Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
Hate is such a strong word. Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to disagree with someone else without calling it hatred. Today's leftists don't understand that.
Also I haven't watched Fox News in probably 10 years, just to preempt anyone claiming I'm brainwashed by them or some other such nonsense.
-
Fucking gays, ruining everything.
Would you say the thread got... flaming?
http://www.smarterwebstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/dr-evil.jpg
-
Since it is pretty rare that a US court would use other countries as examples for how we should enforce our own laws.
Fuuuuuck, you really aren't paying attention. I thought that was just snark on my part...
-
And I have seen PLENTY of FOX
In the city I work/live, it's basically on every TV in every business I go in. About 90% of the time their FUD is so terrible it actually makes me laugh out loud at them.
-
You mean, maybe if I watched more FOXnews I'd think most Americans hate gays like they do?
Good old brainwashing foxnews.I mean you might be less ignorant. But you seem to be pretty proud of that, so it might not really work.
-
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to disagree with someone else without calling it hatred. Today's leftists don't understand that.
Yes, I don't think everyone hates gays. But that's the thing, Fox wants everyone to think that everyone else hates them. Their news is entirely about blowing everything up out of proportion to the extreme because that's the easiest way to get people to watch.
-
TheirAll news is entirely about blowing everything up out of proportion to the extreme because that's the easiest way to get people to watch.FTFY. Not that I'm trying to defend Fox, but singling them out for this is retarded.
-
And I have seen PLENTY of FOX
In the city I work/live, it's basically on every TV in every business I go in. About 90% of the time their FUD is so terrible it actually makes me laugh out loud at them.I must admit that I don't watch too much of it these days. Some of the morning guys are silly (well, that's what those sorts of shows are for, especially on the weekends), but I think this stance says more about you than Fox.
-
But that's the thing, Fox wants everyone to think that everyone else hates them
Eh...you're getting lazy in your trolling now.
-
Fox wants everyone to think that everyone else hates them
If we're going this route, then everyone else wants everyone to think that Fox wants everyone else to hate gays.
-
it's all true.But really, if you 2 don't watch and follow FOX, you automatically gained a ton of credibility in my eyes. FOX's information and rhetoric is really the worst of the worst, even though MSNBC really tries pretty hard to be the exact same BS from the other side of the line.
-
I don't particularly trust any media source anymore. There were several things that happened local to my area so I had firsthand knowledge of the events, which then made it to national news, and the national news reports were about as accurate as those movies that claim "Loosely based on real-life events." Completely wrecked my opinion of all the major news networks and national newspapers.
-
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=supreme+court+foreign+law
That was a good informative search (i read a couple of the top hits)
It is pretty controversial any time a SC judge references other countries.
It is telling of my opinion of our SC judges that I'd think they would never reference other countries as precedents, but I should have known better because there have been plenty of judges from both sides (of views on interpreting the constitution, politically, etc).
-
the national news reports were about as accurate as those movies that claim "Loosely based on real-life events."
yeah pretty much.
-
FOX's information and rhetoric is really the worst of the worst, even though MSNBC really tries pretty hard to be the exact same BS from the other side of the line.
I really don't see how you can put MSNBC above the Onion, let alone Fox.
But maybe you are really interested in New York bridge lanes.
-
Polygamists expect gay marriage to help pave the way for poly marriage" is what I'm saying.
If you try searching for that (I did) to find an actual instance where a polygamist group really thinks this, you will find nothing. The only people you find saying it are the right-wing political criers trying to spread FUD because they don't want to legalize gay marriage.
If you do find a reference from a polygamist organization that says such, I'd be interested to see it - it would certainly be an opinion changer.
-
I really don't see how you can put MSNBC above the Onion, let alone Fox.
I'd say they're pretty much the same level - it's just that FOX's crap is so incendiary. Maybe I just haven't seen enough MSNBC to get the same view. Because I don't watch MSNBC, and since it's not the leading political opinion here, it's not on in every restaurant I go to, so I rarely catch any of the MSNBC garbage - I've seen just enough to know it's garbage that I wouldn't willingly want to watch.
-
Maybe I just haven't seen enough MSNBC to get the same view.
This is probably the answer.
it's just that FOX's crap is so incendiary
Wow..I totally don't understand that. But we probably watched different things. I'm sure some of the opinion guys / panels could be legitimately classified that way. But then they also have morons like Bob Beckel and Juan Williams on regularly.
I get the contrarian streak thing, though, as a knee jerk reaction. I tend to have that, too.
-
people should think really hard
What kind of drugs are you on that you believe this could ever be a thing in our society?
