Do you feel elevated now by living the high life of fame vicariously through him?;) (Only poking at you.)
I, too, got a little excited when my small (like 350 people in the winter) town was main-page news on Fark and the story was three houses up from mine. I am not sure what causes it, I'm sure it wouldn't be the same if I lived in a giant impersonal city, but I'm sure there's some sort of name for it and reasoning behind it.
To be fair, how would they know until recently that the program was illegal? When the Three Letter Agencies show up with legal documentation that says to do something and to not reveal it to anyone, I don't care who you are, you do it. You may wish to pretend you wouldn't but, frankly, we know better. Everyone complies.
I could see people fighting to install that app if there were something like a $5 Dunkin Donuts gift certificate for every month (five hours per day) of use.
I could see people killing to get into the beta program if it meant you got a shot at appearing on random_popular_reality_show if you found x_amount of wanted people over a year long process.
I just want you to know that I am NOT kidding nor am I amused by this. I just see it as a plausible result if said application were made available. Given the results of the various polls that concern privacy, I'd not be in the least bit surprised. Those of us who see the problem want so very much to blame the government, and rightly so - they should know better, but so much of the blame rightly belongs with you and me (the populace).
What makes you assume that it isn't embedded in one of the other parts? Just because it says one thing on the box doesn't mean that that is all that it does.;)
Taste is, of course, subjective (as I have mentioned). As such, and not for lack of trying or even willingness to try them again, they're just not for me. I've eaten them in a variety of ways and I haven't been pleased with the flavor or the mouth-feel yet. I am open to trying them again, and I'm quite certain that I will, but I doubt the result will be different. The reason I will try them again is because I'll try them prepared in a different way or from a different source so that, when I do, I will do so while hoping that the results will be different.
By no means would I suggest not trying them for yourself to see if you like them. I'd scoff at such silliness. Absolutely, try them, see if you like them. More importantly, try them before saying you don't like them. If you're not going to try them then don't say that you don't like them, say that you won't try it because you're afraid. It is okay to be afraid, fear is a healthy thing to have. It is even acceptable for folks to admit they are afraid. However, refusing to try them while insisting that they're gross or "icky" is just a cop out for being too ashamed to admit that they're scared.
So, by all means, try them. Try anything on the menu for that matter. If you don't like something then you don't like it but you don't know how you feel about it until you've actually tried it. You'll note that I didn't say that they were bad, I stated that they weren't that good. Very few foods are, in my opinion, bad. There is no food that I won't eat if I'm hungry enough but there are some that I'll avoid until that point. Insects are closer to the point of the starvation food than they are to the regular food-stuffs on that scale for me. But, to be clear, I'll be eating insects again long before I'm starving simply because I want to see if I find an insect and preparation method that is palatable for me and because the challenge of finding that combination is enjoyable.
I haven't eaten a butterfly but I can confirm that spider isn't on my list of preferred foods either. I don't have an aversion to grubs, weevils, or worms - while they're not something I'm planning on ingesting regularly they're also not on my list of foods that I hold in contempt. The tiger swallowtail butterfly that you mentioned sounds interesting, I would like to try that.
You mention formic acid... In my effort to respond to the people who replied to me I went from bottom to top so I have a reply below this and I'll quote myself here:
To me they're just a crunch like a wayward egg-shell in a greasy diner with an acrid goo, sometimes with varied degrees of sour, that inevitably follows it.
I wonder if it is the acid that makes it have the sour/acrid taste? I don't eat sour things. I enjoy using this as my response when people offer me something sour:
"No, no thank you. I don't like sour thing. Sour is, by its very definition, unpalatable."
I really don't like sour things, I actually have quite an aversion to them to the point where I avoid them for the most part. As I only have my own taste buds to compare with, and nothing for an honest reference point, I can only state that I *think* I'm more sensitive to "sour" taste than I am expecting "normal" people to be. I wonder if this may have something to do with the reasons I dislike the taste of insects in general?
I have tried quite a few insects that have been prepared in a variety of ways and I've yet to find any that were pleasing to me. I haven't even found any that were neutral to me. They have all, except the chocolate covered ants (the real chocolate covered ants, not the fake one that contain no ants and are sold just to find a reason to get kids to eat their chocolate - the idea really boggles me at that level but that's a whole other conversation), been wholly unpleasant tasting.
I'm pretty open-minded and I have a fairly large group (I think) of things that I enjoy eating. I find many flavors to be enjoyable. I have consumed many things that wouldn't even be remotely considered food in a Western diet. I've had everything from rattlesnake to alligator, from lamb's brain to cow-tongue hotdogs, from horse to tripe (which I didn't enjoy by the way), and more. I've eaten, and enjoyed, a large variety of things because I wanted to have those experiences. In all that, and with number of different insects with a number of different preparation techniques, I haven't found any (save the previously mentioned ants) that were palatable to me.
Oh well... It is unimportant, really, but so isn't the entirety of this conversation and thread I suppose.
If I may digress for a moment longer... When people hear about my experiences with food they often ask what alligator tastes like. I am not sure why but it seems to be the most frequent question I get regarding my strange food experiences. I make it a point to tell them how good it is and how flavorful it is, and it is, and I highly recommend trying it if you're ever given the chance. It isn't easy to describe taste usually but alligator is fairly simple... It tastes like chicken (really, I know - but it really does) but it's more than that. It taste like chicken mixed with fresh brook trout. It is absolutely delightful and should be tried at least once if you're ever given the opportunity to have some. Salt, pepper, a wee bit of lemon, lightly breaded, and deep-fat fried. It's like a combination of trout and chicken while still being a unique taste. I absolutely, highly, recommend it.
Absolutely and you're free to disagree with me. I have tried many things and think that, for the most part, failing to try something is just a loss on your part.
The best thing about your disagreement, however, is that there is no possible way for you to be wrong. Your tastes are yours and yours alone. They are entirely subjective. You can say, for example, "Dog shit tastes like apple pie to me." The best thing about that statement, and probably the only good thing about that statement, is that you're 100% correct (assuming that you're telling the truth).
