Why is everyone missing the obvious? The greenhouse gasses on earth are actually CAUSING the lack of sunspots! Don't you see? Not only will greenhouse gasses destroy our planet, they will destroy our solar system, our galaxy...and beyond. More proof of the terrible consequences of driving SUVs and using air conditioning.
RTFA please. Especially before writing the summary. Most of the anecdotes from TFA reflect instances where people got sick of being retired, not where they were in dire straits because of pensions that couldn't keep up.
In the instance of the retired travel agent that needed to continue working to make ends meet, please note her own quote:
"I feel blessed with the good health that I have. But I'm a little bit bitter because I don't think I should be scared financially at 68," she said, adding that she blames only herself for not saving more.
you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons
So what are these "right" reasons to vote? Seriously. I'm not just trying to stir things up. How informed do you have to be? Should we have a proficiency test before voting? You need to be able to list all the candidates for whom you're going to vote? And describe some of their positions?
Yours is basically an elitist attitude, even if you aren't an elitist guy. You consider a certain group of people to be, for lack of a better term, unmotivated dumbasses and you assume that their reasons for voting are less noble than yours, and therefore, desire that they don't vote.
I know I may sound like a jerk here, but what gets on my nerves is you making an assumption about why people don't vote, and another assumption regarding their motivation if they did. Like saying, "If you're not going to approach voting in the same manner I do, you just shouldn't vote at all."
I haven't seen any sore losers. The athletes, in whichever place, are quality. You're not a sore loser if you question whether or not someone followed the rules. Everyone needs to follow the rules in place at the time, which limits the age. If they want to debate whether or not it's a good rule, that's fine as you've said; however, that doesn't mean they don't have to follow the rules in place at the time. Caffeine (12 mcg) was on the IOC drug list for years, but was finally removed in 2004 because it was dumb to be banned if you had too much coffee or whatever. But when it was in place, you had to be careful about what you consumed. Because that was the rule.
Furthermore, age may or may not matter, but if you had a 13 year old that is, simply by genetics or what-have-you, your best gymnast, your team does gain an advantage by being able to fricking use that gymnast. I'm certainly no genius, so I'm curious why no one seems to be pointing this out. The Chinese youngsters made the team by beating out older gymnasts, so they must be better than the older gymnasts, regardless of whether age factors into this or not. But if they wouldn't have competed because they were ineligible because of age, someone would have competed in their stead. Someone who would not have been as good a gymnast.
What's disgusting is your ridiculous hyperbole. Being respectful doesn't mean you don't have balls, it can often mean you're just more careful about choosing your battles. If you think problems in this country are honestly 90% the result of simply not calling people hypocritical lying murders (ooh - to their faces!), the size of your balls is irrelevant because you're a pea brain. That's right, a tool, a moron, a putz, a fool. The value of giving people your opinion of them is vastly overrated. Seriously. Lack of voting, political corruption, moral corruption (I'm sure that one will be popular on slashdot), stupid kids, shaky economy. These are only 10% of reason why this country "is in a mess right now"? Or, better yet, all these things are caused by people simply not speaking their minds?
Being threatened with 60 years in prison is not actually receiving a sentence of 60 years in prison. And has anyone provided a citation for the 60 years in prison thing yet?
"LexisNexis (sometimes simply called "Lexis" or "Nexis" among users) is a popular searchable archive of content from newspapers, magazines, legal documents and other printed sources. LexisNexis claims to be the "worldâ(TM)s largest collection of public records, unpublished opinions, forms, legal, news, and business information" while offering their products to a wide range of professionals in the legal, risk management, corporate, government, law enforcement, accounting and academic markets."
They used Lexis to do a form of background search on people. They used the information from these searches to decide who to hire. The DOJ said the way they did this is federally illegal and also against DOJ policy.
This has all been very interesting, but I'm not sure about all these comments from teachers. I remember when we grew up and went to school there were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could -- by pouring their derision upon everything we did, exposing every weakness however carefully hidden by the kids.
The funny part? In the town it was well known when they got home at night their fat and psychopathic wives would beat them within inches of their lives!