-
@darkmatter said:
FOX's crap is so incendiary
Wow..I totally don't understand that. But we probably watched different things. I'm sure some of the opinion guys / panels could be legitimately classified that way. But then they also have morons like Bob Beckel and Juan Williams on regularly.anecdote time - about 2 weeks ago at the gym, I was running on the treadmill next to another guy that happened to be black. FOX was on the tvs in the workout room, blasting their typical crap. Then they started on some piece that was so racist that I looked over at the guy beside me, hung my head and shook it. He looked back with kind of a sad look on his face and nodded in agreement.
It was so bad that I was actively ashamed that anyone would think I also might hold those opinions. I would have been embarrassed to be running next to the other guy if I didn't signal to him how stupid and ignorant I felt that tv piece was.
-
I don't even remember what the piece was about, because what I vividly remember was the silent interaction with the other guy in the room - a clear kind of mutual understanding that there are some people that are just terrible and should be ignored.
-
VaelynPhi:
I agree with the vegans about meat being murderUgh. That's actually an abuse of language. Also, anyone who really believes that should volunteer to have their front teeth removed.
The simple fact is that most of our civilization is built on brutality. Doesn't stop me from eating steak, though. When people refuse to even consider this, I see them as about as naive as the people who take the phrase "meat is murder" literally. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=meat+is+murder+tasty+tasty+murder
-
-
...anecdote rejected.
Whatever. it was 2 weeks or more ago, I think even before the ebola virus hit the US and everyone went crazy about that. Hell if I can remember the exact topic of every random racist fox news piece I see.
-
Hell if I can remember the exact topic of every random racist fox news piece I see.
Can you remember a single one?
-
Today's leftists
don'tstubbornly refuse to understand that.For example, that Ben Affleck v Bill Maher clip I mentioned yesterday or so. Affleck was reflexively unable to admit "some Muslims do bad things."
Anyone starts talking about Fox listeners being sheeple is in a similar boat. Fox is a slightly-right-of-center news channel. Thus to a leftist it's "ultraconservative."
-
Yes, I don't think everyone hates gays. But that's the thing, Fox wants everyone to think that everyone else hates them.
Well that's just idiotic.
Their news is entirely about blowing everything up out of proportion to the extreme because that's the easiest way to get people to watch.
ROFL. Have you ever watched MSNBC? (I know, neither has anyone else.)
That was an equal-opportunity slag, btw. There's not really an objective/centrist news org right now.
-
Can you remember a single one?
You know, it's hard to find transcripts from their TV shit - at least from 2+ weeks ago. I've not been to the gym in the last couple of weeks (I ran a 100mile race last saturday, so I have been resting up).
The only one I can find that I remember at all was this:
@Andrea Tantaros said:“I’ll say it before, I’ll say it again — in these countries they don’t believe in traditional medical care. So someone could get off a flight and seek treatment from a witch doctor who practices santeria.”
which was pretty damn goofy, but not quite outright racist... just misguided.
-
What's your considered opinion on the risks of making food supplies into something that intellectual property laws apply to?
Well, part of my hippy-dippy views as a software developer make me unhappy with intellectual property laws. I probably agree with the snark at Techdirt more often than not. I wholeheartedly agree with the antiGMOers that Monsanto is pretty much ethically reprehensible. I just don't understand why they, say, don't have the same view of Apple.
Personally, I think returning IP law to the early days would be better for most of us. Disney can let its death grip on Mickey Mouse go, and all those Star Wars fanfic writers can breathe easily. Having absolute power over an idea might--maybe--be sensible for the duration of a lifetime (more realistically, a working lifetime, 30-40 years maybe), but having copyrights extend beyond the grave is just some kind of IP necromancy.
Patents are just ridiculous cancers at this point.
[...]there is no way I can ever see myself supporting public policy likely to favour the emergence of widespread reliance on patented lifeforms as a matter of basic survival.
This is what I fear we're likely heading towards. It's basically right in line with the sort of crony capitalism that rules the US at the moment. I don't like it either.
I also don't have much time for the "generally recognized as safe" reasoning used to try to justify allowing GM produce into the food supply chain without clear labelling of origin.
It does sound like weasel words, but for most things it's a justifiably bland way of saying "if this was going to kill people, we'd mostly be dead by now". Also, most GMO products go through fairly extensive safety testing. By contrast, there is no requirement that plants bred by artificial selection be tested for safety. Since almost every poison known to humankind is the result of this common genetic variation process, it's naive of the antiGMOers to claim that controlled, tested genetic manipulation produces "toxins".
