was selling support, it would be for one distro only. Novell, RedHat and Canonical seem to think the same way about it.
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
Maybe it's because you're skinny or have acne, not much money, not socially confident etc, etc. No matter how well gays are accepted everyone still risks rejection when they ask someone out. I'm not sure that "No, I'm not gay" is more hurtful than "No, I don't like you" as a rejection. I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable. You just have to learn to deal with it, part of that being more selective who you ask.
Deciding what is and isn't admissible is the judge's job.
I have no trouble with the Judge instructing a jury why a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible and not to consider it. I think it's going to far to prevent them from hearing it though. Particularly for the defendant. I see a case for making sure police can't get around the fourth amendment, but preventing the defendant to say anything true they feel is relevant to their defence IMO violates the first amendment.
I think medical marijuana should be legal, too, but the fact is that the federal law as not changed on the issue, and doing something illegal should result in a conviction.
No, that's part of why we have juries. An example from here in Australia: recently a woman shot and killed her stepfather. He had been sexually abusing her for years and she shot him with his own gun that he had been threatening her with. The law here is that self-defence is not a valid reason to possess a firearm. So although technically self-defence is legal, she did violate the law simply by having possession of the gun, not being licensed. What charges the police were considering I don't know, but they didn't prosecute her and gave the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of getting a jury to convict her. Note that they never claimed she hadn't broken any laws, that is police operating with an acceptance that the juries decision is the real law of the land, it supersedes legislation.
In your case in the US, the laws are different but the structure of having a constitution and state and federal governments has a lot of similarities (since our legal and political structures were partially copied from the US). So if a juror in the US can't see a constitutional justification for federal marijuana laws, for example, they are quite within their rights to consider the tenth amendment to invalidate that law leaving the matter in the power of the state or local government. Previous court decisions, instructions from the judge and passage of laws by congress do not take this power, right and responsibility away from the juror.
You can now just buy your congressional representative online, and not have to go through a lobbying firm.
The market for congressional representatives needs to be opened up more. If power is decentralised more to the states and local levels, the price of nationwide legislation would go up as it would require bribing a lot more politicians. However the price of an individual legislator would come down due to increased competition and lower effectiveness (in terms of national policy), making corruption more accessible to the average citizen.
Not that I'm seriously in favor of more corruption but that is part of why I'm strongly in favor of states rights. Power centralized at the federal level makes it that much easier for the billionaires to subvert the system. We need to pit the millionaires and the billionaires against each other by having a more competitive corruption market.
The fact that the only scientist who seemed to claim dolphins were more intelligent was doing studies with them involving LSD seems to discredit the idea...
[Scientist drops a few tabs]
Dolphin: [dolphin sounds]
Scientist: Like, wow, man. That's profound. You dolphins are really groovy...and intelligent!
I'd like a constitutional amendment placing a mandatory sunset clause for all new laws. Keep them too busy just maintaining the laws they already have to introduce many new ones. That and mandatory death penalty for any legislator voting for a bill without reading it.
To be fair China is still a Command economy that let's "Capitalism" play because it's a useful way to get people to work harder.. they are a long way from the idea of "Free Markets".
Making them different from the US (or any other country) in what way?
The US has:
A fiat currency produced by government edict. The price, interest, is centrally determined by the fed.
Price controls on labor.
A labor force conditioned in a centrally controlled compulsory school system (As proposed in the Communist Manifesto).
Seriously, how many people in the US operate independently of the centrally controlled banking system? As far as I can tell, the difference between the US system and the Chinese system is one of degree, not principle. Both capital and labor in the US are to a large degree centrally controlled.
True, but he did specify "netbook/mobile devices". iphones are pretty popular as are nokia devices. N900 looks pretty promising as far as usability goes and is linux on arm. Mobile devices still need to connect to windows machines because of MS market share on the desktop but as more functionality is moved to the internet and non-windows mobile devices then MS lock-in is becoming less of a problem.
It is "true" north as opposed to the "false" north previously used, ie: west.
Sheesh, it's like you expect words to convey actual meaning or something. "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" - Humpty Dumpty
Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.
The problem being that if the population won't support your action at the ballot box they are unlikely to support your action with the ammo box. The appropriate box to use in that case is the soap box (which is exactly what you are doing anyway, since you posted a comment rather than firing your rifle).
I also think that many of the actions of my government justify their removal by any means possible. The reality is that removing them by lethal force requires widespread agreement among the population. Widespread agreement of the population would mean you could vote them out without violence. A significant difficulty is the attention span of most people. If we ever find a way of removing governments that can be completed in under 15 minutes, those guys are in trouble!
