It's OK, because when our first president Jesus returns to throw out all of the activist judges and greedy liberals and establishes his constitutionally promised Kingdom of Democracy we can finally live in peace and cooperation and help those in need. That's why you should vote for John McCain, the first and only candidate to ever have faith in God, and if you don't then Jesus will hate you forever and you'll go to hell with the abortionists and queers. And remember, God wants you to be wealthy, because only rich people can get into heaven; it says so in the Bible.
The sad part is that I'm sure there are people out there who don't think any of that is completely ridiculous, let alone that it's all outright lies.
Yes, I too hate to hear about dating success srories. I don't mind a good story, but if I read one more srory with a happy ending, I swear to the Gods that I will end all life on Earth.
No, read it again: he accused others of putting broken window economic policies into practice. There's a vast difference between pointing it out and proposing it.
Right answer, wrong explanation. if they made it obvious and easily accesible to figure out where all of the money went, it would make it that much harder for any of it to stick to their hands. You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years? You think that such people could actually manage to win?
"To build on that point, in case not everyone understands the implications of this post, those that promote equal market access tend to be either a) the one with an idealist in charge or b) the one that believes that they really are the best on the market."
I'd also add c) people that currently don't own a big share of the market and don't expect they ever really will. Of course, those people also tend to fit into at least one of the other two, otherwise they probably wouldn't bother.
You understand that no ruling was made on the point I posted, right?
My concern wasn't that the ruling made was poor, my issue is that a potentially much more serious issue was not resolved. This may not have been the best case for it to be resolved, but that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern.
You mean I shouldn't just crush up random things and snort them? What will I do?
Holy shit dude, that just rocked my world. I don't know how I'll be able to go on knowing that the world isn't made of pixie dust, happy thoughts and unicorn spit... or that if it is, all of those things cause cancer. Guess I'll just have to keep not inhaling, eating, injecting, humping, smoking or otherwise being stupid with everything I come across without regard to the possibility of consequence.
Multiple account abuse (to which he has, allegedly, admitted), schizophrenic accusations of conspiracies and personal targeting, and anti-Microsoft rants that are so rabid and over the top that they are actually a disservice to the very causes he claims to support.
Not that I support counter-trolling him and bitching about his every post, but he is a/very/ prolific troll and a not insignificant number of our colleagues are apparently unwilling or unable to look past that even with his relatively innocuous posts (which I think this one was, although it was a bit borderline).
I think you'll find that there are far less people who hate him than there are people who just don't care, but the former tend to speak up while the latter do not, and twitter actually posts at -1 on nearly all of his accounts, so it can appear that there are people constantly down-modding him to a casual observer.
Sure they would, unless for some reason thousands of people were to access the modified page through yours... then it might get sticky. Keep in mind that, much like the rest of the generation from which we derive them, for every judge that does have a decent grasp of current tech, there are a lot of them who are completely clueless.
I could definitely see some problems arising if, for example, a popular webcomic were to mention a website only for that website to turn into a giant "Obama iz a terrist hil blo up mareenz!!!!!!11111" troll or some such drivel.
No, but they must prove that you actually published the paper. The ruling is more like saying that if a newspaper mentions a book which contains libel, the newspaper is not liable for it because they never published it anyway, unless they also distributed copies of the book with the paper.
IMO, a bigger concern is actually that there is no control of precisely what lies on the other side of a hyperlink... if I put one on my site, and 6 months from now, long after I've likely forgotten about it, the owner of the linked ite decides to put up libel, where does that leave me? Fortunately, I think this ruling would pretty well stifle any attempt to hold somebody liable for that, but the fact that this was ever in question is somewhat disturbing.
"Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work."
No, McCain stated that Obama wanted to take his money and "spread the wealth". Incidentally it turns out that Obama doesn't favor socialized redistibution of wealth, as anyone who isn't a complete tool can easily see. And on the off-chance that Joe might, some day, make more than 250k a year (after deductible business expenses, such as payroll, mind you), I just don't have that much sympathy for him having to be in a slightly higher tax bracket... as it turns out, 70% of 250k is still a hell of a lot more than 90% of 50k. Progressive tax operates on the premise that those with the highest income have almost certainly benefited the most from the system, a premise which is vehemently denied by some but is extremely self-evident to anyone who hasn't managed to become a multi-millionaire in spite of all the work they've done, and that as such they should be obligated to make a greater contribution to the system than those who have not profited from it.