Being subjective is important and was the primary reason for the use of the word "I" so much in my post. I don't expect, insist, or imagine that my tastes will mimic the tastes of the majority.
You know, this reminds me of something and it's a "something" that I'll often point out to other people as it makes a good conversation and can even be used to open a conversation about the human psyche.
Have you ever noticed that, when you're out dining with friend(s), they will find something that they don't like and the conversation goes something like this:
"Eww! This is disgusting... This is the most horrific thing I have ever had the displeasure of putting into my mouth.... Here, you try it."
And these are your friends! Imagine what they'll do to their enemies.
Anyhow, taste really is one of those things that is subjective. It's good like that, both the sense of taste and the other definitions of the word such as one's taste in music or in interior styling. I like to point out to people that, yeah, they're unique - just like everybody else. What does seem to differentiate us, even if just a little, is our individual tastes. Those things that are subjective are those things which make us human.
If you find the taste of insects to be good then, by all means, eat up. I have tried them numerous times in a variety of ways and been displeased with the results. I've tried them since my initial introduction and I'm quite likely to try them again in the future to see if my tastes have changed or if the preparation resulted in something that I consider more palatable. I suspect that I'm biased because my introduction to them was, as mentioned (though I should have been more clear) during AIT which is Advanced Infantry Training. AIT includes survival training, I'm a long-since inactive Marine in case you're curious as to why I'd have done such silly things, and a part of this was finding nutrition when there was no McDonald's, MRE, mess hall, or mom available. It involved eating grubs, someone scrounged up a snake as I recall, a variety of insects, and somehow, quite strangely, a poached deer. (I'm quite partial to venison though that's not really the topic.)
To this end, I didn't mind the grubs, maggot-looking critters, or the likes. They weren't great but they weren't all that horrific. The insects, on the other hand, weren't very good. In fact, to me, they were quite awful. I wanted to spit them out and vomit but such was not an option. No, such behavior is not an option. I don't think it wasn't an option because there was any specific penalty attached to it. I just don't think it was an option because it was physically impossible to not complete the act in that mindset. One simply wasn't able to do anything less than chew, swallow, and repeat as required. It wasn't because it was needed (there were MREs available and a decent few hour hump would have had us back in civilization) for sustenance. It wasn't even done because the guy next to you was also doing it - he didn't want to do it either. I guess, if I have to try to think about it (and I'm not sure I want to try to figure it out) and really give you a reason then I'd say it was done mostly because the guy next to you MAY not want to do it and because he's depending on you to do it so that you give him courage to do it. It was because, well, he may need it. It was because he'd do that, and more (much more) for you. It isn't easy to explain, really. I guess th
I am something of a "character" I guess. I'll eat anything on the menu. During AIT we also ate insects. I mention that because I want to tell you that I have eaten insects and, frankly, they're not that good. The only "good" one I have found was the chocolate covered ant, because I couldn't taste the ant.
Pronunciation: Brit./ntsi/ ,/natsi/ , U.S./ntsi/ ,/nætsi/ (rare) Brit./nzi/ , U.S./nzi/ Etymology: German Nazi (c1920), shortened Nationalsozialist or Nationalsozialistisch (see National Socialist adj. and n.). Compare French Nazi (1930).
The spelling with z probably arose by analogy with Sozi (shortened Sozialist socialist n. and adj.).
The term was originally used by opponents of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and may have been influenced by Bavarian Nazi , a familiar form of the proper name Ignatius and used to refer to or characterize an awkward or clumsy person. The German form Inter-Nazi (shortened Internationale Internationale n.) which is attested much earlier may also have contributed to the adoption of the term Nazi.
It seems you're correct (according to OED) though were missing some of the details.
I'm not sure which is sadder. That you assume that, by default, is how it would go? Or, well, that's how it would go...
*sighs*
Yeah, I agree in other words. It is disheartening because when I grew up we were the greatest nation on the Earth. We had rights but we also had responsibilities. We had, mostly, freedom from government intrusion unless we'd done something to attract their attention. Of course, we didn't have the internet and the massive amounts of information available to us so we may well have been being surveilled constantly and just not known it. However, there's some validity and certainly some truth to the adage that ignorance is bliss.
He is an interesting character. He supports term limits. I've known of a couple of folks who supported term limits when they were first elected but, strangely, opted to be mostly silent on that topic when they decided to change their mind about said term limits. I am unable to recall the second person who claimed to be pro-term limits and then participated longer than they had initially indicated the limits should be but my own congress critter Susan Collins promised to only participate for two terms (twelve years) only to seek election a third time. What's disturbing is that she still won. "Yeah, so it turns out I have no principles and, worse, I'm a liar but vote for me!" It worked! Seriously! I'm not at all sure how we're going to affect meaningful change with the voters being the way they are.
Really though, I mean, yeah she is ultimately the one who is responsible for her behavior but at some point the onus is on the voters to properly vet the candidates, decide their own personal politics, and then vote accordingly. It is sad that people don't even invest the small amount of time it takes to familiarize yourself with the candidates and then to select one according to your own personal beliefs. Investing the time to see who is more closely aligned with your political beliefs is not exactly a difficult thing in today's information society.
Anyhow, back to Rand Paul...
He supports term limits and, as such, it will be interesting to watch him. I haven't invested even a little energy into finding one so I'm going off my memory which isn't that good to begin with BUT I'm unable to recall anyone specifically who actually has professed a belief in term limits and then limited themselves. I'm sure there are some who have. There must be, right? However, I can't think of anybody who has done so. I sort of recall reading about one who simply swapped houses when they had reached their "limit." A quick Google didn't indicate who that was, if it is a figment of my imagination, or if it even happened. I'm not going to invest more time in it at the moment as it isn't that important for the scope of this conversation. What is meaningful, for this conversation, is what the future holds for one Randal Paul and how well he intends to stick to his beliefs on term limits. We shall see...
I guess, if I were a betting man (and I am), that I'd expect him to either not stick to his professed beliefs in term limits or to find some way to weasel out of it by either running for the House or even not running for a session and then running in the following election. It isn't a personal thing or a statement about his political party, not at all, it is that I don't think humans are easily able to willfully rescind power.
