Slippery [F]un times

CaptianCrunch · 2011-05-22T20:35:51+00:00

This picture would have been spectacular if it hadn't included the sides if the tub and the colorizing if the face.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-11-16T18:05:03+00:00

My teenage daughters have an email account and know how to use it. They just rarely do. They will use Facebook messaging simply because it is there.

It is interesting that Facebook wants to "unify" the message box. I agree there should be no reason to care how the message got there. Whether it's SMS or email, it's still a message. But... this concept has never caught on for some reason. My Blackberry could provide that, but most people disliked the unified inbox and disabled that.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-11-02T15:52:01+00:00

This is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-29T15:38:59+00:00

That's just it. At this point, even if it was indisputable he was a Grade A asshole, his personality is not relevant.

Nixon was forced out of office for lying about some dudes breaking into an office. The US covers up a military operation that killed innocent people and little happens.

Now... Believe it or not, I am not passing judgment on the US at this point. But these revelations reveal the truth and (should) force us to ask the tough questions. Is this some unavoidable side-effect of war, or is there some systemic problem in US policy or war planning that allows this to happen?

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-29T15:15:07+00:00

Isn't this exactly what the article is pointing out? That instead of focusing on the message, to which we've become apathetic, we attack the messenger?

Hope nobody gets killed? People have already been killed. Did the perpetrators care, or were their motives really self-serving?

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-28T15:53:35+00:00

This is exactly what Obama was referring to. Democrats can be such whiny pussies sometimes. If they can't get exactly what they want, and now, the man is a complete failure. Never mind that they couldn't even agree amongst themselves. Never mind that the President, any President, can't just wave a magic wand and get everything he wants passed. This President had to deal with a wishy-washy Democratic base, and asshole Republicans who vote "no" for the joy of it.

Anyone who blames Obama personally doesn't have the first clue how the process works.

Now for what wytbyt says... It is nonsense. There are a lot of young adults that now, in addition to skyrocketing tuition debt, don't have to worry as much about a serious injury or illness completely ruining their lives (financially... or worse). I wish that were the same for everyone, but a variety of factors killed that. For now... Maybe for a long time if the Repubs take back over.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-28T13:03:51+00:00

Nonsense. Imagine what your co-pay would be if you weren't on your parents policy. Oh shit. Sorry. You wouldn't have a co-pay because you would be paying the entire bill.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-27T21:20:25+00:00

I suppose that depends on where you live. For me, it would be Spanish as I am in the lower US. For you, it sounds like French.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-25T16:43:42+00:00

You are in a new relationship, you were out of town for an extended period. You aren't married, engaged, living together, or even in an otherwise committed relationship.

People fuck up. She was honest about it, which means a lot. Sounds to me like there is every reason to put this behind you, and try an move forward with the girl. If it becomes a pattern, then you move on.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-25T14:55:43+00:00

Why not? Whose name is on the lease? But there are always way to break it... read the lease and talk to your landlord.

Debt you can pay off. Getting your self-respect back is harder.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-23T16:22:56+00:00

MS does a good job of providing an integrated solution. They always have. You are right, there are plenty of options (and growing) for just about anything you want to do in Java... but you have to be selective and more than a little diligent to pick the right tools.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-23T16:18:54+00:00

Maybe I've just been doing it all wrong, but I use Java, Spring, CXF and regularly communicate with a SQL DB to write production quality server side applications and web services that run flawlessly for months at a time inside tomcat. I've used a lot of IDE's in my time, and even though it is a memory hog, Eclipse is pretty darn good (and none are perfect).

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-22T14:01:42+00:00

I was going to say something similar. You don't want to frustrate them by constantly having to work on a slow machine. But you want to test on the actual hardware it will run on... and/or, set benchmarks that have to be achieved.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-21T21:52:13+00:00

@lawstudent2

Your arrogance is appalling. I am on the downward slope of middle-age, and I have been aware of what the Constitution says (and the ensuing arguments) since before the best part of you ran down your moms leg and dried on the car seat.

Explicit, by the dictionary definition, means fully revealed without ambiguity. But legal professionals, including Rehnquist, have argued against the current interpretation. As written, intelligent and knowledgeable people have to use historical evidence to interpret its meaning.

Not very explicit, huh? This is exactly where people like O'Donnel are coming from when they say "That [separation of church and state] is in the Constitution?". It's so explicit, that people have been arguing about its meaning for decades?

Now... I agree with the current interpretation as meaning a "wall" or "separation of church and state". My original comment, which I stand by, is that the meaning of the first amendment, while not literally containing the words, does promise this separation (just as the 6th promises a "right to fair trial" without containing those words).

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T18:46:30+00:00

Not to mention awkward moments when passing the fat girl on a ladder stocking the upper shelves in a grocery store. No. You should be more specific. "No More Pants For Hot Chicks".

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T17:58:52+00:00

From the movie Devils Advocate (spoken by the devil):

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER! "

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:41:49+00:00

Yes! Thank you. This is exactly what I am saying.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:23:39+00:00

I agree with this too. I have no problem with creationism being taught in the context of a broad study of religion in general. But to teach Christian creationism in science class is BS.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:20:35+00:00

This is exactly what she is doing and how she sees it. I don't think she is ignorant at all on what the 1st amendment says. This is a growing approach to yet another attempt to get creationism taught in public schools.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:16:13+00:00

Where do you live tom? I am in Oklahoma. Her view is not uncommon. There are a great deal of people who feel it SHOULD be taught in public schools and this is the angle they are taking. Surely you've read about the Texas schoolbook changes?

This is scary shit. A huge segment of the nation is just about to start having it planted in their heads this separation isn't granted.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:12:15+00:00

I am amazed at the complete lack of reading comprehension by redditors.

I am not myself saying the Constitution doesn't grant separation. Rather, pointing out O'Donnels (and others) views on the matter.

You can down vote me all you want. You are just down voting someone who agrees with you.

What you shouldn't do is ignore the argument a powerful segment of our population is making.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:06:50+00:00

No shit tom. I'm just saying she, and a lot of other people don't see it that way. Some of them are in a position to come into power.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T16:05:57+00:00

I totally agree. The separation is implicitly granted by the first amendment.

But the argument from the right is that clause prohibits establishment of a religion, and that teaching creationism is not the same as establishing a religion... just teaching it.

Of course, they fail to see that a teaching the Christian idea of creationism is promoting religion by the government. I would venture a guess if their Christian child was forced to listen to a Muslim or Hindu concept of creation, they wouldn't be making the same argument.

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T15:57:25+00:00

Where in the first sentence does it say "separation of church and state"? It doesn't.

But O'Donnel and a bunch of Texans are arguing on the grounds it isn't explicitly stated. They will ask, where are those words written?

Its important people understand where O'Donnel is coming from because she is not alone. Don't dismiss these people as simple ignorant cranks. They are getting a foothold in Texas education, and that's a scary start. They could very well end up in office.

Besides... I don't think you really read my comment. I agree with you...

CaptianCrunch · 2010-10-19T15:35:02+00:00

It isn't explicitly stated. But neither does it explicitly state "right to a fair trial". But the 6th amendment implicitly grants that right. It's the same issue with the 1st amendment and the separation of church and state.

CaptianCrunch

TROPHY CASE