Everyone told me I would love Heros, but I don't really watch network TV, so I put it off. When I did sit down and watch a couple episodes with my sister, I (mentally) said "wait, but..." several times due to their, frankly, sloppy writing. The worst one (the one that made me LOL) was when the fast girl and the newly minted power-booster guy ran faster than light to go back in time, and then (presumably) ran back to the future.
I giggled like a schoolboy watching a goofy clown.
You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.
Where do you get that interpretation from? I don't see it mentioned in the text we're talking about.
The rest of your point relies on the following quote being true, which I do not accept.
If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.
Foolishness. I cannot smuggle ANYTHING but information over the phone line. Period. I can smuggle ANYTHING in a suitcase, as long as said item meets the physical geometry limits of the suitcase. This property of phone lines (the inability to transfer anything but information) makes them most CERTAINLY different than a suitcase. I cannot fax you a nuke, I promise.
I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit, and from the looks of it, not too many people are.
Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers). If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen), and that I, the one with the explicit protection from such nonsense, are in fact S.O.L. because... see, this is where I get stuck.
I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right. I'm not buying the whole "we're only listening to one side of the conversation" bit, because we both know that's a damn dirty lie (listening to one end of a phone conversation is a great recipe for bad intelligence).
Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear? After all, they're "protecting my freedoms" against people who "hate us for our freedom" right? Suggesting that I give up freedoms in this case is no less an act of trolling than a GNAA first post.
Certain seemingly strange points of view start to make sense once you realize that many people like to define the word "person" or "people" in a way that excludes those who aren't part of some special club. In this particular case, the club is "U.S. Citizen", but the idea is far older than that.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what, EXACTLY, do you mean by "hostilities against our country" and when do you consider them ended? Being that we're at war with "terror" would that mean that they can be held until no one in the nation is capable of feeling extreme fear?
I'm not trying to troll, and I don't believe that is what you meant, I'm just pointing out how 'fast and loose' definitions aren't enough when we're talking about (possibly innocent) people's lives.
No offense, but I don't think that holding someone who hasn't received a trial prisoner until you feel safe is right.
Heh, you're thinking well, but you've overcomplicated it.
The heat loss when you open the door is a function of delta_temperature and MASS of the air exchanged. A fuller fridge will lose less of it's cold air simply because there is less cold air to lose. This is of course assuming that the fridge door is open for a relatively short amount of time, long enough for air transfer, but not long enough for the items in the fridge to sink a significant amount of the heat from the (now warmer) air.
Once you close the door, you're left with a smaller mass of air to cool inside the fridge than with an emptier fridge. The key is closing the door before the HUGE mass of air (the open atmosphere) can dump its practically infinite (for our purposes) amount of heat into the lower temperature items inside the fridge in order to balance the temperatures.
I think that anyone with the temerity to state that there does not exist, in all of the universe, a pink elephant or a unicorn based on the sample size of one planet is just as arrogant and irrational than someone who thinks that all Mexican-decent people smell like pig shit because the one Mexican-decent person they know works at a hog farm.
Someone who states that there ARE pink elephants and unicorns is just as bad, but is treated worse because being a cocky armchair statistician who doesn't know anything about sample sizes or probability but having the ability to make a snarky comeback is really popular.
*blushes* My bad, didn't mean to butt in on your self-criticism.:-D
Sorry about jumping the gun there, but in my defense, there has been a large amount of fallacious reasoning on slashdot today (hence the opening sigh, which was real), and your point was perfectly clear, even with the spelling error...
I've got to pay more attention to usernames, as that's the part of slashdot I really DON'T read most of the time. (I usually DO RTFA, shocking, no?)
Well, I'm pro-choice-by-law and anti-abortion-by-decision (I think it should be legal, but I wouldn't myself do it except in extreme circumstances). I say this to let everyone who wants to flame me for my beliefs do so based on my actual beliefs.
Having said that, the anti-choice-by-law people (who, in my opinion are as morally reprehensible as the pro-abortion-by-decision people (the ones who think abortions are birth control)) think that what you said is EXACTLY what is being done... Not to the mother, but to the fetus.