Obama is the one in office and the one supporting this. What has his skin color got to do with it? Seriously, playing the race card isn't helping. If anything it seems to indicate that you're racist in that any derision directed towards a person of color is due to the color of the person not because of their personal behavior. Black people can, and do, control themselves and are able to make choices. They don't do anything specifically because of their race and that includes lie, be hypocritical, and continue to assist with the ruinous slide into oblivion.
Those are choices he made and, I'm not sure if you know this, he made those choices because he wanted to not because of his skin color. He is responsible for his behavior and his skin color is neither an excuse for it nor an excuse to pardon it. That you blindly bring up race is shameful, dishonest, disingenuous, and demonstrates that you clearly lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend complex subjects. You should be ashamed but I doubt you have the capacity for it much as I doubt you have the capacity to learn from your mistakes and change your behavior in the future.
Just because your ego is as small as your penis and your false bravado is as prominent as your body odor doesn't mean we should be subjected to your drivel. You should seriously consider apologizing but I doubt you have the capacity. You should seriously have learned a lesson from this but I doubt this is the first time and I doubt that you have the capacity for that either.
As a mixed race person, with black being one of those races, you don't speak for me. You don't speak for my intentions. You don't speak for my capacity. You are not welcome to speak on my behalf nor do I want your "defense." You're a disgrace to the human race and you disgust me. You have no value and are clearly willing to vocally ensure those around you are aware of this.
In your definition of "troops" do you include those who work in the intelligence field? Specifically, those who work abroad and undercover? Do you include the police detectives who do surveillance? I (fairly obviously, I suppose) am against spying on our own citizens for a variety of reasons but, with a warrant and with a narrow scope, we can balance those things and have clearly decided that some cases of this are acceptable. I can understand and agree with this so long as it is limited in scope, on an individual basis, and is approved of by a judge. Information gathered from this should also be destroyed when the criminal cases are resolved and the data should be sanitized to protect those who may have been recorded (or the likes) but had nothing to do with the case(s).
I think that intelligence, by its nature, needs to be secretive. I also think that intelligence, by its nature, needn't be employed or sought against the citizenry of the country doing the spying - on this scale. I can see, for instance, them tapping a criminal's phone (with a legal warrant) to try to prevent additional criminal activity or to find accomplices. I can see a need for the capacity to secretly monitor a criminal's actions, travels, and the likes with, of course, a warrant. Things like that require secrecy to maximize efficiency and effectiveness and I'm comfortable with those and our constitution quite specifically allows a framework for such. Other than that I don't think we should dragnet our phone records or crap like that. I think each and every case should be vetted and should be limited in scope to those directly involved but, yeah, I think those are justified as much as I wish they weren't. In other words, I'm very much not okay with what is going on but am not so zealous as to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are just reasons to monitor the actions of citizens, this is pretty much agreed on by any sane person involved. This, obviously, is unjust and should be stopped. This should be illegal...
Hell, isn't the NSA prohibited from spying on US soil to begin with or was that the CIA?
I think they call that a false dichotomy. A scholastic course in Critical Thinking was a long time ago but, well, I'm pretty sure that's how it is referred to.
Just because the two parties who are in power act that way doesn't logically conclude with the third parties acting the same way. If anything, should they be elected, they're likely to be monitored more closely and held to higher standards.
One could reasonably consider that eventually they MAY begin to engage in similar behavior if they remain in power long enough, aren't monitored as much as they become the norm, or are influenced by people who join those parties in their quest to wield power.
To assume that they're going to be the same, behave the same, or even be allowed to behave the same is specious.
It feels good to vote for somebody instead of voting against somebody, doesn't it? The difference may seem subtle but it really isn't. I've been voting pretty much third party for well over 30 years now. I admit that it hasn't changed much of anything but it does feel good to be comfortable while looking in the mirror. I can confidently, honestly, and proudly state that I've never once voted for the winning president.
The state of affairs is such that I've even skipped the presidential nominee section of the ballot because the third party candidate was also unable to meet my criteria. I don't think my criteria is all that hard, say what you do and do what you say. Have a history of making good choices that benefit the people around you even if it means self sacrifice. Be open, honest, and communicative. Show compassion but be capable of making tough choices. Have an articulate plan for leading my country and minimizing the risks of harm to the citizens thereof. Demonstrate that you have an understanding of worldly affairs and articulate your plans for dealing with them.
Seriously, that's about it. Depending on those answers I can then decide if that person is best suited, out of the pack though I'm willing to write a candidate in, to represent me and my interests while also ensuring the welfare of the citizenry as a whole is effectively looked after.
Is it seriously so difficult to research the candidates and make reasoned choices based on your actual ideals instead of the political party from which they hail? Is it that difficult to examine your own self, find what form of governing you feel best suits your ideals and your fellow citizens, and then vote accordingly without regard to a political platform? Is it so difficult to see that the two major parties are not, in fact, diametrically opposed on many things and that the things they share most are jack-booted hunger for power, oppression of dissenters, and authoritarianism?
*sighs* I suppose that last sentence may seem a bit much. When I say both parties, I mean both parties. When I say that I judge the left more harshly that's because I do judge them more harshly. I am a member of the left-leaning voting populace. I hold them to a higher standard because, frankly, they should be more intelligent than they often demonstrate they are. The right has plenty of smart people in it but they're cut from the common cloth in much of the country and intellectuals have typically been left leaning. I don't assert that the right is stupid as a way to slander, I assert that the left is not as intelligent as they claim to be nor as intelligent as they should be and that it is unfortunate. Both sides are being played by people who have money, power, and prestige. They have absolutely no intentions of diminishing any of that and will continue their invasive quests of authoritarianism while continually eroding our rights by redefining words and intent in the Supreme Court.
