I disagree. I think it's -- in part -- because most younger folks feel it's in vogue or some kind of statement to be ashamed to be an American. From that perspective, why would you want to do anything to help a country that you profess to despise?
Seems like common sense. I leave at 9:00; rush hour here generally ends by 8:30. On the flip side, I leave at 6:00 coming home -- the tail end of rush hour. Goes without saying that I'll spend less time in my car than the 90% of the population who leaves between 7a and 8a.
So on the one hand you say you'll help, and on the other hand you continue to insult the person you're so generously offering to aid. Do you honestly think after you spend this time calling someone names, that they would even/want/ your help?
I could picture you working a register at McDonald's. "What? Yeah. Yeah fine. You want FRIES? No? I'll throw them in for free. Have some nice fries, lardass. Here, have ketchup too. No, don't thank me. Come again soon. Asshole."
Geez, I hadn't thought about the illegals. Guess we'll have to legalize all of them so that they can have.tel domains.
And -- did you say there were people outside the US? Huh. What a concept.
First -- let me clarify, my post was made with sarcastohumorous intent.
To answer your post -- true, every word of it. But have you ever tried to prosecute God in a court of law?
r (2) God isn't amused by pseudoscientific studies
Carried out logically, if true these scientists are guilty of murder. If God deliberately did not answer those prayers because He knew he was being measured, then those prayers might very well have been answered if He was not so offended by being the subject of an experiment. If those prayers had been answered, certain patients would have lived.
Sounds like negligent homicide to me.
Re:weird perspective for a conflict... and wrong!
on
Sun's Open Source DRM
·
· Score: 1
Truthfully, the experience was not much different that browsing on my cable modem at hom
That depends entirely on the user, and can't be made as a blanket statement I regularly find myself maxing out my 8mbps comcast download capacity because I frequently download large binary files. It also makes a noticable difference when downloading my weekly bandaids from Microsoft, something that 90+% of computer users out there have to deal with.
The problem here is that you (and AT&T) are saying that because some people don't need that capacity, nobody actually uses it anyway.
You're also not making a fair comparison. OC48 -> cable connection will indeed show less of a difference -- few servers are capable of putting out that much data, that quickly. However cable -> dsl 1.5mb is a completely different story -- many servers CAN exceed 1.5mbps output.
I more-or-less agree with parent. Here's the problem with this study, and every other one like it. It's based on the assumption that sex is wrong and shameful; that there is something inherently wrong and shameful with masturbating; and God forbid you do it with regularity (I mean that literally in some cases ).
How many of you can go without thinking about sex for more than a few hours? Even tangentally like thinking, "She's hot" or "He's cute"? I suspect not many. This isn't unique to you, and it's not a "test of virtue" -- it's the way that 99.99% of the population is built.
Other point: It's not the porn that people are addicted to, it's the end result of masturbation. For those of us "older folks" who didn't grow up with unlimited porn online, did that stop you from masturbating regularly?... Didn't think so.
Finally, what's with the age range breakdown? Between 9 and 19? What about between 9-12, 13-19? That'd be a bit more useful -- the former is a problem. The latter is not.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'm the only one who read your "AC/-1" post.
And I'm not entirely sure why I did...
Look up -- someone already did!
I disagree. I think it's -- in part -- because most younger folks feel it's in vogue or some kind of statement to be ashamed to be an American. From that perspective, why would you want to do anything to help a country that you profess to despise?
You forgot 4:
4. Ajax/"live" content sites are driven not by DHTML, but (in most cases) by DOM scripting.
Overall, the "article" says almost nothing. What little it does manage to say seems to be incorrect and/or ill-informed...
Seems like common sense. I leave at 9:00; rush hour here generally ends by 8:30. On the flip side, I leave at 6:00 coming home -- the tail end of rush hour. Goes without saying that I'll spend less time in my car than the 90% of the population who leaves between 7a and 8a.