The cooling tower has a very important job in any heat cycle engine since energy = hot side - cold side. Take away the cold side, and you've got bumpkiss.
Interesting. In this way, it sounds quite similar to the McDLT (RIP 1990), where the hot side stays hot and the cold side stays cold.
The problem with this comment is it sounds like you're operating under the assumption that you're always right. Yes, 2+2=4, but not all arguments are so black-and-white. Maybe the reason the other poster's argument sounds cool and is easier to register is that it is cool and is easier to register and, as such, just might be better.
Exactly and kudos for RTFA for us. Based on this research, the bane of all Slashnerds web existence (100% Flash) would be the best way to set up a banking site, right?
Slashdot definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.
I actually don't know much about the DC Circuit, but judging (pun intended) from your comments, neither do you. Appointments aren't willy-nilly with each new administration. You appoint one when someone retires or expires or advances, for the most part. There are 3 (soon-to-be 4?) GW Bush appointees on the court.
* Sentelle - Reagan appointee
* Ginsburbg - Reagan
* LeCraft Henderson - Original Bush
* Randolph - Original Bush
* Rogers - Clinton
* Tatelle - Clinton
* Garland - Clinton
* Rogers Brown - New Bush
* Griffith - New Bush
* Cavanaugh - New Bush
* Edwards - Carter (!)
* Silberman - Reagan
* Williams - Reagan
Your argument is on the basis that a change in lifestyle will most likely be a negative change. I think that part is wrong.
So let's frame it using a specific example: air conditioning. How can I use less energy in regards to air conditioning (or I guess you could say keeping my house at a comfortable temperature)?
I can update my house, right? Or I can adapt to new higher or lower temperatures. I'm frustrated with your response because I feel like you're doing the very thing that I'm complaining about. In short, I do indeed think that having to maintain the temperature of my house at a different temperature than I currently do is a negative lifestyle change. But no one takes me seriously and they just write me off as someone afraid of change. I'm not afraid of change at all. Big picture? I understand poor energy choices may have been made in the past, but I just don't like being too cold or hot (although cold is easier because I can put on a fleece or sweater). Do you see what I mean?
You forgot the most economical viable but somewhat paradoxically unpopular course of action: Get serious about efficiency and simply use less energy.
What do you mean by "use less energy"? Like take cold showers? Ban hot tubs? Stop driving (or just certain cars like the evil SUV that no one in these discussions ever seems to own, but I see all over the freaking roads)? Or more easily adoptable things like using energy star appliances and them funny lookin' lightbulbs?
Basically, I think it's only "the most" economically viable to a point. What I think many of the "Just use less" people really want is a complete change of lifestyles. I can indeed save money by turning down the thermostat on the water heater and furnace. I can save money by not driving anywhere and walking or bicycling. But these things also change my life and my lifestyle. I'm sure you're quick to tsk-tsk me and that you get a good belly-laugh out of my awful American selfishness, but it's a serious question that too many people ignore. How much conservation (specifically, preemptive sort-of-types of conservation) is necessary? I mean, I could get dead serious about conservation, but I'd pretty much have to start a new life.
Of course, conservation can be achieved without impacting my lifestyle. As long as I can pay for it. Which then makes it NOT economically viable.
Stay with me as I make a ridiculous example, in hopes of making a point. Let's say you buy an older house. Maybe even a mansion-sized house. First of all, I'm sure some here would scold you for buying a mansion in the first place because you should be willing to live in a small apartment like the Japanese or Europeans do. (They have faster broadband, too, after all.) Anyhow, for starters, you'd need to replace all the windows (ka-ching). You'd also probably want to reinsulate the attic space (actually not too expensive). Then you'd need to buy one or two new energy efficient furnaces and air conditioning units (ka-ching ka-ching). It'd probably make the most sense to also retrofit a tankless water heater system, with additional smaller tankless units at the points of use (KA-ching). Then you'd want to add solar panels and utilize some kind of net metering setup with the power company. Uh oh - it's actually a historic mansion actually, so first you have to deal with the municipal government to add an aesthetically-pleasing, non-obtrusive solar setup (waiting...waiting...finally, ka-ching). Then you want to add some wind turbines or even a simple windmill. But you can't because zoning doesn't allow such a structure in your neighborhood (no ka-ching). Then you can do the simple stuff like caulking, foam insulating, etc (mini-ching) and getting all new energy efficient appliances (ka-ching).