Deny it, if you want, but the evidence is there and quite clear. Control of a nation, perhaps a planet as the US isn't unique in these regards, isn't usurped by a single act nor is it done overnight. It is a slow process implemented for your safety, your health, and because they know best. The Left has been excelling at it for quite some time now and their method is beautiful in that they constantly scream how it is the Right that is doing these things. It is the Left that demands you alter your behaviors, that you adhere to the same beliefs they do, and that works to deliberately silence the opposition. It is sad because I lean left and, frankly, I am tired of the lip service paid to freedom, liberties, and the value of either. Just come out and be honest, "We wish to control you because we want the power to decide." The right should do the same, though I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge at this point.
I think I'll close this with a fun piece of trivia, mental bubble gum if you wish, the first use of the "Free Speech Zones" was by the Democrats.
I've been told that I'm throwing my vote away by voting for a third party and I can see the reasoning behind that sentiment. However, it's the statement that matters to me and my own ethics demand that I vote for the person who is most closely aligned to my own personal beliefs. Very seldom do I find myself in a position where I'm truly voting FOR a person, I'm normally voting AGAINST a person (or persons). I find it disheartening but I've been at this for years and years and I don't see me changing my voting habits any time soon.
What this country needs is more than two parties. We could do (and would do well, I think) with a dozen or so parties. Unfortunately it requires that people be educated and willing to stand for their principles. There is, frankly, too much money in our elections. It's sad, really...
What we have is two parties that are just full of hate. You see it every time there's a mass shooting (for one easy example) when the first words are, "It was surely some gun-loving Tea Party, mouth breathing, simpleton." I actually see the left as the instigating, rhetoric filled, hate spewing, authoritarians more than I see the right. It's sad because, frankly, I'm fairly left leaning (which means that I'm drastically left leaning when compared with the average American).
There can be no debate. There can be no constructive bi-partisanship because it is a team sport. The only time I see bi-partisan legislation is when it's authoritarian in nature and reduces the rights of the citizens. The real reason we have the second amendment is because a government that is scared of the populace is a good government. They should be afraid of us, we shouldn't be afraid of them. (Don't take that to mean that I'm advocating overthrowing or revolution.)
I find it disturbing how many times people, on either side, "know" how the other side thinks. They don't, they won't even make the effort to understand. The reality is that they're just listening to their preferred media and feeding off their echo chamber. I don't have a quick and easy solution for this (and the many problems that come with it). It isn't simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker so it won't catch on anyhow. I believe, though, the solution is found somewhere in education. It is unrealistic to expect an uneducated populace to vote for an effective government.
An interesting aside is the people who insist that the person who mentions a problem also offer a solution. That makes little sense to me. The validity of the problem isn't predicated on one's ability to also dictate a solution. There was a lot of that during the OWS movement. "All we have is people pointing out problems with out giving us a solution." Umm... Yeah? So come up with a solution on your own. Not spoon feeding you solutions doesn't mean the problems don't exist. (Note that I have no affiliation with, love for, or even more than a vague agreement with the OWS folks. I'm simply using them as an example.)
So, alas, I don't have a solution other than to educate the populace. It would be interesting to see people get better and more accurate representation. I think an increase in the number of political parties may help. I think that the media is partially to blame for the state of affairs. I think that the two major parties need to be stripped of power as they've long since ceased to represent those who elected them and I say that as a whole, not just the individuals but the entirety of them. I'm not a fan of increasing or creating legislation as all laws are, by their nature, a reduction in rights to someone but I think carefully crafted legislation to reform the election process and adjust the powers afforded the elected persons is something that can be examined.
In short, I don't really know and I'm grateful to be in a position where I am able to cope pretty much regardless. I am not in my position because of hard work, ethics, or dedication. I certainly worked hard, maintained very high ethical standards, and remained dedicated to completing the various ta
I haven't voted for a member of either of the two major parties for president in 30+ years. I have never voted for a winning president. I have voted for a congress critter or two because the race was tight enough that I simply couldn't throw my vote away and felt obligated to ensure their victory if I could. It hasn't helped. I can say that I've tried and I sleep better because of it. But, no, it hasn't helped. I actually even go so far as to avoid the two major parties in smaller elections to the point where I'll abstain if neither meets my needs and there is no third party option.
I think the problem is that the voting public isn't very educated. They aren't very principled either. Well, I could go on but no, just no.
I wouldn't be all that astounded by that revelation but it would be news to me. I've had some nice Logitech mice and keyboards in the past too. I was disappointed with Logitech but not with the company itself at one point. I was disappointed with the vendor who had the price listed as $20 for a five button mouse (back in 2000 or so) and it was about $80 when I got to the counter. I was too lazy to argue, find a different one, or even care enough to do more than mention that it was posted under the price of $20 out back in the electronics section. They didn't offer to fulfill it at the price listed and, again, I didn't care enough to argue (I believe I was exhausted from work at the time) and I've never shopped in that store since. They had the chance to make it right, without my needing to get loud or assert my rights (in Maine it has to be sold at the price it is listed under and I'm 100% positive that it was listed at $20) so they've lost THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars in my business. I mentioned it to the manager as I was leaving and simply walked away. I didn't even give them the chance to make it right, their employee should have at the register.
Anyhow, so I shied away from them but that's not their fault. If it turns out, as you say, I've been using their stuff all along then I'm not surprised, bothered, or whatnot. It's all good and I feel kind of bad about being prejudiced against them for it as it certainly isn't their fault. I've just simply skipped over them since when making buying choices. Very seldom do I buy anything from them and, well, that's why. They do make fine stuff though. I did get some of their speakers once and those actually were pretty good. Surprisingly so...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you feel elevated now by living the high life of fame vicariously through him? ;) (Only poking at you.)
I, too, got a little excited when my small (like 350 people in the winter) town was main-page news on Fark and the story was three houses up from mine. I am not sure what causes it, I'm sure it wouldn't be the same if I lived in a giant impersonal city, but I'm sure there's some sort of name for it and reasoning behind it.
To be fair, how would they know until recently that the program was illegal? When the Three Letter Agencies show up with legal documentation that says to do something and to not reveal it to anyone, I don't care who you are, you do it. You may wish to pretend you wouldn't but, frankly, we know better. Everyone complies.
