1. I'm a prick who likes to poke fun at people for the lulz. You provide the lulz because you take this so seriously. This is how I know you'd be so good at it, because you've got all the skills and even the mindset necessary, you're just not doing it intentionally.
and if it makes you feel better, you can just stop reading now.
2. You honestly seem to believe yourself when you say you're being completely justified when you say whatever you want. That other people in the thread are making condescending and groundless claims, and that backing up what you say is completely unnecessary.
this is not the case
Sit back, re-read the thread, out loud if necessary, and think to yourself about how you sound. You quite honestly sound like a jackass, this is part of your personality, it's how you behave, online, and quite possibly in the real world. I guarantee that if you're behaving like this in the real world, it's holding you back, personally and professionally.
Take a good long look at yourself, make some changes as necessary, lemme know if it works out for ya.
Plenty of people simply lack the technical skills to do more than check their E-mail. Finding movies online and downloading them (whether through bittorrent or whatever the chinese equivalent is) may well be beyond a large portion of the population.
Indecent exposure generally doesn't carry a lengthy sentence depending on the state, and might be just a fine, but it still counts as a "sex offense" in various states, gets you on registries, etc.
If the crime involves a minor, it would presumably be covered under this.
That's just off the top of my head, there are probably a bunch of other sex-offenses-that-aren't-really-serious-enough-to-be-called-sex-offenses that would qualify.
Thing is, I agree with you and Justice Thomas, this whole decision is pretty blatantly in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and nearly the whole of established law as I understand it.
My problem is with the way you're arguing.
For example, the post I initially replied to consists entirely of you stating opinions, proclaiming anyone who disagrees with you to not only be wrong, but an idiot on top of that, and having not done their research.
You clearly have the time to sit around and argue on/. and you clearly have done a great deal of research on the subject, but instead of coming across as knowledgeable and right, you come across as an arrogant prick.
You're not even a troll who's trying to be a prick for the lulz, which is kinda've sad because you'd be so good at it.
So yeah, if you've done the research and you're able to support your points, do it - the lack of any supporting evidence is what renders your posts incoherent.
It's not that people should ALWAYS work long hours, it's that sometimes (Especially if you have no education) it's necessary to work long hours in order to achieve a higher standard of living for yourself or your children. People under the "White Trash" label wouldn't make that sacrifice. What could have been a college fund for their kids would instead either never be earned in the first place, or wasted on drugs or alcohol.
The definition of "White Trash" differs from person to person because it's generally a perjorative, but in general:
- Low on the Socioeconomic ladder, lives in trailor parks or shitty apartments. - Embraces a lifestyle that keeps them and their children low on the socioeconomic ladder. Usually uneducated past High School, prefers alcohol or drug abuse to working long hours, fails to take care of their children, etc. - Has white skin color.
There is going to be an arbitrary age line drawn in any statutory rape law. Should a 30-year old go to jail for having a 16-year old girlfriend? A 50-year old?
Quibbling about the exact age is always going to invite this sort of thing from people who believe it should be higher or lower. The only real solution is to just pick an age and be done with it.
You've never dealt with small children before, have you? These are 3rd graders, they make messes, and teachers don't have the slightest idea who to punish for it.
If the problem is bad enough that they have to ban jolly ranchers, then they have to enforce the ban.
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions. You can account for them in policy, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Why is this even an argument? No, the USAF doesn't get into the blood/mud/gore with the grunts. I was a Comm guy in the Air Force for four years, and while deployed I spent 12 hours a day in a concrete bunker with the equipment.
This was intentional.
Yes, people have to go into heavy combat, and yes, I have great respect for the people who do. However, the only people who think that sort of thing is glorious are psychopaths, and people whose only experience with war is war movies and video games.
You'd have a point if there weren't an ocean in between us and them.
Or if you were thinking Canada, or Mexico, were going to try to attack the US for some reason.
As it is, if a hundred thousand people in, say, Pakistan, were to demand that we cede them control of the United States. We can just say, "No. Goodbye." And there's not a whole lot they can do to back up their demands.
What's to stop him from leasing use of the botnet to multiple cyber-criminals now that he's built it up? I mean, the initial sale is just a little bit, but suppose the market for the botnet is more than just one organization, or suppose he charges by the day?
I'm not really a professional botnet organizer, so I have no idea how plausible this is.
Slashdot Mirror
Two reasons:
1. I'm a prick who likes to poke fun at people for the lulz. You provide the lulz because you take this so seriously. This is how I know you'd be so good at it, because you've got all the skills and even the mindset necessary, you're just not doing it intentionally.
and if it makes you feel better, you can just stop reading now.
2. You honestly seem to believe yourself when you say you're being completely justified when you say whatever you want. That other people in the thread are making condescending and groundless claims, and that backing up what you say is completely unnecessary.
this is not the case
Sit back, re-read the thread, out loud if necessary, and think to yourself about how you sound. You quite honestly sound like a jackass, this is part of your personality, it's how you behave, online, and quite possibly in the real world. I guarantee that if you're behaving like this in the real world, it's holding you back, personally and professionally.