Now I know I'm being a bit silly, but if you scale it down to a smaller home, you're also dealing with a smaller budget. It's easy to say "Just use less", but to get to the point where you can use less sometimes requires some economically UNviable steps, like those I mentioned above.
Anyone else here used to use "laying cable" as a euphemism for taking a dump? (Which is a euphemism for defecation, for the non-native English speakers here.) If so, you'll probably share my surprise that such an increase in activity or "boom", if you will, could boost internet capacity.
Computer science? If you want to stick with the mechanic analogy, do you call a mechanic a car scientist? Or a mechanic? Do you call the guys in sales with the MBA a business scientist?
Yeah - I'm just ranting, and perhaps only against the semantics of it, but I am really sick of all this talk about "computer science". I'm a programmer, among other things, and I'm so far from being a "computer scientist" that you and the other people that went to Stanford where you got zero units for learning different programming languages would cringe. And yet somehow, some way, I get paid to do it and, while I'm not in danger of winning programmer of the year, I do pretty ok.
In some respects I wish I was a computer scientist and could bring myself to care about or understand a lot of the stuff you guys (and the 4 girls here) talk about. But even so, let's not mix up what we studied in college as having a 100% crossover into real life. That's just not the case.
Inferiority-complex-generated rant over. Thank you for your time.
Sanitation is not "necessary infrastructure". Electricity is not "necessary infrastructure". Telephone lines are not "necessary infrastructure". The Amish show all this quite well.
OH YOU SHUT UP. Please. And moderators? Insightful? C'mon.
Seriously. The Amish argument isn't even an argument. The Amish have been living that way for a relatively long time. It's not like they experienced modern infrastructure and then one day cut bait and went back to simpler infrastructure. The Amish are a very, very small fraction of the total population. The rest of the population has moved past simpler infrastructure and can't just switch back. Things are the way they are now; if you immediately take away sanitation and electricity and telephones, you'll see how necessary they are, regardless of whether it be a modern city or a piece of land in the middle of nowhere.
Furthermore, most of the Amish do use modern infrastructure, including electricity. They're just really careful about how they use it. I've seen Amish families on Amtrak numerous times. (Union Station Chicago FYI).[Sidebar: My dad was at one of those Amish villages where you can buy jam and furniture and stuff. The blacksmith was working the bellows and really putting on a show for all the people in his shop. When the people moved on, my dad stayed to talk to the guy and he pulled out an old hair dryer to stoke the fire. My dad said, "What about not using modern stuff?" The guy said, "This is just so much easier."]
A better example than your silly Amish one, is a natural disaster -- because these usually take an area from modern to not-modern in a very short period of time.
So basically, I recognize my opinion's not worth much, but I think your definition of "necessary" is ridiculous. Or you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Why does it matter how much I pay for something I want to sell you? If you can afford what I am charging, then you can afford it. If you cannot afford what I am charging, then you cannot afford it. Do you think it violates the principle of a free market if I charge my customers as much as I possibly can without scaring them away?
Your ridiculous viewpoint operates under the ridiculous assumption that there should be some sort of set control about what an appropriate markup is, right? It also dictates that companies fully disclose some predetermined set of information, right? Who decides what this markup is? Who controls this disclosure? Perhaps some sort of governing body? As much as you may be struggling with the cognitive dissonance of it, your viewpoint on what should drive an economy is extremely more communist or socialist or even current-Western-economist than "anarchist". I guess that makes me a "fucker", huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure I've copied/reused code. But when I do I usually make sure I understand what it does and works correctly.
Maybe they and their lawyers usually do, too. Just not this time.