The other thing is that GMO labelling is just FUD. Trying to claim that something produced through direct gene manipulation needs to be labelled separately from things produced by artificial selection is a misunderstanding of how genetics works. At this point what matters is not whether the plant came from artificial seeds, but whether that plant's genetic clones have proven safe to eat. With "frankenseeds" this is actually easier since the genetic variation in the individual seeds is minimal. With year-to-year replanting from crop seeds and outside sources, the variation is high. So, the plants we're eating that are "organic" (I fucking hate this word almost as much as I hate the word "toxins" at this point.) are actually more uncertain than the GMOs.
To address your specific example, such proteins in canola would be regarded as safe if they occur already in another food. This is typically the case, as far as I know. In fact, I can't readily find an example where it is not, but I wouldn't claim that it means there are none. Usually these kinds of things get many handwaving arguments about how the body "processes" things and whatnot, but in reality most things are pretty much broken down to their constituents and then flushed into the bloodstream. So, if something already contains a protein that gets into the body the same way, it's just a matter of whether including it in a food means increasing the amount of that protein in your diet, and whether that has any effect.
My considered opinion on this is that what matters about our health is less a matter of the foods in the supply chain and more a matter of what we choose to consume from it combined with our sedentary behaviors. If most everyone in the US paid attention to the nutrition information on their foods and balanced their daily values and got regular exercise (not even much of it!), I think that three of the main killers (heart disease, blood pressure, and obesity) would drop in place. (Smoking is also a huge contributor here.)
Another effect I should throw in that tends to skew thinking on these things is that the occurrence of many diseases has increased in the last 100 years. This tends to be put forward as an argument that something we're doing is causing them. And something we're doing is causing them: we're living longer. For the US, the number one killer is heart disease; the curve of occurrence against age for this has a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge bubble between 50 and 80. Cancer has a similar bubble, and if you subtract cancers from smoking from it, you get a similar pattern. But half the time when these things come up, it's "oh, we're eating too much salt/sugar/fat/GMOs/non-organic foods", and I just sigh.
-
If you try searching for that (I did) to find an actual instance where a polygamist group really thinks this, you will find nothing.
There was one polygamist talking about a lawsuit a few years ago. That's thin gruel to try to find specifics.
I bet a few years after miscegenation laws began being struck down, nobody was talking about suing to allow gay marriage, either. IOW it's too soon to say "it's not going to happen because it hasn't yet." I suspect if we were to come back to this thread in 5 or 10 years you'd be more likely to be wrong than me, because I still--and I don't really want you to think i'm trying to beat you up about this--don't think you've come up with a better defense of your position than "poly marriage is different from gay marriage," one that would stand up in court, when countered with "my client is claiming an equal protection clause violation."
-
GOG:
The only point here is that "taking females off the nuptial market" isn't an objective problem.Got figures to back that up?
I actually don't know. I've heard it's a theoretical problem but at the moment I have yet to be able to craft a search showing marriage rates in countries that practice it widely.
Dr. Strangelove (8/8) Movie CLIP - Living Underground (1964) HD – [01:00..02:39] 02:39
— Movieclips
-
don't think you've come up with a better defense of your position than "poly marriage is different from gay marriage," one that would stand up in court, when countered with "my client is claiming an equal protection clause violation."
Sure, that is something that only time will tell. I too predict that eventually they (polygamists, whatever other groups) might try to get equal rights in marriage as well, but they will not just simply inherit the rights just because gays can marry. Just like gays didn't simply inherit marriage rights because of interracial marriage.
It just does not make for a very good argument against gay marriage to say other people might also want something later. I could argue that way against any law you want by setting up some fallacy that the majority are against, and claiming that it would be allowed next if they allow whatever it is they currently do want.
-
it's not on in every restaurant I go to
I find the idea that Fox is on everywhere you go interesting, considering that "historically" that's CNN's position. Certainly the McDonald's across the street from where I work never plays Fox--they always have CNN, just like airports. Most restaurants I go to, the closest thing you see to news on TV is ESPN, sports, or "whatever channel's showing Wheel of Fortune or some other game show."
-
[...]Graphical Sudo can only be explicitly invoked?
I'm not sure I've ever used this; there is a GUI prompt for sudo, but it's basically just window dressing on the CLI as far as I know.
I'm really not sure how UAC would determine, at launch time, whether the program will in the future require elevated permissions- and if so, why.
How would you know when you launched Word whether or not the user will save a file in Program Files or not? If they do, you need to launch under the elevated token, if not, the regular one.
There is a kernel limitation here, I'm sure, in that, to change users would require launching another process. But given the complexity of other features MS has implemented, I don't think it would be a huge deal to ask that, say, the file system has a way of redirecting requested write operations through an elevated proxy that requires a user to explicitly give permission a la the UAC prompt. I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of MS programmers... it's what they actually choose to do that usually pisses me off.