I could see people actually installing that app.
I could see people fighting to install that app if there were something like a $5 Dunkin Donuts gift certificate for every month (five hours per day) of use.
I could see people killing to get into the beta program if it meant you got a shot at appearing on random_popular_reality_show if you found x_amount of wanted people over a year long process.
I just want you to know that I am NOT kidding nor am I amused by this. I just see it as a plausible result if said application were made available. Given the results of the various polls that concern privacy, I'd not be in the least bit surprised. Those of us who see the problem want so very much to blame the government, and rightly so - they should know better, but so much of the blame rightly belongs with you and me (the populace).
What makes you assume that it isn't embedded in one of the other parts? Just because it says one thing on the box doesn't mean that that is all that it does. ;)
Taste is, of course, subjective (as I have mentioned). As such, and not for lack of trying or even willingness to try them again, they're just not for me. I've eaten them in a variety of ways and I haven't been pleased with the flavor or the mouth-feel yet. I am open to trying them again, and I'm quite certain that I will, but I doubt the result will be different. The reason I will try them again is because I'll try them prepared in a different way or from a different source so that, when I do, I will do so while hoping that the results will be different.
By no means would I suggest not trying them for yourself to see if you like them. I'd scoff at such silliness. Absolutely, try them, see if you like them. More importantly, try them before saying you don't like them. If you're not going to try them then don't say that you don't like them, say that you won't try it because you're afraid. It is okay to be afraid, fear is a healthy thing to have. It is even acceptable for folks to admit they are afraid. However, refusing to try them while insisting that they're gross or "icky" is just a cop out for being too ashamed to admit that they're scared.
So, by all means, try them. Try anything on the menu for that matter. If you don't like something then you don't like it but you don't know how you feel about it until you've actually tried it. You'll note that I didn't say that they were bad, I stated that they weren't that good. Very few foods are, in my opinion, bad. There is no food that I won't eat if I'm hungry enough but there are some that I'll avoid until that point. Insects are closer to the point of the starvation food than they are to the regular food-stuffs on that scale for me. But, to be clear, I'll be eating insects again long before I'm starving simply because I want to see if I find an insect and preparation method that is palatable for me and because the challenge of finding that combination is enjoyable.
I haven't eaten a butterfly but I can confirm that spider isn't on my list of preferred foods either. I don't have an aversion to grubs, weevils, or worms - while they're not something I'm planning on ingesting regularly they're also not on my list of foods that I hold in contempt. The tiger swallowtail butterfly that you mentioned sounds interesting, I would like to try that.
You mention formic acid... In my effort to respond to the people who replied to me I went from bottom to top so I have a reply below this and I'll quote myself here:
To me they're just a crunch like a wayward egg-shell in a greasy diner with an acrid goo, sometimes with varied degrees of sour, that inevitably follows it.
I wonder if it is the acid that makes it have the sour/acrid taste? I don't eat sour things. I enjoy using this as my response when people offer me something sour:
"No, no thank you. I don't like sour thing. Sour is, by its very definition, unpalatable."
I really don't like sour things, I actually have quite an aversion to them to the point where I avoid them for the most part. As I only have my own taste buds to compare with, and nothing for an honest reference point, I can only state that I *think* I'm more sensitive to "sour" taste than I am expecting "normal" people to be. I wonder if this may have something to do with the reasons I dislike the taste of insects in general?
I have tried quite a few insects that have been prepared in a variety of ways and I've yet to find any that were pleasing to me. I haven't even found any that were neutral to me. They have all, except the chocolate covered ants (the real chocolate covered ants, not the fake one that contain no ants and are sold just to find a reason to get kids to eat their chocolate - the idea really boggles me at that level but that's a whole other conversation), been wholly unpleasant tasting.
I'm pretty open-minded and I have a fairly large group (I think) of things that I enjoy eating. I find many flavors to be enjoyable. I have consumed many things that wouldn't even be remotely considered food in a Western diet. I've had everything from rattlesnake to alligator, from lamb's brain to cow-tongue hotdogs, from horse to tripe (which I didn't enjoy by the way), and more. I've eaten, and enjoyed, a large variety of things because I wanted to have those experiences. In all that, and with number of different insects with a number of different preparation techniques, I haven't found any (save the previously mentioned ants) that were palatable to me.
Oh well... It is unimportant, really, but so isn't the entirety of this conversation and thread I suppose.
If I may digress for a moment longer... When people hear about my experiences with food they often ask what alligator tastes like. I am not sure why but it seems to be the most frequent question I get regarding my strange food experiences. I make it a point to tell them how good it is and how flavorful it is, and it is, and I highly recommend trying it if you're ever given the chance. It isn't easy to describe taste usually but alligator is fairly simple... It tastes like chicken (really, I know - but it really does) but it's more than that. It taste like chicken mixed with fresh brook trout. It is absolutely delightful and should be tried at least once if you're ever given the opportunity to have some. Salt, pepper, a wee bit of lemon, lightly breaded, and deep-fat fried. It's like a combination of trout and chicken while still being a unique taste. I absolutely, highly, recommend it.
Absolutely and you're free to disagree with me. I have tried many things and think that, for the most part, failing to try something is just a loss on your part.
The best thing about your disagreement, however, is that there is no possible way for you to be wrong. Your tastes are yours and yours alone. They are entirely subjective. You can say, for example, "Dog shit tastes like apple pie to me." The best thing about that statement, and probably the only good thing about that statement, is that you're 100% correct (assuming that you're telling the truth).
Being subjective is important and was the primary reason for the use of the word "I" so much in my post. I don't expect, insist, or imagine that my tastes will mimic the tastes of the majority.
You know, this reminds me of something and it's a "something" that I'll often point out to other people as it makes a good conversation and can even be used to open a conversation about the human psyche.
Have you ever noticed that, when you're out dining with friend(s), they will find something that they don't like and the conversation goes something like this:
"Eww! This is disgusting... This is the most horrific thing I have ever had the displeasure of putting into my mouth.... Here, you try it."