Why is everyone missing the obvious? The greenhouse gasses on earth are actually CAUSING the lack of sunspots! Don't you see? Not only will greenhouse gasses destroy our planet, they will destroy our solar system, our galaxy...and beyond. More proof of the terrible consequences of driving SUVs and using air conditioning.
RTFA please. Especially before writing the summary. Most of the anecdotes from TFA reflect instances where people got sick of being retired, not where they were in dire straits because of pensions that couldn't keep up.
In the instance of the retired travel agent that needed to continue working to make ends meet, please note her own quote:
you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons
So what are these "right" reasons to vote? Seriously. I'm not just trying to stir things up. How informed do you have to be? Should we have a proficiency test before voting? You need to be able to list all the candidates for whom you're going to vote? And describe some of their positions?
Yours is basically an elitist attitude, even if you aren't an elitist guy. You consider a certain group of people to be, for lack of a better term, unmotivated dumbasses and you assume that their reasons for voting are less noble than yours, and therefore, desire that they don't vote.
I know I may sound like a jerk here, but what gets on my nerves is you making an assumption about why people don't vote, and another assumption regarding their motivation if they did. Like saying, "If you're not going to approach voting in the same manner I do, you just shouldn't vote at all."
I haven't seen any sore losers. The athletes, in whichever place, are quality. You're not a sore loser if you question whether or not someone followed the rules. Everyone needs to follow the rules in place at the time, which limits the age. If they want to debate whether or not it's a good rule, that's fine as you've said; however, that doesn't mean they don't have to follow the rules in place at the time. Caffeine (12 mcg) was on the IOC drug list for years, but was finally removed in 2004 because it was dumb to be banned if you had too much coffee or whatever. But when it was in place, you had to be careful about what you consumed. Because that was the rule.
Furthermore, age may or may not matter, but if you had a 13 year old that is, simply by genetics or what-have-you, your best gymnast, your team does gain an advantage by being able to fricking use that gymnast. I'm certainly no genius, so I'm curious why no one seems to be pointing this out. The Chinese youngsters made the team by beating out older gymnasts, so they must be better than the older gymnasts, regardless of whether age factors into this or not. But if they wouldn't have competed because they were ineligible because of age, someone would have competed in their stead. Someone who would not have been as good a gymnast.
What's disgusting is your ridiculous hyperbole. Being respectful doesn't mean you don't have balls, it can often mean you're just more careful about choosing your battles. If you think problems in this country are honestly 90% the result of simply not calling people hypocritical lying murders (ooh - to their faces!), the size of your balls is irrelevant because you're a pea brain. That's right, a tool, a moron, a putz, a fool. The value of giving people your opinion of them is vastly overrated. Seriously. Lack of voting, political corruption, moral corruption (I'm sure that one will be popular on slashdot), stupid kids, shaky economy. These are only 10% of reason why this country "is in a mess right now"? Or, better yet, all these things are caused by people simply not speaking their minds?
Whatever.
Being threatened with 60 years in prison is not actually receiving a sentence of 60 years in prison. And has anyone provided a citation for the 60 years in prison thing yet?
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis
They used Lexis to do a form of background search on people. They used the information from these searches to decide who to hire. The DOJ said the way they did this is federally illegal and also against DOJ policy.
And if you're an actual RTFAer, here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/goodling072408.pdf
This has all been very interesting, but I'm not sure about all these comments from teachers. I remember when we grew up and went to school there were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could -- by pouring their derision upon everything we did, exposing every weakness however carefully hidden by the kids.
The funny part? In the town it was well known when they got home at night their fat and psychopathic wives would beat them within inches of their lives!
The cooling tower has a very important job in any heat cycle engine since energy = hot side - cold side. Take away the cold side, and you've got bumpkiss.
Interesting. In this way, it sounds quite similar to the McDLT (RIP 1990), where the hot side stays hot and the cold side stays cold.
The problem with this comment is it sounds like you're operating under the assumption that you're always right. Yes, 2+2=4, but not all arguments are so black-and-white. Maybe the reason the other poster's argument sounds cool and is easier to register is that it is cool and is easier to register and, as such, just might be better.
