Hate to burst your bubble, but no woman I would describe as "good" is more attracted to a guy with money than, say, a guy who's likeable and isn't a douche. At least I give you credit for observing the warped nature of our social values, though I'm perplexed by your apparent embrace of it and exhortations to participate in a clearly unfair system.
Sorry, but when virtually every Mac user the rest of us meets practically shoves the Kool-Aid down our throats because they can't believe that someone might *gasp* not give two shits for Apple or their overrated OS, it can be hard not to become a little judgmental.
Really? I thought Frodo was one of the few characters not turned into a completely pussified version... specifically because frodo is a total a pussy in the books. What pissed me off was that they character assassinated Faramir: it was symbolically important that he reject the ring of his own volition, because it "proves" that the flawed race of men truly do have the strength and wisdom to reject evil. He was a crucial counterpoint to his brother and father, who were possessed of such hubris that they could not accept the notion that evil cannot be justified by personal gain.
Anyway, what I want to see Jackson remake is The Lost Boys. The original was almost great, but the comedy was overdone and the plot was somewhat lost in the obligatory 80s cultural references.
I think I've heard that story told about another flavor of Windows... oh, right ME. If Windows 7 is the next 2000, I might even consider installing it (around SP2, at least).
"Wouldn't such an action violate several anti-trust and anti-cartel laws with both the U.S. and the E.U.?"
In the words of our ever thoughtful VP: So? They write the laws and hire the prosecutors, so what incentive do they really have to follow the laws. These are massive companies which have dominated mass media for a century, if you're banking on politicians to break them up, you've got the wrong ideas about who has who in their pocket. If you thought the efforts to penalize Microsoft were pathetic and spineless, then just wait until you see what they don't do to these scumbags.
Actually, 100% of the current debt is W's. Clinton, for all that the Republicans hated him (and I still can't tell why) did such a great job balancing the budget that he paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history. Incidentally, he did this while increasing the overall availability and quality of most public and social services. Funny how things work, isn't it?
I include that possibility in the latter. It is creepy and humiliating to think a female was interested in you and be completely wrong, telling a girl "look, I'm just not interested in you that way" and being completely wrong is even creepier and exponentially more humiliating. Unless he truly does fit into the former option, in which case it's actually quite a bit less awkward for everyone who isn't homophobic (which, sadly, is far from being a universally reasonable assumption).
I actually have had female friends who I have had no desire to sleep with, and it actually did get to the point where one directly said she was interested rather than continue to let me pretend I didn't catch the hints (it should be noted that few guys will actually be completely oblivious to discrete hinting, especially over long periods, but a not creepy guy might choose to pretend he is rather than risk being wrong and creating a whole different kind of uncomfortable). I had the exact opposite experience, in that I was pretty much over it, but to this day I'm completely unsure that she is (though she might be, we don't talk much now that we aren't in college together... and she's married).
On the contrary, many men have plenty of blood to run both, and are nice enough to think with the superior one even when the inferior one is standing up to make its own announcements. These men are also, however, not generally willing to just hit on anything with boobs, and have learned the hard way that sometimes when girls are nice to them that it means they just want to be friends.
Apparently, 60% of women need to realize that, frustrating as men's behavior might be, they solve plenty of problems by just thinking. If you really like your friend Todd because he's such a sweet guy and he never lechs out or anything, but he constantly seems to ignore your attempts to sleep with him, then you can safely assume that Todd is either totally gay or is simply being nice and not pervy to the point that he may well be dismissing the hints rather than risk creeping you out. I suggest talking to him about it, and not being so damned obtuse.
I don't care when that was decided, it is obviously wrong, and considering how many of them have expressed eagerness to change all kinds of precedents I have no respect for their claim that, in that case, stare decisis is the way to go.
One example: nowhere in the Bill of Rights does the word "citizen" appear, the word "people" is used in its place; unless we are to believe that non-citizens are not people, the Bill of Rights, including those pesky bits about unreasonable search and seizeure and other rights of the accused. Is the Conservative majority in the court actually going with that literal interpretation? (hint: no, not even close)
Don't buy their line that they just want to read the Constitution literally in order to defend it, they want to read it whatever way agrees with the outcome they want it to have, and have simply discovered that reading it "literally" is often the easiest way to ignore what it actually says and push through their agendas.