For determining the need of elevation at launch, I would actually think MS would have baked something like this into .NET; it seems like unmanaged code would be the problem point. But system actions requiring elevation should provide an API for requesting elevation during execution. I mean, if Spybot can inform me of registry changes and block them selective, it seems like MS's own product API should provide this kind of supervision.
-
What kind of drugs are you on that you believe this could ever be a thing in
ourany society?FTFY. I didn't say I thought it was gonna happen, did I?
I think most people aren't very smart[1] but still manage to get through their lives OK.
[1] that's not intended to be an insult.
-
TBH, a lot of people should have thought much harder about marrying just 1 person before doing it.
I don't have enough likes for this. You deserve at least one internet.
-
which was pretty damn goofy, but not quite outright racist... just misguided.
There are societies that still--supposedly--believe crap like that, including "you can eat your enemy to gain his strength." A few years ago there were rumors coming out of Liberia that this sort of cannibalism was actually happening. If you assume that MIGHT be true for the sake of this discussion, it's not at all unreasonable to believe someone might go looking for a witch doctor.
It's semi-regularly reported that (some? many? who knows)) people in Africa believe sex with virgins will cure AIDS. It's not racist to point that out.
-
but they will not just simply inherit the rights just because gays can marry. Just like gays didn't simply inherit marriage rights because of interracial marriage.
If you thought I ever said that you're wrong.
-
Most restaurants I go to, the closest thing you see to news on TV is ESPN,
My favorite restaurant runs ESPN. A lot of the chain restaurants do run ESPN, but it's a small-town city so there are quite a few independent places, and I swear they all play foxnews 24/7.
-
Personally, I think returning IP law to the early days would be better for most of us. Disney can let its death grip on Mickey Mouse go, and all those Star Wars fanfic writers can breathe easily. Having absolute power over an idea might--maybe--be sensible for the duration of a lifetime (more realistically, a working lifetime, 30-40 years maybe), but having copyrights extend beyond the grave is just some kind of IP necromancy.
QFT. Never mind that copyright was never intended to be the sort of 'absolute power' you casually speak of: people are quick to say "oh no no, the First Amendment's not an excuse to run off and violate someone's copyright!", but never say the equally true converse, which is "Copyright doesn't give anyone the power to infringe upon someone's ability to speak freely". Fair use is not some vestigal organ of the law, despite what the MPAA/RIAA think!Patents are just ridiculous cancers at this point.
That can be chalked up to a few ridiculous court decisions (State Street and Alappat come to mind straight away) that ripped the traditional, and correct, logic that 'software is math, math is unpatentable, and therefore software is ineligible for patent protection' completely out of the court system to the point where even the Supremes refuse to reexamine this viewpoint.(P.S. anyone on here who wants to try to argue that 'software is patentable' should bring me a counterexample to the Curry-Howard correspondence, because if you do not have such a thing, you will not win that argument.)
On the other hand, some of the more ridiculous bioscience patents (Myriad for instance) are getting tossed out on their ear, so there's hope from that front.
-
Polyamory in general? Two people have enough trouble forming a stable relationship. Adding a third, fourth, or more? That makes it a lot harder. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it does mean people should think really hard about it before doing it.
Here's a thought: how many legs do the most stable of stools have? Three. You always have two supporting the third. This works surprisingly well elsewhere too.
-
Here's a thought: how many legs do the most stable of stools have? Three. You always have two supporting the third. This works surprisingly well elsewhere too.
Fucking misogynist. Comparing women to furniture!
-
I thought it was a comparison to poop
-
Here's a thought: how many legs do the most stable of stools have? Three. You always have two supporting the third. This works surprisingly well elsewhere too.
LOL. And people are made of wood, so that analogy is perfect!
-
Fucking misogynist. Comparing women to furniture!
I was trying to keep the metaphor at a level the average forumite here would understand, but I see I will need to use simpler words lest we get yet more ad hominems going on.
-
I thought it was a comparison to poop
ZOMG, I didn't even consider poop with legs. The only example I can think of straight away is Mr Hanky, and I'm pretty sure he only had two.
Benny Bell - Shaving Cream (Exclusive) – 02:45
— SuperJessTheMess
-
ad hominems
If I hadn't already used that phrase more than once I'd've made a "more what, you asshole" post.
-
If I hadn't already used that phrase more than once I'd've made a "more what, you asshole" post.
You leave my arsehole out of this.
-
-
I approve of where this is going.