And these are your friends! Imagine what they'll do to their enemies.
Anyhow, taste really is one of those things that is subjective. It's good like that, both the sense of taste and the other definitions of the word such as one's taste in music or in interior styling. I like to point out to people that, yeah, they're unique - just like everybody else. What does seem to differentiate us, even if just a little, is our individual tastes. Those things that are subjective are those things which make us human.
If you find the taste of insects to be good then, by all means, eat up. I have tried them numerous times in a variety of ways and been displeased with the results. I've tried them since my initial introduction and I'm quite likely to try them again in the future to see if my tastes have changed or if the preparation resulted in something that I consider more palatable. I suspect that I'm biased because my introduction to them was, as mentioned (though I should have been more clear) during AIT which is Advanced Infantry Training. AIT includes survival training, I'm a long-since inactive Marine in case you're curious as to why I'd have done such silly things, and a part of this was finding nutrition when there was no McDonald's, MRE, mess hall, or mom available. It involved eating grubs, someone scrounged up a snake as I recall, a variety of insects, and somehow, quite strangely, a poached deer. (I'm quite partial to venison though that's not really the topic.)
To this end, I didn't mind the grubs, maggot-looking critters, or the likes. They weren't great but they weren't all that horrific. The insects, on the other hand, weren't very good. In fact, to me, they were quite awful. I wanted to spit them out and vomit but such was not an option. No, such behavior is not an option. I don't think it wasn't an option because there was any specific penalty attached to it. I just don't think it was an option because it was physically impossible to not complete the act in that mindset. One simply wasn't able to do anything less than chew, swallow, and repeat as required. It wasn't because it was needed (there were MREs available and a decent few hour hump would have had us back in civilization) for sustenance. It wasn't even done because the guy next to you was also doing it - he didn't want to do it either. I guess, if I have to try to think about it (and I'm not sure I want to try to figure it out) and really give you a reason then I'd say it was done mostly because the guy next to you MAY not want to do it and because he's depending on you to do it so that you give him courage to do it. It was because, well, he may need it. It was because he'd do that, and more (much more) for you. It isn't easy to explain, really. I guess th
See, you don't get it. We live far enough away so that if the guy turns his backyard into a giant chicken coop we don't even notice.
I am something of a "character" I guess. I'll eat anything on the menu. During AIT we also ate insects. I mention that because I want to tell you that I have eaten insects and, frankly, they're not that good. The only "good" one I have found was the chocolate covered ant, because I couldn't taste the ant.
I dunno...
If Little Billy punched you in the mouth you were clear to punch him back.
If you didn't punch him back Little Timmy was clear to punch you in the mouth because he knew you wouldn't do anything.
So, yeah, the "he did it first rule" has kind of always been there. What you should have done is punch them back the first time.
That should have said "partially correct" by the way. Sorry 'bout that.
From OED:
Nazi, n. and adj.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ntsi/ , /natsi/ , U.S. /ntsi/ , /nætsi/ (rare) Brit. /nzi/ , U.S. /nzi/
Etymology: German Nazi (c1920), shortened Nationalsozialist or Nationalsozialistisch (see National Socialist adj. and n.). Compare French Nazi (1930).
The spelling with z probably arose by analogy with Sozi (shortened Sozialist socialist n. and adj.).
The term was originally used by opponents of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and may have been influenced by Bavarian Nazi , a familiar form of the proper name Ignatius and used to refer to or characterize an awkward or clumsy person. The German form Inter-Nazi (shortened Internationale Internationale n.) which is attested much earlier may also have contributed to the adoption of the term Nazi.
It seems you're correct (according to OED) though were missing some of the details.
I think you're missing a post in there. The person he was responding to didn't actually say that, they quoted the parent post as having said that.
Said the person who's never had any security clearance ever, obviously. Maybe you should stick to commenting stuff that you know about?
I'm not sure which is sadder. That you assume that, by default, is how it would go? Or, well, that's how it would go...
*sighs*
Yeah, I agree in other words. It is disheartening because when I grew up we were the greatest nation on the Earth. We had rights but we also had responsibilities. We had, mostly, freedom from government intrusion unless we'd done something to attract their attention. Of course, we didn't have the internet and the massive amounts of information available to us so we may well have been being surveilled constantly and just not known it. However, there's some validity and certainly some truth to the adage that ignorance is bliss.
He is an interesting character. He supports term limits. I've known of a couple of folks who supported term limits when they were first elected but, strangely, opted to be mostly silent on that topic when they decided to change their mind about said term limits. I am unable to recall the second person who claimed to be pro-term limits and then participated longer than they had initially indicated the limits should be but my own congress critter Susan Collins promised to only participate for two terms (twelve years) only to seek election a third time. What's disturbing is that she still won. "Yeah, so it turns out I have no principles and, worse, I'm a liar but vote for me!" It worked! Seriously! I'm not at all sure how we're going to affect meaningful change with the voters being the way they are.
If you're curious you can read about it here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Susan_Collins#Term_limits
Really though, I mean, yeah she is ultimately the one who is responsible for her behavior but at some point the onus is on the voters to properly vet the candidates, decide their own personal politics, and then vote accordingly. It is sad that people don't even invest the small amount of time it takes to familiarize yourself with the candidates and then to select one according to your own personal beliefs. Investing the time to see who is more closely aligned with your political beliefs is not exactly a difficult thing in today's information society.
Anyhow, back to Rand Paul...
He supports term limits and, as such, it will be interesting to watch him. I haven't invested even a little energy into finding one so I'm going off my memory which isn't that good to begin with BUT I'm unable to recall anyone specifically who actually has professed a belief in term limits and then limited themselves. I'm sure there are some who have. There must be, right? However, I can't think of anybody who has done so. I sort of recall reading about one who simply swapped houses when they had reached their "limit." A quick Google didn't indicate who that was, if it is a figment of my imagination, or if it even happened. I'm not going to invest more time in it at the moment as it isn't that important for the scope of this conversation. What is meaningful, for this conversation, is what the future holds for one Randal Paul and how well he intends to stick to his beliefs on term limits. We shall see...