From the fetus' point of view, that -IS- what is happening, but that seems to beg the question, does a fetus HAVE a point of view? And there is where we run into the trouble. There is no good solid definition of consciousness and no good solid definition of sentience, which is where the whole "point of view" argument gets defined. So basically, when people try to make abortion out to be a simple 'freedom' vs 'murder' issue (depending on which side you take), they are in fact declaring their beliefs on consciousness and sentience to be valid and universal by fiat.
I'm not impressed, especially considering that most people don't spend much time thinking about the nature of consciousness at all.
Hanlon's razor has been shown false by nearly everyone on the face of the Earth old enough to understand both consequences for actions and lying.
I -KNOW- that I've done malicious things that I blamed on my own stupidity before, and I'm willing to bet that you have to. Hell, there's a commercial circulating right now about some Nintendo party game where a guy mentions that he "accidentally" spilled something on a girl near him because she was yelling or something like that.
In short, Hanlon's razor doesn't cut straight, and IMHO does far more harm than good.
"I do things half-assed because I'm a lazy shit, and since I'm the greatest IT guy that ever lived, the way I do it isn't just the standard, it's the Gold Standard."
The fact that you think the way you handle things is "normal" shows YOUR lack of IT experience there buck-o, and the hostile arrogance is indicative of insecurity (which, I'd guess from your description of procedure, is well-earned) not competence. For your sake I hope your boss believes your story about sloppy standards and "aww fuck it" disaster planning.
Oh, well if they're not tough enough to take a little verbal jab now and then perhaps they're not quite tough enough to be a cop. They can find another job that won't offend their delicate sensibilities. They won't be able to beat people up without consequence though, so I suspect most of these delicate little flowers will remain right where they are.
Sorry, lazy ass posters who think they are cute by posting already overused cultural memes when they damn well know where to find the original material they're pretending to ask for don't add much to the discussion.
We know, you believe what you believe and won't believe anything different unless you receive word from one of your chosen Opinion Granters (pundits).
If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of people who hold on unreasonably tightly to their partisan (not ideological, because the ideology can change without lost support) "beliefs", so you're not alone. You just keep waving your team's flag and telling yourself that somehow the politician chosen as the BEST politician by other politicians is somehow immune to the corruption gripping the political landscape.
Personally, I think that if they were going to put "Under God" in the Pledge, they should have tacked it on at the very end. The addition in the middle makes the Pledge an awkward recitation, and serves to do nothing but promote the illusion that we're some sort of Theocracy. At the END of the Pledge, the flow of words would still be smooth, and the meaning would change completely, promoting universal camaraderie instead of implying divine national superiority.
Here, I'll show you...
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all under God.
I think that looks better, and "one Nation indivisible" sounds much MUCH better when being spoken, at least to me, and might even serve to remind Americans that the rest of the world isn't there for us to rob and oppress.
I agree with 90% of your post, but would like to point out that "respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't mean the same thing as "establishing a religion". Those are two different things, and one need not establish a religion to treat it preferably.
What, you thought you could invalidate the GPs whole point with a smartassed comment about a typo? If that's the case, then would it be that you believe logic is unnecessary as long as your spelling is fine?
Speaking of the original Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, I LOVED that game. I played it regularly for years. It provided me with as much enjoyment as nearly any other game in my life (right up there with Sierra's AGI and SGI adventures), so even if the fun/cost equation didn't throw a divide-by-zero error it would still be good fun value. There were no ads or anything of that sort either.
I haven't tried any of the others, but I will now that I know about them.
You're forgetting that copying isn't always illegal. Fair Use can be claimed in nearly any instance of copying for strictly strictly personal use. If you try to SELL the copies, you're toast, but educating yourself on modern cultural trends is Fair Use AFAIK.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone told me I would love Heros, but I don't really watch network TV, so I put it off. When I did sit down and watch a couple episodes with my sister, I (mentally) said "wait, but..." several times due to their, frankly, sloppy writing. The worst one (the one that made me LOL) was when the fast girl and the newly minted power-booster guy ran faster than light to go back in time, and then (presumably) ran back to the future.
I giggled like a schoolboy watching a goofy clown.