But hey, you just keep pretending that taxing the wealthiest members of society a little higher in order to fund schools, police and fire departments, hospitals, infrastructure improvements and ever controversial small dollar payments to the unemployed and impoverished is Evil (tm) and I'll just keep mocking you for thinking that decreasing taxes on those same people then putting us trillions in the whole so your arms dealer and military contractor buddies can get rich killing people and breaking things in some sandbox sitting on top of liquified refuse without so much as putting that money back into the US economy is somehow a better idea. What a terrible world it would be if we wasted billions inefficiently helping people rather than trillions inefficiently killing people.
Before my third hand Pentium III laptop's screen died I was running standard (Gnome) Ubuntu on it just fine. The was around Feisty, mind you, but so long as I turned off the beryl-compiz effects and kept an eye on what extraneous packages I installed it ran like a champ on 512 MB of memory and an 8 GB hdd. Battery life was also decent until the battery wore out, but once I replaced it I could use it for a couple of hours with sound and networking on battery.
I'd imagine that Ubuntu with Gnome would work fine on, say, an Asus eee, considering that they have about the same hardware specs but benefit from general tech improvements (like better batteries) and haven't been subjected to 5+ years of (ab)use.
Sorry for the lameness/obviousness of that answer, but it's really obvious because it's true.
That really depends on how they do things. One of the big tricks is to give the loan, then sell the debt; because the amount owed, after interest, is so much greater than the initial value, they can actually make a pretty decent margin without ever collecting a dime from the people they loan to... and if they can't sell it immediately then they can pick up some free money in the meantime.
The only snag comes when too many people are doing that and the people who invest in debt decide to stop buying... then all the little guys get stuck with debts which can't be paid, and when those fall through it starts running chain reactions that make other weak loans falter and weakens the loans that are strong. Usually a few percent can default without any real effect, but too many at once can cause a snowball that will crush the entire system.
Of course, they could just fix the security holes without imposing draconian controls on what's installed or how... but I guess that would run afoul of their stated interests.
"There are a large number of Mexican criminals (Mexican mafia, drug gang members, murderers, rapists, etc) who have slipped into the US to avoid prosecution in Mexico."
So work with Mexican authorities to investigate, locate, and apprehend these suspected criminals. If you need more resources to do this, then i suggest taking it from all of the illegal ops you're running that eat up budget.
"Border checkpoints work both ways. We're responsible for our criminals slipping into Mexico trying to avoid prosecution too."
And random internal checkpoints have precisely what to do with that objective? Besides, the Mexican authorities are actually responsible for that, and if they choose not to do their jobs it shouldn't fall on us to do it for them.
"The US has a large problem with drug importers on every border."
Yeah, fuck Pfizer. Seriously though, if the drugs weren't illegal, there wouldn't be a problem. If only millions of people supported decriminalizing nearly all currently illegal drugs and we could simply wave our hand to make that problem vanish...
"What do YOU propose law enforcement officials do if they conduct a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation, and there is reasonable cause during the stop to suspect that other laws are being broken? Remember, under the law as decided by the Supreme Court, all that is required is reasonable suspicion."
I propose that there is no such thing as a "perfectly legal stop to verify documentation". Unless they have some specific and legally permitted reason to believe that documentation is not in order (in other words, 'reasonable suspicion"), they have no right to stop random travelers and demand it. The fact that a car is moving down a given stretch of road does not constitute reasonable suspicion, plain and simple. Funny thing, the Constitution makes absolutely no differentiation between citizens and non-citizens with regard to what rules the government must play by.
"Slashdot story should be reworded to read: "American Criminal Liberties Union Upset Over Nothing Again.""
Well, except that they aren't, and that they don't get 'upset over nothing" except in the eyes of people who can only charitably be described as fascists. Yep, I just Godwinned.
And my point is that gasoline based internal combustion has no particular reason to be used other than that it was the best option available at the time. if we simply use a better option, then we can do all sorts of crazy/unimaginable things. It's only cheating if you mistake the way things are for the way things have to be.
If you had not killed the boar, it would have killed you. Morality exists only in choice, and given the choice between living and dying, we are forced by our animal natures to choose survival. In other words, you had no more choice in the matter than a wolf pack has when it downs an elk... that is to say, none. Given no context of choice, your actions were neither moral nor immoral because you had no choice in the matter.
"Stepping outside those bounds doesn't make you a maverick it makes you an idiot who can't read."