Take a good long look at yourself, make some changes as necessary, lemme know if it works out for ya.
you've never had to run tech support for your parents or non-techie co-workers, have you?
Replace beyond them with "They're unwilling to put forth the effort required to learn" if it makes you feel more PC.
Plenty of people simply lack the technical skills to do more than check their E-mail. Finding movies online and downloading them (whether through bittorrent or whatever the chinese equivalent is) may well be beyond a large portion of the population.
lol wut?
Wait what? 400,000 people inside that factory?
China's suicide rate is 13.9 per 100,000 people, so for this given subset of the population, the suicide rate is considerably lower than average.
Indecent exposure generally doesn't carry a lengthy sentence depending on the state, and might be just a fine, but it still counts as a "sex offense" in various states, gets you on registries, etc.
If the crime involves a minor, it would presumably be covered under this.
That's just off the top of my head, there are probably a bunch of other sex-offenses-that-aren't-really-serious-enough-to-be-called-sex-offenses that would qualify.
this post is, again, completely nonsensical and incoherent.
Seriously, if you're going to make a point that you know people disagree with, support it.
Thing is, I agree with you and Justice Thomas, this whole decision is pretty blatantly in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution and nearly the whole of established law as I understand it.
My problem is with the way you're arguing.
For example, the post I initially replied to consists entirely of you stating opinions, proclaiming anyone who disagrees with you to not only be wrong, but an idiot on top of that, and having not done their research.
You clearly have the time to sit around and argue on /. and you clearly have done a great deal of research on the subject, but instead of coming across as knowledgeable and right, you come across as an arrogant prick.
You're not even a troll who's trying to be a prick for the lulz, which is kinda've sad because you'd be so good at it.
So yeah, if you've done the research and you're able to support your points, do it - the lack of any supporting evidence is what renders your posts incoherent.
Pardon me, I'm being unclear here.
It's not that people should ALWAYS work long hours, it's that sometimes (Especially if you have no education) it's necessary to work long hours in order to achieve a higher standard of living for yourself or your children. People under the "White Trash" label wouldn't make that sacrifice. What could have been a college fund for their kids would instead either never be earned in the first place, or wasted on drugs or alcohol.
The definition of "White Trash" differs from person to person because it's generally a perjorative, but in general:
- Low on the Socioeconomic ladder, lives in trailor parks or shitty apartments.
- Embraces a lifestyle that keeps them and their children low on the socioeconomic ladder. Usually uneducated past High School, prefers alcohol or drug abuse to working long hours, fails to take care of their children, etc.
- Has white skin color.
There is going to be an arbitrary age line drawn in any statutory rape law. Should a 30-year old go to jail for having a 16-year old girlfriend? A 50-year old?
Quibbling about the exact age is always going to invite this sort of thing from people who believe it should be higher or lower. The only real solution is to just pick an age and be done with it.
I've seen you on /. a few times now. Your posts very rarely make any sense, and this one was especially incoherent.
Posts with citations that contradict your assertions already exist in this thread, especially this guy who posted before the poster you responded to.
I guess what I'm saying is, learn how to argue better if you're going to continue doing it.
What does Algae and seaweed have to do with bad jokes?
I'm wooshing something here.
in 1992, I had yet to enter Elementary School, so the Unforgiven wouldn't be the kind of movie I'd have been watching.
I might end up checking it out though.
Little before my time.
I'll get off your lawn :P.
this took a very dark turn. Seek counseling.
And in the school policy, mentioned in TFA, candy is okay if the parents pack it.
Presumably, a Diabetic child's parents would inform the school of their condition, and pack candy as appropriate.
You've never dealt with small children before, have you? These are 3rd graders, they make messes, and teachers don't have the slightest idea who to punish for it.
If the problem is bad enough that they have to ban jolly ranchers, then they have to enforce the ban.
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions. You can account for them in policy, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Why is this even an argument? No, the USAF doesn't get into the blood/mud/gore with the grunts. I was a Comm guy in the Air Force for four years, and while deployed I spent 12 hours a day in a concrete bunker with the equipment.
This was intentional.
Yes, people have to go into heavy combat, and yes, I have great respect for the people who do. However, the only people who think that sort of thing is glorious are psychopaths, and people whose only experience with war is war movies and video games.
You'd have a point if there weren't an ocean in between us and them.
Or if you were thinking Canada, or Mexico, were going to try to attack the US for some reason.
As it is, if a hundred thousand people in, say, Pakistan, were to demand that we cede them control of the United States. We can just say, "No. Goodbye." And there's not a whole lot they can do to back up their demands.
Both phrasings are correct.
English is a fucked up language.
and non-single non-mothers!
What's to stop him from leasing use of the botnet to multiple cyber-criminals now that he's built it up? I mean, the initial sale is just a little bit, but suppose the market for the botnet is more than just one organization, or suppose he charges by the day?
I'm not really a professional botnet organizer, so I have no idea how plausible this is.
you won this a couple posts ago, I'm Basically jUst trolling you now. :p
you have the fReedom to expatriate if service is so abhorrent.