I don't know, I think you could assign at least a couple percentage points of blame to the irresponsible gun owner who let one fall into the hands of a child. It turns out that people who despise guns and refuse to have them in their homes never have the problem of their children finding their gun.
For the record, I oppose most gun control laws, particularly those on guns intended for combat of some sort (sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms in case we need another revolution, not so the NRA can take pot shots at endangered species) but personally refuse to own or use guns. What I do support are fairly draconian punishments for gun owners who act irresponsibly (like letting children get their hands on them without supervision or buying them for people who are not allowed to buy their own) and private citizens voluntarily disarming themselves.
As for mandatory gun safety courses at school... let's make a deal, we can have that so long as the sex education course is equally funded and has an equivalently varied curriculum. If you want abstinence only education, you get that for both, if you want comprehensive education, you still get it for both.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I wish Obama (and Clinton) would make these things their major topics of discussion. These are two people running for president, and I'm really expected to believe they don't have the clout to deliver substance if they truly want to?
Re-read that passage, it doesn't say what you think it says. SCOTUS can rule a treaty unconstitutional just like any other law, and the Constitutionally dictated solution is to withdraw from the treaty.
That said, the current SCOTUS is full of hacks and ideologues who will support whatever their neo-con cohorts wish regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say. Score one for PNAC.
McCain WAS the furthest left in a very far-right Republican party, but he's since taken a hard right turn in order to gain the support of Evangelicals and the "party mainstream". There are some out there who say that his entire bid in 2000 was really just an attempt to win over some hard-core centrists and put his name out there for future campaigns, and that his apparent drift to the right was really just the result of him dropping the centrist charade. Giuliani was considerably left of him (at least on social issues) and Mitt "On the trail since '01" Romney was basically in the same position as McCain. That said, his presumptive nomination is a pretty clear indication that the Republican party as a whole is coming back towards the center, which is definitely a Good Thing.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are actually all that far left. Even within the Democratic party (whose politics would be considered moderate conservative in most other countries) there are far more liberal figures who hold at least as much influence. Obama is very widely considered to be one of the most moderate members of Congress, and until he started running for president and it became politically expeditious to dump on him out of hand many of his moderate Republican colleagues in the senate had only good things to say about him. To be honest, I've found very little to differentiate the two aside from rhetoric and reputation; they agree on virtually every issue and the bulk of their plans are essentially identical. It's pretty likely that the only reason the Clinton campaign has been so vocal about the preacher flap is that he is widely considered to be less divisive and more appealing to the moderate Republicans who are fleeing the neocons, and that she needed a way to even that out.
You missed one key point, that Obama's preacher has been in the biz for DECADES and that the whole thing is over a handful of sentences. Someone went and did some serious searching for every vaguely racist thing he's ever said.
Seriously, In my 23 years of life, I've said much more controversial and antagonistic things than that, and very few people have ever had the temerity to call me a bigot for it.
Other than that, spot on.
On a side note, I would like to hear more of Mr. Obama's ideas, as well as Mrs. Clinton's. I've been very disappointed by the dearth of substance in both of their campaigns. I would like to vote on more than "together we can change things" and "together we can fix things", because neither is more enlightening than it is vacuous.
In fact, whenever XP crashes and I reboot so I can go back to gaming (including in Flash, see, I'm on-topic) I boot it through a GRUB menu. Works great, and only adds about 1.5s to my boot time, virtually all of which is me pressing the down key.
I felt like you should have posted that somewhere more relevant and closer to the top.
You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.
Wait, is Hoboken the giant pit of raw sewage, or is it just the place next to the giant pit of raw sewage. Frankly, I get confused by New jersey... too much raw sewage in pits.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to burst your bubble, but no woman I would describe as "good" is more attracted to a guy with money than, say, a guy who's likeable and isn't a douche. At least I give you credit for observing the warped nature of our social values, though I'm perplexed by your apparent embrace of it and exhortations to participate in a clearly unfair system.
To each his own, I suppose.
Sorry, but when virtually every Mac user the rest of us meets practically shoves the Kool-Aid down our throats because they can't believe that someone might *gasp* not give two shits for Apple or their overrated OS, it can be hard not to become a little judgmental.
