That, plus the new Gmail interface looks like it was beaten with an ugly stick. Useful text labels are gone, everything is represented with an icon. Are people illiterate these days or something? Some changes are downright impractical. For instance, what's with the tiny editor pop-up window when composing a new message? I have all this screen space, so why not use it? I really don't need to look at the contents of my inbox while I'm writing. Replies use the full-size interface, so what gives? They even manage to get that wrong since essential features like Forward are hidden in menus that are not immediately obvious. It's been over a year since they rolled that UI out and I still want the classic interface back.
I remember using packet-formatted CD-RWs as one form of backup in the late 90's-early 2000's, your post reminded me of that. The problem is the discs would go bad without warning--I could still read from a bad disc with no problems but any new writes would fail and the disc would be ruined after that. Optical media is too damn unstable for backup purposes even if hard drives were still small enough for it to be practical.
The only way to do backup is rsyncing between several external discs on a regular basis and storing at least one off-site.
These days, ending a sentence with a proposition is grammatically correct. I was taught that using "he/she" in a sentence about a single person is correct because "they" is plural and should only be used when referring to multiple people.
Mod parent up. Today's Democrats are far from being a liberal party and Obama is a moderate at best. The whole political spectrum in the US is skewed so far to the right that our "liberals" are considered conservative by the rest of the world's standards. Voting third party never gets anywhere because the entire system is designed to exclude third parties.
BTW, Plasma TV is old technology. I haven't seen a new one sold in years. You can buy a cheap-ass LCD TV for less than $250 now so I have no idea what your point is. For all you know, it was a gift. In a way, you just defeated your own argument because lots of poor people have older stuff because they can't afford to upgrade. Would you blame a poor person for owning a CRT in this day and age?
You must think that all poor people should be dressed in rags and have no dignity or luxuries whatsoever. I've been poor before and I know how it is, you insensitive prick. During that time, cable TV was the first thing to do, along with any non-essentials. It's not the 1980s; cell phones aren't a status symbol anymore. Poor people prefer cell phones because they are more practical than a land line. My phone at the time was 4 years old and the battery wouldn't hold a charge for more than a day. I wore clothes until they were full of holes. Forget Starbucks... I drank shitty store brand coffee. I was always hungry because I had to make the food stamps last the whole month. Would you have begrudged me that?
I'm sorry, but you've really pissed me off. Who in the hell modded your shit up?
Oh come on, you can do better than that! You conservatives love to bring that up but you never have any specific examples of fraud (just like this rampant voter fraud perpetrated at the hands of minorities I keep hearing about). I've heard all this before- it's always the phantom poor person covered in bling who buys lobster and caviar with food stamps and then drives off in a late-model Cadillac Escalade with chrome spinners, never to be seen again until they show up at another market somewhere in Conservative-Land to do the same thing over and over. It's a tired old racist stereotype but you conservatives just eat it up. I want the names and locations of these people because if what you say is so, they are scamming the system and should be reported.
Furthermore, why should I believe this person you allegedly talked to even exists and is not something you pulled out of your ass to prop up your argument?
Capital gains (how the rich make most of their income) should be treated no differently than regular income. This is one way the current tax code favors the rich. Also, eliminating the cap on social security would keep it solvent indefinitely. Would it be such a bad thing if more industries were nationalized? I've seen how the private sector runs the economy and honestly, I'm not very impressed. (banking and healthcare, I'm looking at you!)
I disagree that our standard of living has improved since the 50s. When the rich paid higher taxes, the country experienced a period of high prosperity. We experienced a similar thing when Clinton raised taxes in the 90s. We ended up with a budget surplus that was soon squandered by Bush. Sure, we have more cheap electronic gadgets nowadays but job security, healthcare affordability, and infrastructure have gone to shit since Reagan came up with trickle-down economics. I'd call trickle-down the most ghastly economic failure in history except it did exactly what it was supposed to do (redistribute middle class wealth upward to the rich).
Everybody should be able to earn a living wage no matter what kind of job they have. I'm sick and tired of this race-to-the-bottom bullshit where executives make millions of dollars a year (or more) while rank-and-file workers are paid so little that they need food stamps to survive (and now the right-wingers want to cut that out of pure spite). And no, I don't envy the rich. Why does anybody need that much money? The rich have not done anything for me or for you without expecting much more in return. Let them be taxed at 90% like in the Eisenhower days. You want to talk about "takers" vs. "makers"? The rich are the takers because they live on other peoples' work. The people who go to work every day and get shit done are the real makers and the real job creators. When regular people have money to spend, everybody does well. When the rich suck up all the money, the economy craters. Do we really have to relive the gilded age and let the modern batch of robber barons take us for everything we have before we come to our senses?
Do the fact the Kochs employ people mean they deserve praise? Those people only have jobs there because they make more money for the Kochs. Can you even list one good thing the Kochs have done for this world that hasn't been tainted by self interest?
Check back with me when the Kochs promote income equality, stop polluting the environment, and do something that indicates they give a shit about ordinary people. We still have to live on this rock and it would be nice to have an intact biosphere and be able to achieve a standard of living higher than corporate feudalism.
