Ahh... I see... Well, it's no fun once you admint to being a troll. Ironic that you post faux anti-sexism comments here after your diary entry about "meet[ing] chicks". You know it's sexist to call them chicks, right?
Given that you've surely read my other comments (as you've replied to several of them), that seems to have been a roundabout way of calling me an immature douchbag. Why don't you stop being an immature douchebag and just come right out and say it? Choosing to take offense to things you could have simply avoided (e.g. the DiCSS project), now that's a sign of immaturity. Laughing, in private, at the jokes contained therein? Not so much. Judging others for not being offended by the same things that offend you? Well, there's another sign. Changing the subject when someone points out your argumentative fallacy? Another. Well, I suppose we should get you some kind of hypocrite award, shouldn't we?
My friends and I crack racist jokes all the time. Friends of all backgrounds and races, mind you. We don't get all pissy and offended by it, either.
That said, I wouldn't tell pretty much any of the jokes heard in that group in public, as I do understand how some might find them offensive. I, personally, wouldn't publish them in the internet, attached to my own identity, either; not because it might offend somebody, but because it would actually make me uncomfortable to think that someone outside my inner circle of friends and family might read it and think I was actually racist. No, if you come across something you know you'll find offensive, and you have the option to avoid it, you pretty much give up your right to be offended (or, at least, to complain about the offense) if you don't exercise that option. It's kind of like stepping in front of a bus: if you saw the bus coming, you really have no right to complain when it hits you.
The real difference is that it's written material that you have the option to read or not read. Really, that's the difference. If it was being forced in front of your eyes and you were being forced to read it, well, then yes, it would be offensive; it would offend me and I find these types of jokes amusing at times.
I got the sarcasm. You were sarcastically saying they loved it (because they didn't). The scenario you describe, however, is vastly different from the situation being discussed, though. You don't need to know how old I am, just that I'm old enough to be able to tell the damn difference. Let's just say, a damn adult who knows he can simply not read something he finds offensive.
So, your complaint boils down to "I have to put up with men's shit and I don't like it". I could say the same about women's shit, but that would make me a misogynist. Yup, we're really fuckin' equal, ain't we?
Grow up and realize that you can simply not read offensive writings. Something offensive someone says directly to you, or shouts in a group, that's different; you don't have the opportunity to simply not hear that. but something someone wrote, that you had to actively seek out (clicking a link, knowing what that link leads to, is actively seeking that thing), that's a choice; and if that thing offends you, it's up to you to make the choice to not seek it out.
The absurdity I was referring to is that people like you can't seem to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary communication Taking offense to voluntary communications is a child's folly; an adult should know well enough to simply avoid it. Your counterexample was centered around involuntary communication and, thus, not much of a counterexample at all; hell, I won't even say your wrong (nor would my wife), but you're not talking about anything related to the topic at hand.
There's a vast distance between the act of writing something that someone can simply not read if they deem it offensive and the act of shouting offensive shit in a crowd where people have no choice but to hear you. You comment is downright offensive to those of us who understand this, but I defend your right to post that comment, as I simply could have not read it if I didn't want to be offended by it; were you to say it to my face, though, not giving me any choice but to hear it, I'd probably lay you out.
See the difference? The mere idea of what you posted offends me, but your comment, given that I made the conscious decision to read it, does not. Were I given no choice in the matter, well, then, that would be offensive.
Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have to keep reading something they find offensive. Nobody forced anybody to read the dick jokes posted in that repo. Hell, I find that particular type of joke humorous form time to time and I haven't even read them. If they offend you, why did you read them?
Also proves that women are actually dead dumb, given that they can convince themsalves the mohammedics are not a threat.
There is still hope! None of the women I associate with (except maybe my mother) see anything wrong with this project, or the comments it contains. They're all of the mind that, if you don't like something, you can simply avoid it. Anyone offended by this (before the article, of course) was looking for it in the first place or (after the article) knew what they were clicking on when they clicked the link in the article; anyone who seeks out offensive material with the sole purpose of being offended by it (and telling the world how offended they are) is not to be taken seriously.
Now, if this developer were running through a crowd of women, screaming these same comments, I could see that as a legitimate reason to take offense. In that instance, it's not like the women involved, in that example, were seeking out those comments, or even had any idea the comments were going to be made. The same can not be said for someone purposely viewing that repository, and continuing to browse it after they see that it may be something that offends them.