But at least I can punctuate. Seriously though, aside from being a horrid cliche, "thinking outside the box" is the only way progress is ever really made. He made up an arbitrary constraint and I called it as such... that doesn't mean I can't read, it means I don't give two shits for his arbitrary limitation.
Of course, one can always ignore your calculations by doing things differently than how you expect.
For example, what is the thermodynamic limit of fuel cells? What are the thermodynamic limits of every other alternative fuel or alternative engine type? What if we use more highly refined fuel that carries more energy per unit? What if you do not travel at 60 mph in order to lower wind resistance? Speaking of wind resistance, what if you were to travel through specially designed low air pressure conduits to make air resistance nearly 0? We can change all sorts of things about the situation to make your math, while good, completely irrelevant to the scenario.
While I see the ranting sibling comment, I had some (hopefully sane) issues with this.
"The fact is that Apple has a long history of making original, compelling products that capture the imagination"
Really? Apple started with homebrewed computers that were effectively a downsized version of what their competitors were already selling and targeted at people who were willing to take some serious performance cuts in order to get a lower priced computer.. it wasn't original by any means, it was just a good idea. Then they built their brand on the premise of high-end home and media offerings with an artsy edge, but aside from doing high quality builds and marketing to "hip" demographics they were still technologically comparable to the competition and generally followed in the technological footsteps of larger companies; putting a desktop computer into a clear blue case may look nifty, but it's hardly innovation.
Then they had their greatest stroke of genius since the 70s, the iPod, the first portable MP3 player ever. Well, except for the IXI, MPMan, Rio, Nomad, and various others... but it was the first to use a hard drive... except for the Personal Jukebox (made by, of all companies, Compaq)... but it WAS the first to run a massive ad campaign featuring silhouettes wearing white earbuds, which I suppose counts as original and compelling. I guess.
The point being that, while they might have a reputation for what you described, they certainly haven't earned it with creativity or originality, just marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the one about false idols?
It's OK, because when our first president Jesus returns to throw out all of the activist judges and greedy liberals and establishes his constitutionally promised Kingdom of Democracy we can finally live in peace and cooperation and help those in need. That's why you should vote for John McCain, the first and only candidate to ever have faith in God, and if you don't then Jesus will hate you forever and you'll go to hell with the abortionists and queers. And remember, God wants you to be wealthy, because only rich people can get into heaven; it says so in the Bible.
The sad part is that I'm sure there are people out there who don't think any of that is completely ridiculous, let alone that it's all outright lies.
Yes, I too hate to hear about dating success srories. I don't mind a good story, but if I read one more srory with a happy ending, I swear to the Gods that I will end all life on Earth.
No, read it again: he accused others of putting broken window economic policies into practice. There's a vast difference between pointing it out and proposing it.
Right answer, wrong explanation. if they made it obvious and easily accesible to figure out where all of the money went, it would make it that much harder for any of it to stick to their hands. You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years? You think that such people could actually manage to win?
"To build on that point, in case not everyone understands the implications of this post, those that promote equal market access tend to be either a) the one with an idealist in charge or b) the one that believes that they really are the best on the market."
I'd also add c) people that currently don't own a big share of the market and don't expect they ever really will. Of course, those people also tend to fit into at least one of the other two, otherwise they probably wouldn't bother.
You understand that no ruling was made on the point I posted, right?
My concern wasn't that the ruling made was poor, my issue is that a potentially much more serious issue was not resolved. This may not have been the best case for it to be resolved, but that doesn't mean there's no cause for concern.
Too bad that's OT, bbecause otherwise that deserves a +5, Insightful.
You mean I shouldn't just crush up random things and snort them? What will I do?
Holy shit dude, that just rocked my world. I don't know how I'll be able to go on knowing that the world isn't made of pixie dust, happy thoughts and unicorn spit... or that if it is, all of those things cause cancer. Guess I'll just have to keep not inhaling, eating, injecting, humping, smoking or otherwise being stupid with everything I come across without regard to the possibility of consequence.
Multiple account abuse (to which he has, allegedly, admitted), schizophrenic accusations of conspiracies and personal targeting, and anti-Microsoft rants that are so rabid and over the top that they are actually a disservice to the very causes he claims to support.
Not that I support counter-trolling him and bitching about his every post, but he is a /very/ prolific troll and a not insignificant number of our colleagues are apparently unwilling or unable to look past that even with his relatively innocuous posts (which I think this one was, although it was a bit borderline).