I'll probably be modded down for this but what do I expect when this site has moved so far right lately I have trouble recognizing it?
Why should I believe for a minute that companies are going to do the ecologically-responsible thing (assuming it actually works the way you claim it does) if there's no one to force them to? Doing it right costs extra money and all these companies give a fuck about is profit. The companies aren't going to stick around and drink the tainted water after everything of value has been extracted from the land.
You're missing the point. If I lived in Canada or practically any European country, I could have gone to any state-sponsored hospital in my time of need and gotten treatment whether I had money or not. This is what taxes are supposed to pay for.
It only provides the best care if you have enough money to pay for it. No one gives a shit about you if you happen to be poor.
Have you ever had to do without healthcare because you couldn't afford it? I've had to do so on more than one occasion. Most recently, I broke a bone in my hand and I didn't have insurance. I had to let it heal on its own and it took three months to do so. It still doesn't feel right. How in the fucking hell does that happen in the "best healthcare system in the world"?
I wish we could have single-payer health services like every civilized country on earth. But no, there's too much money to be made so we're stuck with this fucked up for-profit system that provides less care at a higher cost than any of the alternatives.
If what you say is true, then why do most axes (even new ones) have a coarse bevel? A mace would be a far better choice than a sword if your foe is wearing armor. Why slash your enemy to death when you can crush his bones and cause him to bleed out instead?
Steel has its limits. If the edge is too thin to handle the forces it gets subjected to, it buckles, chips, and curls instead of simply blunting. If the edge hits a shield or your enemy's armor, it is automatically ruined. It would take a highly-skilled smith to fix that kind of damage and even then the blade wouldn't be as good as it was before because of metal fatigue. This is why you never go edge-to-edge with a sword!
Super-sharp edges are for precision work. If you're using a hack-and-slash weapon, you want a thick bevel because it will still tear through your enemy with minimal damage to itself if you put enough force behind it. Adding a serrated edge would probably be even more effective against soft targets because it tears out chunks and causes more trauma. Grinding a new edge would be trivial as the teeth wear down.
Having a sword so sharp that it could cut through a falling scarf seems rather impractical because it would be impossible to maintain that sharp edge for long under regular use (no matter how good the steel is).
Slashdot Mirror
That, plus the new Gmail interface looks like it was beaten with an ugly stick. Useful text labels are gone, everything is represented with an icon. Are people illiterate these days or something? Some changes are downright impractical. For instance, what's with the tiny editor pop-up window when composing a new message? I have all this screen space, so why not use it? I really don't need to look at the contents of my inbox while I'm writing. Replies use the full-size interface, so what gives? They even manage to get that wrong since essential features like Forward are hidden in menus that are not immediately obvious. It's been over a year since they rolled that UI out and I still want the classic interface back.
Torrenting old (10-15 YO) episodes is fair IMO since it's hard to find anything but the last few seasons on DVD anymore.
They are obese because they have no choice but to eat shit food that is full of sugar and few nutrients. Decent food costs money.
I remember using packet-formatted CD-RWs as one form of backup in the late 90's-early 2000's, your post reminded me of that. The problem is the discs would go bad without warning--I could still read from a bad disc with no problems but any new writes would fail and the disc would be ruined after that. Optical media is too damn unstable for backup purposes even if hard drives were still small enough for it to be practical.
The only way to do backup is rsyncing between several external discs on a regular basis and storing at least one off-site.
Gah, I meant preposition, not proposition.
These days, ending a sentence with a proposition is grammatically correct. I was taught that using "he/she" in a sentence about a single person is correct because "they" is plural and should only be used when referring to multiple people.
Skyrim has terrible load times too. I'm not sure why, since other games that use the same engine (Fallout 3/NV) aren't that bad.
Mod parent up. Today's Democrats are far from being a liberal party and Obama is a moderate at best. The whole political spectrum in the US is skewed so far to the right that our "liberals" are considered conservative by the rest of the world's standards. Voting third party never gets anywhere because the entire system is designed to exclude third parties.
Friends don't let friends drink Bacardi.
BTW, Plasma TV is old technology. I haven't seen a new one sold in years. You can buy a cheap-ass LCD TV for less than $250 now so I have no idea what your point is. For all you know, it was a gift. In a way, you just defeated your own argument because lots of poor people have older stuff because they can't afford to upgrade. Would you blame a poor person for owning a CRT in this day and age?
You must think that all poor people should be dressed in rags and have no dignity or luxuries whatsoever. I've been poor before and I know how it is, you insensitive prick. During that time, cable TV was the first thing to do, along with any non-essentials. It's not the 1980s; cell phones aren't a status symbol anymore. Poor people prefer cell phones because they are more practical than a land line. My phone at the time was 4 years old and the battery wouldn't hold a charge for more than a day. I wore clothes until they were full of holes. Forget Starbucks... I drank shitty store brand coffee. I was always hungry because I had to make the food stamps last the whole month. Would you have begrudged me that?
I'm sorry, but you've really pissed me off. Who in the hell modded your shit up?