That's not to say that this is a non-issue; but we're looking at the wrong issue altogether. Make people personally responsible for changing the damn channel or navigating away from the damn page and the problem solves itself. The guy telling dick jokes in the middle of a group of women (we'll assume they weren't there to hear dick jokes; if they were, then him telling them would be acceptable) is still in the wrong and should be removed from the group, but the guy posting the jokes on the internet is well within his rights, just as you're within your rights to simply not read them.
To put it another way, when you say something, out loud, you're giving the people around you no choice but to hear it; when you write something, people have a choice whether or not to read it (or continue reading it if they find it offensive). There is a huge difference between the two scenarios, and that difference is the reason that this guy, posting this project, with these comments is not something a normal person should be offended by. You don't have to read it; if it offends you, simply don't read it; the attempt to censor offends me, but I can't simply avoid it, now, can I? People (men and women alike), stop being whiny bitches and take responsibility for yourselves. Seriously.
But, but, but... Equality means women can do whatever we want and men can only do what we say. Now go make yourself a sandwich; make me one too, while you're at it. And don't forget to clean the kitchen afterward.
She sees the same absurdity in the "feminist" movement that I do. Note the quotes; I know a decent number of feminists who despise "feminists" as much as my wife and I do. They wear the label, loud and proud, but do nothing but damage the entire notion of gender equality, which hurts everyone.
"Put up with it" is an interesting phrase. If you don't like my speech, you can ignore me. You can denounce me. You can organize a boycott.
Because I'm sure the person you were replying to isn't sharp enough to have picked up on it (after all, they thought their only option was to "put up with it"), I'll point out, since you didn't, that all of those are alternatives to "put[ting] up with it".
There is not proof of that because every time we've had someone ty one they wither corrupted it and the US (along with others) stepped in to shut them down, ir we feared they would corrupt it and did the same. Doesn't it make sense, though, that we'd have more people doing the shit jobs nobody wants to do if those jobs were attached to larger paychecks? Instead, we have people seeking higher paying jobs while the service industry generally gets shit pay. Go into a store and look for an employee that has half a clue about what they're selling you; it is very rare that you'll find one, because anyone with a clue has moved on to positions in which they can, at a minimum, survive off their paycheck, or refused to work there in the first place.
If you think that's a good thing, you need to ask yourself how you learned everything you know today. If you literally never learned anything from anyone else, or from work done by someone else, the good on you, a system that doesn't provide subsistence-level income for everyone (who contributes in some way) is ideal for you and you should be happy to live in one. However, if you've ever learned anything from anyone else, you should realize that the best teachers are the ones who aren't worrying about their next meal; you could actually probably learn something from the guy behind the counter at McDonald's if they paid a subsistence wage; he may well to be an astrophysicist who failed to plan properly for retirement (because simply giving people money, as we all know, does not fix those issues). Or, at least, the guy at Best Buy might know the difference between a DVD player and a Blu-Ray player; that'd be a start.
Everything else I've ever read about mercury states that it is not usually found in nature in its elemental form and that cinnabar is the most common, but not only, form in which mercury exists in nature. Other naturally occurring forms of mercury include mercuric sulphide, mercuric oxide, and mercuric chloride. Additionally, some microorganisms produce organic mercury, most typically methylmercury, in the presence of mercury salts (but not in the presence of elemental mercury).
Mercuric chloride, which occurs in nature much more commonly than elemental mercury, is also much more harmful than elemental mercury. Your body will try to utilize mercuric chloride just like any other chloride, which is a key reason why chlorides (other than sodium chloride) are dangerous, in general, when ingested. Mercuric chloride poisoning, specifically, has syphilis-like symptoms (ironic, as it was once used to treat the disease) at much lower exposures than are required for elemental mercury to have any effect whatsoever.
Why is that? Maybe he enjoys stringing them along the same way they enjoy stringing him along? Nothing wrong with a good ol' circle jerk between anonymous men on the internet, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo. *slow clap*
In fact the only purpose I can see to this name is to make bad jokes.
Or, it's an acronym for
Directly injected CSS
An *avoidable* experience for anyone who might be offended by it. MY wife is neither immature nor male and she certainly didn't take offense.
It might be time to stop trolling when the first Google result for your email address outs you.
Ahh... I see... Well, it's no fun once you admint to being a troll. Ironic that you post faux anti-sexism comments here after your diary entry about "meet[ing] chicks". You know it's sexist to call them chicks, right?