I guess, if I were a betting man (and I am), that I'd expect him to either not stick to his professed beliefs in term limits or to find some way to weasel out of it by either running for the House or even not running for a session and then running in the following election. It isn't a personal thing or a statement about his political party, not at all, it is that I don't think humans are easily able to willfully rescind power.
Obama is the one in office and the one supporting this. What has his skin color got to do with it? Seriously, playing the race card isn't helping. If anything it seems to indicate that you're racist in that any derision directed towards a person of color is due to the color of the person not because of their personal behavior. Black people can, and do, control themselves and are able to make choices. They don't do anything specifically because of their race and that includes lie, be hypocritical, and continue to assist with the ruinous slide into oblivion.
Those are choices he made and, I'm not sure if you know this, he made those choices because he wanted to not because of his skin color. He is responsible for his behavior and his skin color is neither an excuse for it nor an excuse to pardon it. That you blindly bring up race is shameful, dishonest, disingenuous, and demonstrates that you clearly lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend complex subjects. You should be ashamed but I doubt you have the capacity for it much as I doubt you have the capacity to learn from your mistakes and change your behavior in the future.
Just because your ego is as small as your penis and your false bravado is as prominent as your body odor doesn't mean we should be subjected to your drivel. You should seriously consider apologizing but I doubt you have the capacity. You should seriously have learned a lesson from this but I doubt this is the first time and I doubt that you have the capacity for that either.
As a mixed race person, with black being one of those races, you don't speak for me. You don't speak for my intentions. You don't speak for my capacity. You are not welcome to speak on my behalf nor do I want your "defense." You're a disgrace to the human race and you disgust me. You have no value and are clearly willing to vocally ensure those around you are aware of this.
You are dismissed.
In your definition of "troops" do you include those who work in the intelligence field? Specifically, those who work abroad and undercover? Do you include the police detectives who do surveillance? I (fairly obviously, I suppose) am against spying on our own citizens for a variety of reasons but, with a warrant and with a narrow scope, we can balance those things and have clearly decided that some cases of this are acceptable. I can understand and agree with this so long as it is limited in scope, on an individual basis, and is approved of by a judge. Information gathered from this should also be destroyed when the criminal cases are resolved and the data should be sanitized to protect those who may have been recorded (or the likes) but had nothing to do with the case(s).
I think that intelligence, by its nature, needs to be secretive. I also think that intelligence, by its nature, needn't be employed or sought against the citizenry of the country doing the spying - on this scale. I can see, for instance, them tapping a criminal's phone (with a legal warrant) to try to prevent additional criminal activity or to find accomplices. I can see a need for the capacity to secretly monitor a criminal's actions, travels, and the likes with, of course, a warrant. Things like that require secrecy to maximize efficiency and effectiveness and I'm comfortable with those and our constitution quite specifically allows a framework for such. Other than that I don't think we should dragnet our phone records or crap like that. I think each and every case should be vetted and should be limited in scope to those directly involved but, yeah, I think those are justified as much as I wish they weren't. In other words, I'm very much not okay with what is going on but am not so zealous as to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are just reasons to monitor the actions of citizens, this is pretty much agreed on by any sane person involved. This, obviously, is unjust and should be stopped. This should be illegal...
Hell, isn't the NSA prohibited from spying on US soil to begin with or was that the CIA?
I think they call that a false dichotomy. A scholastic course in Critical Thinking was a long time ago but, well, I'm pretty sure that's how it is referred to.
Just because the two parties who are in power act that way doesn't logically conclude with the third parties acting the same way. If anything, should they be elected, they're likely to be monitored more closely and held to higher standards.
One could reasonably consider that eventually they MAY begin to engage in similar behavior if they remain in power long enough, aren't monitored as much as they become the norm, or are influenced by people who join those parties in their quest to wield power.
To assume that they're going to be the same, behave the same, or even be allowed to behave the same is specious.
It feels good to vote for somebody instead of voting against somebody, doesn't it? The difference may seem subtle but it really isn't. I've been voting pretty much third party for well over 30 years now. I admit that it hasn't changed much of anything but it does feel good to be comfortable while looking in the mirror. I can confidently, honestly, and proudly state that I've never once voted for the winning president.
The state of affairs is such that I've even skipped the presidential nominee section of the ballot because the third party candidate was also unable to meet my criteria. I don't think my criteria is all that hard, say what you do and do what you say. Have a history of making good choices that benefit the people around you even if it means self sacrifice. Be open, honest, and communicative. Show compassion but be capable of making tough choices. Have an articulate plan for leading my country and minimizing the risks of harm to the citizens thereof. Demonstrate that you have an understanding of worldly affairs and articulate your plans for dealing with them.
Seriously, that's about it. Depending on those answers I can then decide if that person is best suited, out of the pack though I'm willing to write a candidate in, to represent me and my interests while also ensuring the welfare of the citizenry as a whole is effectively looked after.
Is it seriously so difficult to research the candidates and make reasoned choices based on your actual ideals instead of the political party from which they hail? Is it that difficult to examine your own self, find what form of governing you feel best suits your ideals and your fellow citizens, and then vote accordingly without regard to a political platform? Is it so difficult to see that the two major parties are not, in fact, diametrically opposed on many things and that the things they share most are jack-booted hunger for power, oppression of dissenters, and authoritarianism?
*sighs* I suppose that last sentence may seem a bit much. When I say both parties, I mean both parties. When I say that I judge the left more harshly that's because I do judge them more harshly. I am a member of the left-leaning voting populace. I hold them to a higher standard because, frankly, they should be more intelligent than they often demonstrate they are. The right has plenty of smart people in it but they're cut from the common cloth in much of the country and intellectuals have typically been left leaning. I don't assert that the right is stupid as a way to slander, I assert that the left is not as intelligent as they claim to be nor as intelligent as they should be and that it is unfortunate. Both sides are being played by people who have money, power, and prestige. They have absolutely no intentions of diminishing any of that and will continue their invasive quests of authoritarianism while continually eroding our rights by redefining words and intent in the Supreme Court.