Really? I thought Frodo was one of the few characters not turned into a completely pussified version... specifically because frodo is a total a pussy in the books. What pissed me off was that they character assassinated Faramir: it was symbolically important that he reject the ring of his own volition, because it "proves" that the flawed race of men truly do have the strength and wisdom to reject evil. He was a crucial counterpoint to his brother and father, who were possessed of such hubris that they could not accept the notion that evil cannot be justified by personal gain.
Anyway, what I want to see Jackson remake is The Lost Boys. The original was almost great, but the comedy was overdone and the plot was somewhat lost in the obligatory 80s cultural references.
I think I've heard that story told about another flavor of Windows... oh, right ME. If Windows 7 is the next 2000, I might even consider installing it (around SP2, at least).
"Wouldn't such an action violate several anti-trust and anti-cartel laws with both the U.S. and the E.U.?"
In the words of our ever thoughtful VP: So? They write the laws and hire the prosecutors, so what incentive do they really have to follow the laws. These are massive companies which have dominated mass media for a century, if you're banking on politicians to break them up, you've got the wrong ideas about who has who in their pocket. If you thought the efforts to penalize Microsoft were pathetic and spineless, then just wait until you see what they don't do to these scumbags.
Actually, 100% of the current debt is W's. Clinton, for all that the Republicans hated him (and I still can't tell why) did such a great job balancing the budget that he paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history. Incidentally, he did this while increasing the overall availability and quality of most public and social services. Funny how things work, isn't it?
No, because the probability for ANYTHING, given enough chances, is 1.
What they are actually saying is that reality appears to follow a probability bell curve.
You could also say that, in 1,230,000 years of baseball games, we could be almost certain of a hitting streak longer than 56 games.
I include that possibility in the latter. It is creepy and humiliating to think a female was interested in you and be completely wrong, telling a girl "look, I'm just not interested in you that way" and being completely wrong is even creepier and exponentially more humiliating. Unless he truly does fit into the former option, in which case it's actually quite a bit less awkward for everyone who isn't homophobic (which, sadly, is far from being a universally reasonable assumption).
I actually have had female friends who I have had no desire to sleep with, and it actually did get to the point where one directly said she was interested rather than continue to let me pretend I didn't catch the hints (it should be noted that few guys will actually be completely oblivious to discrete hinting, especially over long periods, but a not creepy guy might choose to pretend he is rather than risk being wrong and creating a whole different kind of uncomfortable). I had the exact opposite experience, in that I was pretty much over it, but to this day I'm completely unsure that she is (though she might be, we don't talk much now that we aren't in college together... and she's married).
On the contrary, many men have plenty of blood to run both, and are nice enough to think with the superior one even when the inferior one is standing up to make its own announcements. These men are also, however, not generally willing to just hit on anything with boobs, and have learned the hard way that sometimes when girls are nice to them that it means they just want to be friends.
Apparently, 60% of women need to realize that, frustrating as men's behavior might be, they solve plenty of problems by just thinking. If you really like your friend Todd because he's such a sweet guy and he never lechs out or anything, but he constantly seems to ignore your attempts to sleep with him, then you can safely assume that Todd is either totally gay or is simply being nice and not pervy to the point that he may well be dismissing the hints rather than risk creeping you out. I suggest talking to him about it, and not being so damned obtuse.
I don't care when that was decided, it is obviously wrong, and considering how many of them have expressed eagerness to change all kinds of precedents I have no respect for their claim that, in that case, stare decisis is the way to go.
Yeah, you can even say fuck if you aren't a spineless anonymous twat.
Congratulations bootlick.
One example: nowhere in the Bill of Rights does the word "citizen" appear, the word "people" is used in its place; unless we are to believe that non-citizens are not people, the Bill of Rights, including those pesky bits about unreasonable search and seizeure and other rights of the accused. Is the Conservative majority in the court actually going with that literal interpretation? (hint: no, not even close)
Don't buy their line that they just want to read the Constitution literally in order to defend it, they want to read it whatever way agrees with the outcome they want it to have, and have simply discovered that reading it "literally" is often the easiest way to ignore what it actually says and push through their agendas.