I think you'll find that there are far less people who hate him than there are people who just don't care, but the former tend to speak up while the latter do not, and twitter actually posts at -1 on nearly all of his accounts, so it can appear that there are people constantly down-modding him to a casual observer.
Sure they would, unless for some reason thousands of people were to access the modified page through yours... then it might get sticky. Keep in mind that, much like the rest of the generation from which we derive them, for every judge that does have a decent grasp of current tech, there are a lot of them who are completely clueless.
I could definitely see some problems arising if, for example, a popular webcomic were to mention a website only for that website to turn into a giant "Obama iz a terrist hil blo up mareenz!!!!!!11111" troll or some such drivel.
No, but they must prove that you actually published the paper. The ruling is more like saying that if a newspaper mentions a book which contains libel, the newspaper is not liable for it because they never published it anyway, unless they also distributed copies of the book with the paper.
IMO, a bigger concern is actually that there is no control of precisely what lies on the other side of a hyperlink... if I put one on my site, and 6 months from now, long after I've likely forgotten about it, the owner of the linked ite decides to put up libel, where does that leave me? Fortunately, I think this ruling would pretty well stifle any attempt to hold somebody liable for that, but the fact that this was ever in question is somewhat disturbing.
Don't worry, the EU and Asian zone bankers are all over it too. Wouldn't want anybody to miss out on the blatant ethics violations.
"Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work."
No, McCain stated that Obama wanted to take his money and "spread the wealth". Incidentally it turns out that Obama doesn't favor socialized redistibution of wealth, as anyone who isn't a complete tool can easily see. And on the off-chance that Joe might, some day, make more than 250k a year (after deductible business expenses, such as payroll, mind you), I just don't have that much sympathy for him having to be in a slightly higher tax bracket... as it turns out, 70% of 250k is still a hell of a lot more than 90% of 50k. Progressive tax operates on the premise that those with the highest income have almost certainly benefited the most from the system, a premise which is vehemently denied by some but is extremely self-evident to anyone who hasn't managed to become a multi-millionaire in spite of all the work they've done, and that as such they should be obligated to make a greater contribution to the system than those who have not profited from it.
But hey, you just keep pretending that taxing the wealthiest members of society a little higher in order to fund schools, police and fire departments, hospitals, infrastructure improvements and ever controversial small dollar payments to the unemployed and impoverished is Evil (tm) and I'll just keep mocking you for thinking that decreasing taxes on those same people then putting us trillions in the whole so your arms dealer and military contractor buddies can get rich killing people and breaking things in some sandbox sitting on top of liquified refuse without so much as putting that money back into the US economy is somehow a better idea. What a terrible world it would be if we wasted billions inefficiently helping people rather than trillions inefficiently killing people.
Before my third hand Pentium III laptop's screen died I was running standard (Gnome) Ubuntu on it just fine. The was around Feisty, mind you, but so long as I turned off the beryl-compiz effects and kept an eye on what extraneous packages I installed it ran like a champ on 512 MB of memory and an 8 GB hdd. Battery life was also decent until the battery wore out, but once I replaced it I could use it for a couple of hours with sound and networking on battery.
I'd imagine that Ubuntu with Gnome would work fine on, say, an Asus eee, considering that they have about the same hardware specs but benefit from general tech improvements (like better batteries) and haven't been subjected to 5+ years of (ab)use.
Sorry for the lameness/obviousness of that answer, but it's really obvious because it's true.
That really depends on how they do things. One of the big tricks is to give the loan, then sell the debt; because the amount owed, after interest, is so much greater than the initial value, they can actually make a pretty decent margin without ever collecting a dime from the people they loan to... and if they can't sell it immediately then they can pick up some free money in the meantime.
The only snag comes when too many people are doing that and the people who invest in debt decide to stop buying... then all the little guys get stuck with debts which can't be paid, and when those fall through it starts running chain reactions that make other weak loans falter and weakens the loans that are strong. Usually a few percent can default without any real effect, but too many at once can cause a snowball that will crush the entire system.
That had better sound familiar.
Of course, they could just fix the security holes without imposing draconian controls on what's installed or how... but I guess that would run afoul of their stated interests.
"There are a large number of Mexican criminals (Mexican mafia, drug gang members, murderers, rapists, etc) who have slipped into the US to avoid prosecution in Mexico."