Redundant?! Off-topic, definitely. But redundant? Pick your negative mods more carefully.
Exactly and kudos for RTFA for us. Based on this research, the bane of all Slashnerds web existence (100% Flash) would be the best way to set up a banking site, right?
Slashdot definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.
There...fixed that for you.
My trendy language of the moment doesn't use dollar sign variables, you insensitive clod!
I actually don't know much about the DC Circuit, but judging (pun intended) from your comments, neither do you. Appointments aren't willy-nilly with each new administration. You appoint one when someone retires or expires or advances, for the most part. There are 3 (soon-to-be 4?) GW Bush appointees on the court.
And I didn't bother to read through it, but this may be of some value to people, if a bit dry: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp.
* Sentelle - Reagan appointee
* Ginsburbg - Reagan
* LeCraft Henderson - Original Bush
* Randolph - Original Bush
* Rogers - Clinton
* Tatelle - Clinton
* Garland - Clinton
* Rogers Brown - New Bush
* Griffith - New Bush
* Cavanaugh - New Bush
* Edwards - Carter (!)
* Silberman - Reagan
* Williams - Reagan
Your argument is on the basis that a change in lifestyle will most likely be a negative change. I think that part is wrong.
So let's frame it using a specific example: air conditioning. How can I use less energy in regards to air conditioning (or I guess you could say keeping my house at a comfortable temperature)?
I can update my house, right? Or I can adapt to new higher or lower temperatures. I'm frustrated with your response because I feel like you're doing the very thing that I'm complaining about. In short, I do indeed think that having to maintain the temperature of my house at a different temperature than I currently do is a negative lifestyle change. But no one takes me seriously and they just write me off as someone afraid of change. I'm not afraid of change at all. Big picture? I understand poor energy choices may have been made in the past, but I just don't like being too cold or hot (although cold is easier because I can put on a fleece or sweater). Do you see what I mean?
You forgot the most economical viable but somewhat paradoxically unpopular course of action: Get serious about efficiency and simply use less energy.
What do you mean by "use less energy"? Like take cold showers? Ban hot tubs? Stop driving (or just certain cars like the evil SUV that no one in these discussions ever seems to own, but I see all over the freaking roads)? Or more easily adoptable things like using energy star appliances and them funny lookin' lightbulbs?
Basically, I think it's only "the most" economically viable to a point. What I think many of the "Just use less" people really want is a complete change of lifestyles. I can indeed save money by turning down the thermostat on the water heater and furnace. I can save money by not driving anywhere and walking or bicycling. But these things also change my life and my lifestyle. I'm sure you're quick to tsk-tsk me and that you get a good belly-laugh out of my awful American selfishness, but it's a serious question that too many people ignore. How much conservation (specifically, preemptive sort-of-types of conservation) is necessary? I mean, I could get dead serious about conservation, but I'd pretty much have to start a new life.
Of course, conservation can be achieved without impacting my lifestyle. As long as I can pay for it. Which then makes it NOT economically viable.
Stay with me as I make a ridiculous example, in hopes of making a point. Let's say you buy an older house. Maybe even a mansion-sized house. First of all, I'm sure some here would scold you for buying a mansion in the first place because you should be willing to live in a small apartment like the Japanese or Europeans do. (They have faster broadband, too, after all.) Anyhow, for starters, you'd need to replace all the windows (ka-ching). You'd also probably want to reinsulate the attic space (actually not too expensive). Then you'd need to buy one or two new energy efficient furnaces and air conditioning units (ka-ching ka-ching). It'd probably make the most sense to also retrofit a tankless water heater system, with additional smaller tankless units at the points of use (KA-ching). Then you'd want to add solar panels and utilize some kind of net metering setup with the power company. Uh oh - it's actually a historic mansion actually, so first you have to deal with the municipal government to add an aesthetically-pleasing, non-obtrusive solar setup (waiting...waiting...finally, ka-ching). Then you want to add some wind turbines or even a simple windmill. But you can't because zoning doesn't allow such a structure in your neighborhood (no ka-ching). Then you can do the simple stuff like caulking, foam insulating, etc (mini-ching) and getting all new energy efficient appliances (ka-ching).