I don't know, I think you could assign at least a couple percentage points of blame to the irresponsible gun owner who let one fall into the hands of a child. It turns out that people who despise guns and refuse to have them in their homes never have the problem of their children finding their gun.
For the record, I oppose most gun control laws, particularly those on guns intended for combat of some sort (sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms in case we need another revolution, not so the NRA can take pot shots at endangered species) but personally refuse to own or use guns. What I do support are fairly draconian punishments for gun owners who act irresponsibly (like letting children get their hands on them without supervision or buying them for people who are not allowed to buy their own) and private citizens voluntarily disarming themselves.
As for mandatory gun safety courses at school... let's make a deal, we can have that so long as the sex education course is equally funded and has an equivalently varied curriculum. If you want abstinence only education, you get that for both, if you want comprehensive education, you still get it for both.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I wish Obama (and Clinton) would make these things their major topics of discussion. These are two people running for president, and I'm really expected to believe they don't have the clout to deliver substance if they truly want to?
Re-read that passage, it doesn't say what you think it says. SCOTUS can rule a treaty unconstitutional just like any other law, and the Constitutionally dictated solution is to withdraw from the treaty.
That said, the current SCOTUS is full of hacks and ideologues who will support whatever their neo-con cohorts wish regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say. Score one for PNAC.
McCain WAS the furthest left in a very far-right Republican party, but he's since taken a hard right turn in order to gain the support of Evangelicals and the "party mainstream". There are some out there who say that his entire bid in 2000 was really just an attempt to win over some hard-core centrists and put his name out there for future campaigns, and that his apparent drift to the right was really just the result of him dropping the centrist charade. Giuliani was considerably left of him (at least on social issues) and Mitt "On the trail since '01" Romney was basically in the same position as McCain. That said, his presumptive nomination is a pretty clear indication that the Republican party as a whole is coming back towards the center, which is definitely a Good Thing.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are actually all that far left. Even within the Democratic party (whose politics would be considered moderate conservative in most other countries) there are far more liberal figures who hold at least as much influence. Obama is very widely considered to be one of the most moderate members of Congress, and until he started running for president and it became politically expeditious to dump on him out of hand many of his moderate Republican colleagues in the senate had only good things to say about him. To be honest, I've found very little to differentiate the two aside from rhetoric and reputation; they agree on virtually every issue and the bulk of their plans are essentially identical. It's pretty likely that the only reason the Clinton campaign has been so vocal about the preacher flap is that he is widely considered to be less divisive and more appealing to the moderate Republicans who are fleeing the neocons, and that she needed a way to even that out.
You missed one key point, that Obama's preacher has been in the biz for DECADES and that the whole thing is over a handful of sentences. Someone went and did some serious searching for every vaguely racist thing he's ever said.
Seriously, In my 23 years of life, I've said much more controversial and antagonistic things than that, and very few people have ever had the temerity to call me a bigot for it.
Other than that, spot on.
On a side note, I would like to hear more of Mr. Obama's ideas, as well as Mrs. Clinton's. I've been very disappointed by the dearth of substance in both of their campaigns. I would like to vote on more than "together we can change things" and "together we can fix things", because neither is more enlightening than it is vacuous.
And some are buysexual.
Incidentally, GRUB can boot Windows just fine.
In fact, whenever XP crashes and I reboot so I can go back to gaming (including in Flash, see, I'm on-topic) I boot it through a GRUB menu. Works great, and only adds about 1.5s to my boot time, virtually all of which is me pressing the down key.
Yes, most instances of Win98 are on POS machines.
Oh... wait... you meant "Point Of Sale"... well, yeah, I guess that it could run on those too.
I felt like you should have posted that somewhere more relevant and closer to the top.
You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.
Wait, is Hoboken the giant pit of raw sewage, or is it just the place next to the giant pit of raw sewage. Frankly, I get confused by New jersey... too much raw sewage in pits.
Good catch, I forgot about that. It always throws me off when schools that large and prestigious lack a major traditional program.
I wish that they'd chosen to accompany what's actually a pretty good filk with something other than another lame video of WoW characters dancing.
Or, you know, his colleagues from Princeton's school of law. Although I'm sure that there exists a significant overlap between those three groups.