You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.
Where do you get that interpretation from? I don't see it mentioned in the text we're talking about.
The rest of your point relies on the following quote being true, which I do not accept.
If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.
Foolishness. I cannot smuggle ANYTHING but information over the phone line. Period. I can smuggle ANYTHING in a suitcase, as long as said item meets the physical geometry limits of the suitcase. This property of phone lines (the inability to transfer anything but information) makes them most CERTAINLY different than a suitcase. I cannot fax you a nuke, I promise.
What?
I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit, and from the looks of it, not too many people are.
Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers). If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen), and that I, the one with the explicit protection from such nonsense, are in fact S.O.L. because... see, this is where I get stuck.
I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right. I'm not buying the whole "we're only listening to one side of the conversation" bit, because we both know that's a damn dirty lie (listening to one end of a phone conversation is a great recipe for bad intelligence).
Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear? After all, they're "protecting my freedoms" against people who "hate us for our freedom" right? Suggesting that I give up freedoms in this case is no less an act of trolling than a GNAA first post.
Certain seemingly strange points of view start to make sense once you realize that many people like to define the word "person" or "people" in a way that excludes those who aren't part of some special club. In this particular case, the club is "U.S. Citizen", but the idea is far older than that.
The document does define what the Government can and can't do in respect to these rights, but it must explicitly recognize those rights to do this.
Because the 10th Amendment doesn't matter? Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.....
Could you explain the purpose of the 10th Amendment as it fits into your paradigm, please?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what, EXACTLY, do you mean by "hostilities against our country" and when do you consider them ended? Being that we're at war with "terror" would that mean that they can be held until no one in the nation is capable of feeling extreme fear?
I'm not trying to troll, and I don't believe that is what you meant, I'm just pointing out how 'fast and loose' definitions aren't enough when we're talking about (possibly innocent) people's lives.
No offense, but I don't think that holding someone who hasn't received a trial prisoner until you feel safe is right.
Heh, you're thinking well, but you've overcomplicated it.
The heat loss when you open the door is a function of delta_temperature and MASS of the air exchanged. A fuller fridge will lose less of it's cold air simply because there is less cold air to lose. This is of course assuming that the fridge door is open for a relatively short amount of time, long enough for air transfer, but not long enough for the items in the fridge to sink a significant amount of the heat from the (now warmer) air.
Once you close the door, you're left with a smaller mass of air to cool inside the fridge than with an emptier fridge. The key is closing the door before the HUGE mass of air (the open atmosphere) can dump its practically infinite (for our purposes) amount of heat into the lower temperature items inside the fridge in order to balance the temperatures.
Right.
I think that anyone with the temerity to state that there does not exist, in all of the universe, a pink elephant or a unicorn based on the sample size of one planet is just as arrogant and irrational than someone who thinks that all Mexican-decent people smell like pig shit because the one Mexican-decent person they know works at a hog farm.
Someone who states that there ARE pink elephants and unicorns is just as bad, but is treated worse because being a cocky armchair statistician who doesn't know anything about sample sizes or probability but having the ability to make a snarky comeback is really popular.
*blushes* My bad, didn't mean to butt in on your self-criticism. :-D
Sorry about jumping the gun there, but in my defense, there has been a large amount of fallacious reasoning on slashdot today (hence the opening sigh, which was real), and your point was perfectly clear, even with the spelling error...
I've got to pay more attention to usernames, as that's the part of slashdot I really DON'T read most of the time. (I usually DO RTFA, shocking, no?)
Well, I'm pro-choice-by-law and anti-abortion-by-decision (I think it should be legal, but I wouldn't myself do it except in extreme circumstances). I say this to let everyone who wants to flame me for my beliefs do so based on my actual beliefs.
Having said that, the anti-choice-by-law people (who, in my opinion are as morally reprehensible as the pro-abortion-by-decision people (the ones who think abortions are birth control)) think that what you said is EXACTLY what is being done... Not to the mother, but to the fetus.