Oh come on, you can do better than that! You conservatives love to bring that up but you never have any specific examples of fraud (just like this rampant voter fraud perpetrated at the hands of minorities I keep hearing about). I've heard all this before- it's always the phantom poor person covered in bling who buys lobster and caviar with food stamps and then drives off in a late-model Cadillac Escalade with chrome spinners, never to be seen again until they show up at another market somewhere in Conservative-Land to do the same thing over and over. It's a tired old racist stereotype but you conservatives just eat it up. I want the names and locations of these people because if what you say is so, they are scamming the system and should be reported.
Furthermore, why should I believe this person you allegedly talked to even exists and is not something you pulled out of your ass to prop up your argument?
Capital gains (how the rich make most of their income) should be treated no differently than regular income. This is one way the current tax code favors the rich. Also, eliminating the cap on social security would keep it solvent indefinitely. Would it be such a bad thing if more industries were nationalized? I've seen how the private sector runs the economy and honestly, I'm not very impressed. (banking and healthcare, I'm looking at you!)
I disagree that our standard of living has improved since the 50s. When the rich paid higher taxes, the country experienced a period of high prosperity. We experienced a similar thing when Clinton raised taxes in the 90s. We ended up with a budget surplus that was soon squandered by Bush. Sure, we have more cheap electronic gadgets nowadays but job security, healthcare affordability, and infrastructure have gone to shit since Reagan came up with trickle-down economics. I'd call trickle-down the most ghastly economic failure in history except it did exactly what it was supposed to do (redistribute middle class wealth upward to the rich).
Everybody should be able to earn a living wage no matter what kind of job they have. I'm sick and tired of this race-to-the-bottom bullshit where executives make millions of dollars a year (or more) while rank-and-file workers are paid so little that they need food stamps to survive (and now the right-wingers want to cut that out of pure spite). And no, I don't envy the rich. Why does anybody need that much money? The rich have not done anything for me or for you without expecting much more in return. Let them be taxed at 90% like in the Eisenhower days. You want to talk about "takers" vs. "makers"? The rich are the takers because they live on other peoples' work. The people who go to work every day and get shit done are the real makers and the real job creators. When regular people have money to spend, everybody does well. When the rich suck up all the money, the economy craters. Do we really have to relive the gilded age and let the modern batch of robber barons take us for everything we have before we come to our senses?
Do the fact the Kochs employ people mean they deserve praise? Those people only have jobs there because they make more money for the Kochs. Can you even list one good thing the Kochs have done for this world that hasn't been tainted by self interest?
Check back with me when the Kochs promote income equality, stop polluting the environment, and do something that indicates they give a shit about ordinary people. We still have to live on this rock and it would be nice to have an intact biosphere and be able to achieve a standard of living higher than corporate feudalism.
I'll probably be modded down for this but what do I expect when this site has moved so far right lately I have trouble recognizing it?
Why should I believe for a minute that companies are going to do the ecologically-responsible thing (assuming it actually works the way you claim it does) if there's no one to force them to? Doing it right costs extra money and all these companies give a fuck about is profit. The companies aren't going to stick around and drink the tainted water after everything of value has been extracted from the land.
What makes you think the colonies would be any better?
You're missing the point. If I lived in Canada or practically any European country, I could have gone to any state-sponsored hospital in my time of need and gotten treatment whether I had money or not. This is what taxes are supposed to pay for.
It only provides the best care if you have enough money to pay for it. No one gives a shit about you if you happen to be poor.
Have you ever had to do without healthcare because you couldn't afford it? I've had to do so on more than one occasion. Most recently, I broke a bone in my hand and I didn't have insurance. I had to let it heal on its own and it took three months to do so. It still doesn't feel right. How in the fucking hell does that happen in the "best healthcare system in the world"?
I wish we could have single-payer health services like every civilized country on earth. But no, there's too much money to be made so we're stuck with this fucked up for-profit system that provides less care at a higher cost than any of the alternatives.
I meant to say bleed out internally instead.
If what you say is true, then why do most axes (even new ones) have a coarse bevel? A mace would be a far better choice than a sword if your foe is wearing armor. Why slash your enemy to death when you can crush his bones and cause him to bleed out instead?
Steel has its limits. If the edge is too thin to handle the forces it gets subjected to, it buckles, chips, and curls instead of simply blunting. If the edge hits a shield or your enemy's armor, it is automatically ruined. It would take a highly-skilled smith to fix that kind of damage and even then the blade wouldn't be as good as it was before because of metal fatigue. This is why you never go edge-to-edge with a sword!
Super-sharp edges are for precision work. If you're using a hack-and-slash weapon, you want a thick bevel because it will still tear through your enemy with minimal damage to itself if you put enough force behind it. Adding a serrated edge would probably be even more effective against soft targets because it tears out chunks and causes more trauma. Grinding a new edge would be trivial as the teeth wear down.
Having a sword so sharp that it could cut through a falling scarf seems rather impractical because it would be impossible to maintain that sharp edge for long under regular use (no matter how good the steel is).
As long as they keep the Vangelis intro theme....
Algae actually belongs to the Protist kingdom.