Slashdot Mirror
Given that pigeons can deliver your email faster and more reliably than the Internet (according to experimental evidence), you might want to think about that
I reliably get email from the across the world. It usually arrives in a matter of seconds. I think somebody is pulling your chain.
If you can find any carrier pigeons, I'd be impressed - the US exterminated them all
So you'll be super impressed if I link to the American Racing Pigeon Union then?
Awesome. Soon all us 'old folks' will have a secret code we can use to communicate that the youth will never be able to decipher.
Cursive handwriting is not necessary for correct spelling and punctuation.
OK, I guess I made my own position clear enough in the last sentence. Yes, I still write with a fountain-pen (and sometimes even a quill) on paper in addition to using a keyboard.
And this newfangled email! Who needs it when we already have carrier pigeons?
Get ready to get modded down in 3, 2, 1...
Since this threat, I've had five posts in other stories modded troll. No problem, I've got karma to burn, but it's not exactly a method of argument that warrants respect.
Maybe it wasn't you, but you made the threat so you'll just have to wear the reputation as well. Mods, check my posting history please.
I'm pretty sure that heterosexuals do. However, I'm equally sure that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of getting their ass kicked simply for daring to ask out someone who doesn't match their sexuality.
Fair point. The people I hang around wouldn't do that, so I didn't think of it. Hit on the wrong woman in a bar and you can still get beat up by her boyfriend as a heterosexual though, but you're right, it's not a standard expectation.
But this was about being embarrassed when rejected due to the rejector being heterosexual. How can you not understand that!?
There's a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. I'm not discriminated against because of sexual preference, being heterosexual. I can assure you that a lack of discrimination does not at all alleviate the embarrassment of rejection. Possibly homosexuals experience heights of embarrassment I'm unaware of, in which case I'd be wrong, but I doubt it. I've had some pretty humiliating rejections.
Having personally rejected advances from homosexuals, I doubt they found it pleasant simply because I was polite. Similarly, had I been rude, surely that would reflect badly on me rather than them, no?
To the person who modded me troll, try this: go to a shop with 100's of choices. When you speak the sales staff they will talk to you about two or three of them only. Otherwise, search the phrase "don't offer too many choices". You will find I am merely correct, not trolling.
You included a palatable way, "no, I'm not gay" I've said "no, I'm not gay or bi" myself, and yes I was asked out for a date a few tymes by other men.
Well, there's no need to be rude about rejecting someone's advances, nevertheless, in my experience rejection always hurts. I was told by a woman "I don't think of you that way". We had been friends for a few years. She seemed to be trying to be nice about it, but hell! She didn't think of me as a man? I doubt I would have been more hurt if she had said "Fuck off, you disgusting loser!"
I'm not saying it's impossible for the person doing the rejecting to be polite, but I can handle other peoples rudeness. That doesn't bother me. Rejection on the other hand is still rejection, it hurts even if done politely. Other people may feel differently. Thankfully I'm married now and don't have to go through that sort of thing anymore.
and then me who say that the embarrassment wouldn't occurr in the first place if homosexuals were socially accepted.
I'll be more direct: You are wrong. Homosexuals will still experience that embarrassment even if they are socially accepted because it is a dynamic of initiating relationships regardless of sexual preference.
That's not an argument for not socially accepting homosexuals, just that it won't do much to solve that particular problem.
Not really. If you say "Here, use Ubuntu" all sorts of people will flock to it, it won't be exactly what they expected, and many will leave disappointed. If you say 'Linux', they jump on Google, search for 'Linux' and find out that there are hundreds of distros, find the one that works for them, and are happy.
You have obviously never studied marketing. If you want to get a decision out of people, you want to give them two choices, maximum three. Give them a hundred choices and they won't decide at all.
It also depends on the reason you want them to switch. Someone paying for advertising is likely looking to sell support. If I was selling support, it would be for one distro only. Novell, RedHat and Canonical seem to think the same way about it.
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
Maybe it's because you're skinny or have acne, not much money, not socially confident etc, etc. No matter how well gays are accepted everyone still risks rejection when they ask someone out. I'm not sure that "No, I'm not gay" is more hurtful than "No, I don't like you" as a rejection. I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable. You just have to learn to deal with it, part of that being more selective who you ask.
Ruining someone's life for 2-4 years because the Brazilian court system is dabbling in pre-crime...
I hope you are consistent enough with that thinking to also oppose gun bans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
How did you get your arse shiny? Pink i understand......
apparently you get 360,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers to kiss it.