Given that you've surely read my other comments (as you've replied to several of them), that seems to have been a roundabout way of calling me an immature douchbag. Why don't you stop being an immature douchebag and just come right out and say it? Choosing to take offense to things you could have simply avoided (e.g. the DiCSS project), now that's a sign of immaturity. Laughing, in private, at the jokes contained therein? Not so much. Judging others for not being offended by the same things that offend you? Well, there's another sign. Changing the subject when someone points out your argumentative fallacy? Another. Well, I suppose we should get you some kind of hypocrite award, shouldn't we?
My friends and I crack racist jokes all the time. Friends of all backgrounds and races, mind you. We don't get all pissy and offended by it, either.
That said, I wouldn't tell pretty much any of the jokes heard in that group in public, as I do understand how some might find them offensive. I, personally, wouldn't publish them in the internet, attached to my own identity, either; not because it might offend somebody, but because it would actually make me uncomfortable to think that someone outside my inner circle of friends and family might read it and think I was actually racist. No, if you come across something you know you'll find offensive, and you have the option to avoid it, you pretty much give up your right to be offended (or, at least, to complain about the offense) if you don't exercise that option. It's kind of like stepping in front of a bus: if you saw the bus coming, you really have no right to complain when it hits you.
The real difference is that it's written material that you have the option to read or not read. Really, that's the difference. If it was being forced in front of your eyes and you were being forced to read it, well, then yes, it would be offensive; it would offend me and I find these types of jokes amusing at times.
I got the sarcasm. You were sarcastically saying they loved it (because they didn't). The scenario you describe, however, is vastly different from the situation being discussed, though. You don't need to know how old I am, just that I'm old enough to be able to tell the damn difference. Let's just say, a damn adult who knows he can simply not read something he finds offensive.
So, your complaint boils down to "I have to put up with men's shit and I don't like it". I could say the same about women's shit, but that would make me a misogynist. Yup, we're really fuckin' equal, ain't we?
Grow up and realize that you can simply not read offensive writings. Something offensive someone says directly to you, or shouts in a group, that's different; you don't have the opportunity to simply not hear that. but something someone wrote, that you had to actively seek out (clicking a link, knowing what that link leads to, is actively seeking that thing), that's a choice; and if that thing offends you, it's up to you to make the choice to not seek it out.
The absurdity I was referring to is that people like you can't seem to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary communication Taking offense to voluntary communications is a child's folly; an adult should know well enough to simply avoid it. Your counterexample was centered around involuntary communication and, thus, not much of a counterexample at all; hell, I won't even say your wrong (nor would my wife), but you're not talking about anything related to the topic at hand.
There's a vast distance between the act of writing something that someone can simply not read if they deem it offensive and the act of shouting offensive shit in a crowd where people have no choice but to hear you. You comment is downright offensive to those of us who understand this, but I defend your right to post that comment, as I simply could have not read it if I didn't want to be offended by it; were you to say it to my face, though, not giving me any choice but to hear it, I'd probably lay you out.
See the difference? The mere idea of what you posted offends me, but your comment, given that I made the conscious decision to read it, does not. Were I given no choice in the matter, well, then, that would be offensive.
Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have to keep reading something they find offensive. Nobody forced anybody to read the dick jokes posted in that repo. Hell, I find that particular type of joke humorous form time to time and I haven't even read them. If they offend you, why did you read them?
...wrote an Anonymous Coward in the comments section on /. You sure know how to pick your battles.
...wrote an Anonymous Coward in the comments section on /. You sure know how to pick your battles.
And for reference, no, I am not the person you were replying to. Just pointing out your hypocrisy; have a nice day.
Also proves that women are actually dead dumb, given that they can convince themsalves the mohammedics are not a threat.
There is still hope! None of the women I associate with (except maybe my mother) see anything wrong with this project, or the comments it contains. They're all of the mind that, if you don't like something, you can simply avoid it. Anyone offended by this (before the article, of course) was looking for it in the first place or (after the article) knew what they were clicking on when they clicked the link in the article; anyone who seeks out offensive material with the sole purpose of being offended by it (and telling the world how offended they are) is not to be taken seriously.
Now, if this developer were running through a crowd of women, screaming these same comments, I could see that as a legitimate reason to take offense. In that instance, it's not like the women involved, in that example, were seeking out those comments, or even had any idea the comments were going to be made. The same can not be said for someone purposely viewing that repository, and continuing to browse it after they see that it may be something that offends them.