From the fetus' point of view, that -IS- what is happening, but that seems to beg the question, does a fetus HAVE a point of view? And there is where we run into the trouble. There is no good solid definition of consciousness and no good solid definition of sentience, which is where the whole "point of view" argument gets defined. So basically, when people try to make abortion out to be a simple 'freedom' vs 'murder' issue (depending on which side you take), they are in fact declaring their beliefs on consciousness and sentience to be valid and universal by fiat.
I'm not impressed, especially considering that most people don't spend much time thinking about the nature of consciousness at all.
*sigh*
If you're going to try to use logic to invalidate a person's post, please learn which arguments are valid and which mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Oh, and so you don't squirm too much, I'll mispell a word for you so you can ignore what I have to say too.
Hanlon's razor has been shown false by nearly everyone on the face of the Earth old enough to understand both consequences for actions and lying.
I -KNOW- that I've done malicious things that I blamed on my own stupidity before, and I'm willing to bet that you have to. Hell, there's a commercial circulating right now about some Nintendo party game where a guy mentions that he "accidentally" spilled something on a girl near him because she was yelling or something like that.
In short, Hanlon's razor doesn't cut straight, and IMHO does far more harm than good.
ROFL!
Least Common Denominator thinking FTW!
-or-
"I do things half-assed because I'm a lazy shit, and since I'm the greatest IT guy that ever lived, the way I do it isn't just the standard, it's the Gold Standard."
The fact that you think the way you handle things is "normal" shows YOUR lack of IT experience there buck-o, and the hostile arrogance is indicative of insecurity (which, I'd guess from your description of procedure, is well-earned) not competence. For your sake I hope your boss believes your story about sloppy standards and "aww fuck it" disaster planning.
Due to the factual information it contains, just like our posts are both "Offtopic". Neat huh, how words can describe what or how things are?
Huh, I found this when I googled "cussing canoeist". Seems that the law was struck down due to his river adventure.
Oh, well if they're not tough enough to take a little verbal jab now and then perhaps they're not quite tough enough to be a cop. They can find another job that won't offend their delicate sensibilities. They won't be able to beat people up without consequence though, so I suspect most of these delicate little flowers will remain right where they are.
Sorry, lazy ass posters who think they are cute by posting already overused cultural memes when they damn well know where to find the original material they're pretending to ask for don't add much to the discussion.
We know, you believe what you believe and won't believe anything different unless you receive word from one of your chosen Opinion Granters (pundits).
If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of people who hold on unreasonably tightly to their partisan (not ideological, because the ideology can change without lost support) "beliefs", so you're not alone. You just keep waving your team's flag and telling yourself that somehow the politician chosen as the BEST politician by other politicians is somehow immune to the corruption gripping the political landscape.
Personally, I think that if they were going to put "Under God" in the Pledge, they should have tacked it on at the very end. The addition in the middle makes the Pledge an awkward recitation, and serves to do nothing but promote the illusion that we're some sort of Theocracy. At the END of the Pledge, the flow of words would still be smooth, and the meaning would change completely, promoting universal camaraderie instead of implying divine national superiority.
Here, I'll show you...
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all under God.
I think that looks better, and "one Nation indivisible" sounds much MUCH better when being spoken, at least to me, and might even serve to remind Americans that the rest of the world isn't there for us to rob and oppress.
I agree with 90% of your post, but would like to point out that "respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't mean the same thing as "establishing a religion". Those are two different things, and one need not establish a religion to treat it preferably.
Yes, you need say more, much more.
What, you thought you could invalidate the GPs whole point with a smartassed comment about a typo? If that's the case, then would it be that you believe logic is unnecessary as long as your spelling is fine?
Enlighten us.
Link worked for me.
Speaking of the original Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, I LOVED that game. I played it regularly for years. It provided me with as much enjoyment as nearly any other game in my life (right up there with Sierra's AGI and SGI adventures), so even if the fun/cost equation didn't throw a divide-by-zero error it would still be good fun value. There were no ads or anything of that sort either.
I haven't tried any of the others, but I will now that I know about them.
You're forgetting that copying isn't always illegal. Fair Use can be claimed in nearly any instance of copying for strictly strictly personal use. If you try to SELL the copies, you're toast, but educating yourself on modern cultural trends is Fair Use AFAIK.