Deciding what is and isn't admissible is the judge's job.
I have no trouble with the Judge instructing a jury why a particular piece of evidence is inadmissible and not to consider it. I think it's going to far to prevent them from hearing it though. Particularly for the defendant. I see a case for making sure police can't get around the fourth amendment, but preventing the defendant to say anything true they feel is relevant to their defence IMO violates the first amendment.
I think medical marijuana should be legal, too, but the fact is that the federal law as not changed on the issue, and doing something illegal should result in a conviction.
No, that's part of why we have juries. An example from here in Australia: recently a woman shot and killed her stepfather. He had been sexually abusing her for years and she shot him with his own gun that he had been threatening her with. The law here is that self-defence is not a valid reason to possess a firearm. So although technically self-defence is legal, she did violate the law simply by having possession of the gun, not being licensed. What charges the police were considering I don't know, but they didn't prosecute her and gave the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of getting a jury to convict her. Note that they never claimed she hadn't broken any laws, that is police operating with an acceptance that the juries decision is the real law of the land, it supersedes legislation.
In your case in the US, the laws are different but the structure of having a constitution and state and federal governments has a lot of similarities (since our legal and political structures were partially copied from the US). So if a juror in the US can't see a constitutional justification for federal marijuana laws, for example, they are quite within their rights to consider the tenth amendment to invalidate that law leaving the matter in the power of the state or local government. Previous court decisions, instructions from the judge and passage of laws by congress do not take this power, right and responsibility away from the juror.
You can now just buy your congressional representative online, and not have to go through a lobbying firm.
The market for congressional representatives needs to be opened up more. If power is decentralised more to the states and local levels, the price of nationwide legislation would go up as it would require bribing a lot more politicians. However the price of an individual legislator would come down due to increased competition and lower effectiveness (in terms of national policy), making corruption more accessible to the average citizen.
Not that I'm seriously in favor of more corruption but that is part of why I'm strongly in favor of states rights. Power centralized at the federal level makes it that much easier for the billionaires to subvert the system. We need to pit the millionaires and the billionaires against each other by having a more competitive corruption market.
Maybe this means Joe Wilson can troll 4chan instead.
Welcome to slashdot, Mr President!
The fact that the only scientist who seemed to claim dolphins were more intelligent was doing studies with them involving LSD seems to discredit the idea...
[Scientist drops a few tabs]
Dolphin: [dolphin sounds]
Scientist: Like, wow, man. That's profound. You dolphins are really groovy...and intelligent!
I'd like a constitutional amendment placing a mandatory sunset clause for all new laws. Keep them too busy just maintaining the laws they already have to introduce many new ones. That and mandatory death penalty for any legislator voting for a bill without reading it.
To be fair China is still a Command economy that let's "Capitalism" play because it's a useful way to get people to work harder.. they are a long way from the idea of "Free Markets".
Making them different from the US (or any other country) in what way?
The US has:
A fiat currency produced by government edict. The price, interest, is centrally determined by the fed.
Price controls on labor.
A labor force conditioned in a centrally controlled compulsory school system (As proposed in the Communist Manifesto).
Seriously, how many people in the US operate independently of the centrally controlled banking system? As far as I can tell, the difference between the US system and the Chinese system is one of degree, not principle. Both capital and labor in the US are to a large degree centrally controlled.
Also that he doesn't let his IT department near his laptop. Thats a level of distrust that, as an IT guy, drives me absolutely bonkers.
On the other hand, you'd hope that a CTO could handle his own laptop sufficiently well without help from anyone.
70% of the netbook market is not a minority.
True, but he did specify "netbook/mobile devices". iphones are pretty popular as are nokia devices. N900 looks pretty promising as far as usability goes and is linux on arm. Mobile devices still need to connect to windows machines because of MS market share on the desktop but as more functionality is moved to the internet and non-windows mobile devices then MS lock-in is becoming less of a problem.
It is "true" north as opposed to the "false" north previously used, ie: west.
Sheesh, it's like you expect words to convey actual meaning or something. "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" - Humpty Dumpty
Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.
The problem being that if the population won't support your action at the ballot box they are unlikely to support your action with the ammo box. The appropriate box to use in that case is the soap box (which is exactly what you are doing anyway, since you posted a comment rather than firing your rifle).
I also think that many of the actions of my government justify their removal by any means possible. The reality is that removing them by lethal force requires widespread agreement among the population. Widespread agreement of the population would mean you could vote them out without violence. A significant difficulty is the attention span of most people. If we ever find a way of removing governments that can be completed in under 15 minutes, those guys are in trouble!