That's not to say that this is a non-issue; but we're looking at the wrong issue altogether. Make people personally responsible for changing the damn channel or navigating away from the damn page and the problem solves itself. The guy telling dick jokes in the middle of a group of women (we'll assume they weren't there to hear dick jokes; if they were, then him telling them would be acceptable) is still in the wrong and should be removed from the group, but the guy posting the jokes on the internet is well within his rights, just as you're within your rights to simply not read them.
To put it another way, when you say something, out loud, you're giving the people around you no choice but to hear it; when you write something, people have a choice whether or not to read it (or continue reading it if they find it offensive). There is a huge difference between the two scenarios, and that difference is the reason that this guy, posting this project, with these comments is not something a normal person should be offended by. You don't have to read it; if it offends you, simply don't read it; the attempt to censor offends me, but I can't simply avoid it, now, can I? People (men and women alike), stop being whiny bitches and take responsibility for yourselves. Seriously.
oh you're right, i'm sorry
/s
just the other day i went up to a group of females and started telling dick jokes
they loved it!
There's a million miles between the idea of shoving your dick joke in a woman's face and a woman being unable to simply not seek the damn things out.
But, but, but... Equality means women can do whatever we want and men can only do what we say. Now go make yourself a sandwich; make me one too, while you're at it. And don't forget to clean the kitchen afterward.
She sees the same absurdity in the "feminist" movement that I do. Note the quotes; I know a decent number of feminists who despise "feminists" as much as my wife and I do. They wear the label, loud and proud, but do nothing but damage the entire notion of gender equality, which hurts everyone.
and half the entire population (women)
My wife's laughter at the absurdity of this whole issue begs to differ.
no matter how many lengths you go to
Careful, talking about length is hostile towards women, don'cha know?
You might want to research what a strawman is before you're wrong about that particular definition again.
The fact that it rockets to the top seems to indicate that it has, for better or worse, become socially normal. Just sayin'.
"Put up with it" is an interesting phrase. If you don't like my speech, you can ignore me. You can denounce me. You can organize a boycott.
Because I'm sure the person you were replying to isn't sharp enough to have picked up on it (after all, they thought their only option was to "put up with it"), I'll point out, since you didn't, that all of those are alternatives to "put[ting] up with it".
But, by filtering and self-censoring my speech, I'm violating your right to be offended. What is there to say about that?
wow... typos in the first sentence... ty = try, wither = either, and ir = or.
There is not proof of that because every time we've had someone ty one they wither corrupted it and the US (along with others) stepped in to shut them down, ir we feared they would corrupt it and did the same. Doesn't it make sense, though, that we'd have more people doing the shit jobs nobody wants to do if those jobs were attached to larger paychecks? Instead, we have people seeking higher paying jobs while the service industry generally gets shit pay. Go into a store and look for an employee that has half a clue about what they're selling you; it is very rare that you'll find one, because anyone with a clue has moved on to positions in which they can, at a minimum, survive off their paycheck, or refused to work there in the first place.
If you think that's a good thing, you need to ask yourself how you learned everything you know today. If you literally never learned anything from anyone else, or from work done by someone else, the good on you, a system that doesn't provide subsistence-level income for everyone (who contributes in some way) is ideal for you and you should be happy to live in one. However, if you've ever learned anything from anyone else, you should realize that the best teachers are the ones who aren't worrying about their next meal; you could actually probably learn something from the guy behind the counter at McDonald's if they paid a subsistence wage; he may well to be an astrophysicist who failed to plan properly for retirement (because simply giving people money, as we all know, does not fix those issues). Or, at least, the guy at Best Buy might know the difference between a DVD player and a Blu-Ray player; that'd be a start.
Everything else I've ever read about mercury states that it is not usually found in nature in its elemental form and that cinnabar is the most common, but not only, form in which mercury exists in nature. Other naturally occurring forms of mercury include mercuric sulphide, mercuric oxide, and mercuric chloride. Additionally, some microorganisms produce organic mercury, most typically methylmercury, in the presence of mercury salts (but not in the presence of elemental mercury).
Mercuric chloride, which occurs in nature much more commonly than elemental mercury, is also much more harmful than elemental mercury. Your body will try to utilize mercuric chloride just like any other chloride, which is a key reason why chlorides (other than sodium chloride) are dangerous, in general, when ingested. Mercuric chloride poisoning, specifically, has syphilis-like symptoms (ironic, as it was once used to treat the disease) at much lower exposures than are required for elemental mercury to have any effect whatsoever.
Facts are fun, aren't they?
Why is that? Maybe he enjoys stringing them along the same way they enjoy stringing him along? Nothing wrong with a good ol' circle jerk between anonymous men on the internet, eh?