Now I know I'm being a bit silly, but if you scale it down to a smaller home, you're also dealing with a smaller budget. It's easy to say "Just use less", but to get to the point where you can use less sometimes requires some economically UNviable steps, like those I mentioned above.
Just my 2 cents.
Anyone else here used to use "laying cable" as a euphemism for taking a dump? (Which is a euphemism for defecation, for the non-native English speakers here.) If so, you'll probably share my surprise that such an increase in activity or "boom", if you will, could boost internet capacity.
Computer science? If you want to stick with the mechanic analogy, do you call a mechanic a car scientist? Or a mechanic? Do you call the guys in sales with the MBA a business scientist?
Yeah - I'm just ranting, and perhaps only against the semantics of it, but I am really sick of all this talk about "computer science". I'm a programmer, among other things, and I'm so far from being a "computer scientist" that you and the other people that went to Stanford where you got zero units for learning different programming languages would cringe. And yet somehow, some way, I get paid to do it and, while I'm not in danger of winning programmer of the year, I do pretty ok.
In some respects I wish I was a computer scientist and could bring myself to care about or understand a lot of the stuff you guys (and the 4 girls here) talk about. But even so, let's not mix up what we studied in college as having a 100% crossover into real life. That's just not the case.
Inferiority-complex-generated rant over. Thank you for your time.
Withdrawal symptoms can be severe and disruptive including the shakes, paranoia, and a condition that strikingly resembles turrets syndrome.
You forgot the night terrors. [shiver] It's hard to get past the night terrors...
Sanitation is not "necessary infrastructure". Electricity is not "necessary infrastructure". Telephone lines are not "necessary infrastructure". The Amish show all this quite well.
OH YOU SHUT UP. Please. And moderators? Insightful? C'mon.
Seriously. The Amish argument isn't even an argument. The Amish have been living that way for a relatively long time. It's not like they experienced modern infrastructure and then one day cut bait and went back to simpler infrastructure. The Amish are a very, very small fraction of the total population. The rest of the population has moved past simpler infrastructure and can't just switch back. Things are the way they are now; if you immediately take away sanitation and electricity and telephones, you'll see how necessary they are, regardless of whether it be a modern city or a piece of land in the middle of nowhere.
Furthermore, most of the Amish do use modern infrastructure, including electricity. They're just really careful about how they use it. I've seen Amish families on Amtrak numerous times. (Union Station Chicago FYI).[Sidebar: My dad was at one of those Amish villages where you can buy jam and furniture and stuff. The blacksmith was working the bellows and really putting on a show for all the people in his shop. When the people moved on, my dad stayed to talk to the guy and he pulled out an old hair dryer to stoke the fire. My dad said, "What about not using modern stuff?" The guy said, "This is just so much easier."]
A better example than your silly Amish one, is a natural disaster -- because these usually take an area from modern to not-modern in a very short period of time.
So basically, I recognize my opinion's not worth much, but I think your definition of "necessary" is ridiculous. Or you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
Huh?
a lot of car sites have so much flash you would think the police would catch on and arrest the serial flashers.
[drumshot] But seriously folks... Hey, try the veal. Tip your server.
Why does it matter how much I pay for something I want to sell you? If you can afford what I am charging, then you can afford it. If you cannot afford what I am charging, then you cannot afford it. Do you think it violates the principle of a free market if I charge my customers as much as I possibly can without scaring them away? Your ridiculous viewpoint operates under the ridiculous assumption that there should be some sort of set control about what an appropriate markup is, right? It also dictates that companies fully disclose some predetermined set of information, right? Who decides what this markup is? Who controls this disclosure? Perhaps some sort of governing body? As much as you may be struggling with the cognitive dissonance of it, your viewpoint on what should drive an economy is extremely more communist or socialist or even current-Western-economist than "anarchist". I guess that makes me a "fucker", huh?