So work with Mexican authorities to investigate, locate, and apprehend these suspected criminals. If you need more resources to do this, then i suggest taking it from all of the illegal ops you're running that eat up budget.
"Border checkpoints work both ways. We're responsible for our criminals slipping into Mexico trying to avoid prosecution too."
And random internal checkpoints have precisely what to do with that objective? Besides, the Mexican authorities are actually responsible for that, and if they choose not to do their jobs it shouldn't fall on us to do it for them.
"The US has a large problem with drug importers on every border."
Yeah, fuck Pfizer. Seriously though, if the drugs weren't illegal, there wouldn't be a problem. If only millions of people supported decriminalizing nearly all currently illegal drugs and we could simply wave our hand to make that problem vanish...
"What do YOU propose law enforcement officials do if they conduct a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation, and there is reasonable cause during the stop to suspect that other laws are being broken? Remember, under the law as decided by the Supreme Court, all that is required is reasonable suspicion."
I propose that there is no such thing as a "perfectly legal stop to verify documentation". Unless they have some specific and legally permitted reason to believe that documentation is not in order (in other words, 'reasonable suspicion"), they have no right to stop random travelers and demand it. The fact that a car is moving down a given stretch of road does not constitute reasonable suspicion, plain and simple. Funny thing, the Constitution makes absolutely no differentiation between citizens and non-citizens with regard to what rules the government must play by.
"Slashdot story should be reworded to read: "American Criminal Liberties Union Upset Over Nothing Again.""
Well, except that they aren't, and that they don't get 'upset over nothing" except in the eyes of people who can only charitably be described as fascists. Yep, I just Godwinned.
And my point is that gasoline based internal combustion has no particular reason to be used other than that it was the best option available at the time. if we simply use a better option, then we can do all sorts of crazy/unimaginable things. It's only cheating if you mistake the way things are for the way things have to be.
If you had not killed the boar, it would have killed you. Morality exists only in choice, and given the choice between living and dying, we are forced by our animal natures to choose survival. In other words, you had no more choice in the matter than a wolf pack has when it downs an elk... that is to say, none. Given no context of choice, your actions were neither moral nor immoral because you had no choice in the matter.
"Stepping outside those bounds doesn't make you a maverick it makes you an idiot who can't read."
But at least I can punctuate. Seriously though, aside from being a horrid cliche, "thinking outside the box" is the only way progress is ever really made. He made up an arbitrary constraint and I called it as such... that doesn't mean I can't read, it means I don't give two shits for his arbitrary limitation.
Of course, one can always ignore your calculations by doing things differently than how you expect.
For example, what is the thermodynamic limit of fuel cells? What are the thermodynamic limits of every other alternative fuel or alternative engine type? What if we use more highly refined fuel that carries more energy per unit? What if you do not travel at 60 mph in order to lower wind resistance? Speaking of wind resistance, what if you were to travel through specially designed low air pressure conduits to make air resistance nearly 0? We can change all sorts of things about the situation to make your math, while good, completely irrelevant to the scenario.
While I see the ranting sibling comment, I had some (hopefully sane) issues with this.
"The fact is that Apple has a long history of making original, compelling products that capture the imagination"
Really? Apple started with homebrewed computers that were effectively a downsized version of what their competitors were already selling and targeted at people who were willing to take some serious performance cuts in order to get a lower priced computer.. it wasn't original by any means, it was just a good idea. Then they built their brand on the premise of high-end home and media offerings with an artsy edge, but aside from doing high quality builds and marketing to "hip" demographics they were still technologically comparable to the competition and generally followed in the technological footsteps of larger companies; putting a desktop computer into a clear blue case may look nifty, but it's hardly innovation.
Then they had their greatest stroke of genius since the 70s, the iPod, the first portable MP3 player ever. Well, except for the IXI, MPMan, Rio, Nomad, and various others... but it was the first to use a hard drive... except for the Personal Jukebox (made by, of all companies, Compaq)... but it WAS the first to run a massive ad campaign featuring silhouettes wearing white earbuds, which I suppose counts as original and compelling. I guess.
The point being that, while they might have a reputation for what you described, they certainly haven't earned it with creativity or originality, just marketing.
Your mom, on the other hand...
Because, as a guy trying to make a living by writing books that state the obvious, he'd otherwise be out of a job.
Pay by the word FTFW.
In fact, last I knew CS was still the most widely played multiplayer FPS around. Leaving it off of the list is simply unfathomable to me.