Personally, I use the cable (satellite) box to change channels anyway.
Though I suppose this does put those poor sots who are stuck with broadcast TV or basic cable at a distinct disadvantage.
Eh? Ratings? Why would I care about them? I'm here for the articles my bravely unannounced friend. Could give two shits about the ratings.
So on the one hand you say you'll help, and on the other hand you continue to insult the person you're so generously offering to aid. Do you honestly think after you spend this time calling someone names, that they would even /want/ your help?
I could picture you working a register at McDonald's. "What? Yeah. Yeah fine. You want FRIES? No? I'll throw them in for free. Have some nice fries, lardass. Here, have ketchup too. No, don't thank me. Come again soon. Asshole."
... these are the kinds of stories we get when the digg kiddies submit articles to /.
Rumor, wisps of hot air, and nothing definitive.
What else do you expect from a publication which has this "SPECIAL REPORT" above the actual article: "Building Good Web Buzz"?
If you rearrange the letters in "Asztal", you can almost spell "Roswell". Conspiracy? You decide.
I didn't think you'd actually seen them. (Though sometimes, late at night, I wonder who comes up with things like the "British" accent.)
Geez, I hadn't thought about the illegals. Guess we'll have to legalize all of them so that they can have .tel domains.
And -- did you say there were people outside the US? Huh. What a concept.
It won't be a problem -- they'll just need to use SSN in the domain name.
You have convinced me! Please, enlighten me further of the efficacy of zealotry.
First -- let me clarify, my post was made with sarcastohumorous intent. To answer your post -- true, every word of it. But have you ever tried to prosecute God in a court of law?
r (2) God isn't amused by pseudoscientific studies
Carried out logically, if true these scientists are guilty of murder. If God deliberately did not answer those prayers because He knew he was being measured, then those prayers might very well have been answered if He was not so offended by being the subject of an experiment. If those prayers had been answered, certain patients would have lived.
Sounds like negligent homicide to me.
Zealotry never wins any converts...
Perhaps now would not be an opportune time for such an upgrade.
And that wasn't emacs you hit me with!
You beast!
Truthfully, the experience was not much different that browsing on my cable modem at hom
That depends entirely on the user, and can't be made as a blanket statement I regularly find myself maxing out my 8mbps comcast download capacity because I frequently download large binary files. It also makes a noticable difference when downloading my weekly bandaids from Microsoft, something that 90+% of computer users out there have to deal with.
The problem here is that you (and AT&T) are saying that because some people don't need that capacity, nobody actually uses it anyway. You're also not making a fair comparison. OC48 -> cable connection will indeed show less of a difference -- few servers are capable of putting out that much data, that quickly. However cable -> dsl 1.5mb is a completely different story -- many servers CAN exceed 1.5mbps output.
I more-or-less agree with parent. Here's the problem with this study, and every other one like it. It's based on the assumption that sex is wrong and shameful; that there is something inherently wrong and shameful with masturbating; and God forbid you do it with regularity (I mean that literally in some cases ).
... Didn't think so.
How many of you can go without thinking about sex for more than a few hours? Even tangentally like thinking, "She's hot" or "He's cute"? I suspect not many. This isn't unique to you, and it's not a "test of virtue" -- it's the way that 99.99% of the population is built.
Other point: It's not the porn that people are addicted to, it's the end result of masturbation. For those of us "older folks" who didn't grow up with unlimited porn online, did that stop you from masturbating regularly?
Finally, what's with the age range breakdown? Between 9 and 19? What about between 9-12, 13-19? That'd be a bit more useful -- the former is a problem. The latter is not.
I had a point when I started, I really did.
Agreed. What nobody seems to realize is that Y2k was such a non-issue because of the millions of man-hours poured into ensuring that was the case.
There are so few people on this site who have a clue when it comes to this... I'm impressed.
Admirable plan, and I can certainly see that it'd be tougher considering your relatively remote location...