Comment Re:Oh look (Score 1) 213
What the hell browser are you using that doesn't have a scroll bar?
What the hell browser are you using that doesn't have a scroll bar?
Crikey, we've discovered a rare Bing user in the wild! What a marvel!
Man, every time I hear people talking about LOX like that, I think they must have one hell of a lot of bagels on the ISS.
I'm very much not an expert with this stuff, but it seems to me that if a particular strut is going to fail at 10,001lbs and you test it to 10,000lbs, it might pass the test but you still don't want to reuse it. There has to be some cutoff point where you're causing long term damage, but it's still functioning to requirements, right?
You can test random struts, but you can't test ALL struts or you're left with no struts. Sounds like they didn't test the right ones is all.
They should have added a lot more of them, clearly. It's not like struts have any mass.
Ah! It's nice to know who to blame!
I can't tell if this is parody or not.
I don't think emacs belongs in your list. emacs would be a great IDE if only it had a decent text editor.
If you have to manually block people, then you're going to get a lot of fly-by abuse from new accounts that people make to dodge the block lists.
If the system allows users to say "auto-hide all people from my screen who have a 50% troll rating or higher", you're going to get a lot of people abusing the system. It's REALLY, REALLY common on political discussion sites for users to dogpile on people whose opinions they don't like and flag them as trolls, and often they use bots to do it more efficiently.
You've all probably seen it before, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://xkcd.com/1357/
It's about free speech, and how some idiots think free speech means you can say whatever you want without any repercussions. Of course that's not true, as Randall points out, the first amendment just means that the government can't persecute you for simply having an opinion, people however are free to react to you however they want.
However I've noticed this comic being posted by people solely as justification for censorship or as a simple reply to a complaint about censorship. Instead of making an actual argument for censorship specific to the situation at hand they post this... but what does the comic say then? That the most compelling thing you can say for censoring is that it's not illegal to censor? Ironically this is a mirror image of what the title text of the comic says about defending your argument with free speech, only you're defending your censorship with the lack of free speech.
Picture this:
Person A censors Person B
B: "Freedom of speech! It's literally not illegal to say something so I should be able to say what I want without repercussions."
A: "XKCD comic! It's literally not illegal to censor you so I'm going to censor you."
And no one gives any legitimate arguments for justifying their actions or opinions.
Example of higher-level government bodies overriding lower-level ones... This came up in Washington a while back, and could come up again. Gun possession, or pot possession, whichever you're more fond of. If it's legal in your state, but a small town makes it illegal, then what happens if you have $item in your car and you stop through that town to fuel up? Suddenly you've just broken an unreasonable law for no good reason.
Similarly, if that small town makes it illegal to sell GMOs that aren't labeled with a very specific frowny-face logo...you're going to have a lot of inadvertent lawbreakers. Especially if they say something dumb like "you need to label whether it was grown in a field that has ever grown GMOs", something that might never cross your mind. You can be sure there's a lot of creative lawmakers out there, and you never know what magical categories your product will wind up in!
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