Deny it, if you want, but the evidence is there and quite clear. Control of a nation, perhaps a planet as the US isn't unique in these regards, isn't usurped by a single act nor is it done overnight. It is a slow process implemented for your safety, your health, and because they know best. The Left has been excelling at it for quite some time now and their method is beautiful in that they constantly scream how it is the Right that is doing these things. It is the Left that demands you alter your behaviors, that you adhere to the same beliefs they do, and that works to deliberately silence the opposition. It is sad because I lean left and, frankly, I am tired of the lip service paid to freedom, liberties, and the value of either. Just come out and be honest, "We wish to control you because we want the power to decide." The right should do the same, though I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge at this point.
I think I'll close this with a fun piece of trivia, mental bubble gum if you wish, the first use of the "Free Speech Zones" was by the Democrats.
Oh! It is like Name that Tune?
I bet you I can do it in 16 lines of Perl!
LOL To be fair, my response to this question is pretty simple:
I like Windows, I prefer it, I've tried alternatives, and I'm happy with it. I use it because it suits my needs.
Sometimes I even use Mandriva and any web-facing servers that I touch I prefer to run CentOS.
I've been told that I'm throwing my vote away by voting for a third party and I can see the reasoning behind that sentiment. However, it's the statement that matters to me and my own ethics demand that I vote for the person who is most closely aligned to my own personal beliefs. Very seldom do I find myself in a position where I'm truly voting FOR a person, I'm normally voting AGAINST a person (or persons). I find it disheartening but I've been at this for years and years and I don't see me changing my voting habits any time soon.
What this country needs is more than two parties. We could do (and would do well, I think) with a dozen or so parties. Unfortunately it requires that people be educated and willing to stand for their principles. There is, frankly, too much money in our elections. It's sad, really...
What we have is two parties that are just full of hate. You see it every time there's a mass shooting (for one easy example) when the first words are, "It was surely some gun-loving Tea Party, mouth breathing, simpleton." I actually see the left as the instigating, rhetoric filled, hate spewing, authoritarians more than I see the right. It's sad because, frankly, I'm fairly left leaning (which means that I'm drastically left leaning when compared with the average American).
There can be no debate. There can be no constructive bi-partisanship because it is a team sport. The only time I see bi-partisan legislation is when it's authoritarian in nature and reduces the rights of the citizens. The real reason we have the second amendment is because a government that is scared of the populace is a good government. They should be afraid of us, we shouldn't be afraid of them. (Don't take that to mean that I'm advocating overthrowing or revolution.)
I find it disturbing how many times people, on either side, "know" how the other side thinks. They don't, they won't even make the effort to understand. The reality is that they're just listening to their preferred media and feeding off their echo chamber. I don't have a quick and easy solution for this (and the many problems that come with it). It isn't simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker so it won't catch on anyhow. I believe, though, the solution is found somewhere in education. It is unrealistic to expect an uneducated populace to vote for an effective government.
An interesting aside is the people who insist that the person who mentions a problem also offer a solution. That makes little sense to me. The validity of the problem isn't predicated on one's ability to also dictate a solution. There was a lot of that during the OWS movement. "All we have is people pointing out problems with out giving us a solution." Umm... Yeah? So come up with a solution on your own. Not spoon feeding you solutions doesn't mean the problems don't exist. (Note that I have no affiliation with, love for, or even more than a vague agreement with the OWS folks. I'm simply using them as an example.)
So, alas, I don't have a solution other than to educate the populace. It would be interesting to see people get better and more accurate representation. I think an increase in the number of political parties may help. I think that the media is partially to blame for the state of affairs. I think that the two major parties need to be stripped of power as they've long since ceased to represent those who elected them and I say that as a whole, not just the individuals but the entirety of them. I'm not a fan of increasing or creating legislation as all laws are, by their nature, a reduction in rights to someone but I think carefully crafted legislation to reform the election process and adjust the powers afforded the elected persons is something that can be examined.
In short, I don't really know and I'm grateful to be in a position where I am able to cope pretty much regardless. I am not in my position because of hard work, ethics, or dedication. I certainly worked hard, maintained very high ethical standards, and remained dedicated to completing the various ta
I haven't voted for a member of either of the two major parties for president in 30+ years. I have never voted for a winning president. I have voted for a congress critter or two because the race was tight enough that I simply couldn't throw my vote away and felt obligated to ensure their victory if I could. It hasn't helped. I can say that I've tried and I sleep better because of it. But, no, it hasn't helped. I actually even go so far as to avoid the two major parties in smaller elections to the point where I'll abstain if neither meets my needs and there is no third party option.
I think the problem is that the voting public isn't very educated. They aren't very principled either. Well, I could go on but no, just no.
Hmm... Are you sure?
I wouldn't be all that astounded by that revelation but it would be news to me. I've had some nice Logitech mice and keyboards in the past too. I was disappointed with Logitech but not with the company itself at one point. I was disappointed with the vendor who had the price listed as $20 for a five button mouse (back in 2000 or so) and it was about $80 when I got to the counter. I was too lazy to argue, find a different one, or even care enough to do more than mention that it was posted under the price of $20 out back in the electronics section. They didn't offer to fulfill it at the price listed and, again, I didn't care enough to argue (I believe I was exhausted from work at the time) and I've never shopped in that store since. They had the chance to make it right, without my needing to get loud or assert my rights (in Maine it has to be sold at the price it is listed under and I'm 100% positive that it was listed at $20) so they've lost THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars in my business. I mentioned it to the manager as I was leaving and simply walked away. I didn't even give them the chance to make it right, their employee should have at the register.
Anyhow, so I shied away from them but that's not their fault. If it turns out, as you say, I've been using their stuff all along then I'm not surprised, bothered, or whatnot. It's all good and I feel kind of bad about being prejudiced against them for it as it certainly isn't their fault. I've just simply skipped over them since when making buying choices. Very seldom do I buy anything from them and, well, that's why. They do make fine stuff though. I did get some of their speakers once and those actually were pretty good. Surprisingly so...