Comment Re:Bugs in the demo (Score 1) 99
In the race card demo
It's quite saddening to see Mozilla playing the race card. However, I'm glad to report that I'm getting ~22 FPS using Firefox 16.0.2 on OS X 10.7.5.
In the race card demo
It's quite saddening to see Mozilla playing the race card. However, I'm glad to report that I'm getting ~22 FPS using Firefox 16.0.2 on OS X 10.7.5.
There's a difference between defending dogma and noting that someone appears to be making gross generalizations. I did the latter, and if anything you seem to be persisting in defending your own dogma at this point.
I'll ask another question. Do you believe there might be value in sitting down over a cup of coffee with someone like me, with my admitted political leanings (again, not to be confused with the particular beliefs of anyone else), and just having a nice afternoon talk about whatever comes up? That's how I prefer to have these sorts of discussions, as it seems the participants gain the opportunity learn more about who the other person actually is as a whole being.
So again, my objective in the previous post was quite removed from any attempt to defend or assail any particular approach to politics. Instead, it was to see if you might be interested in slowing down for a moment to think of someone as a person, instead of a cog in some political collective. I look forward to your reply.
Please reference this comment thread, which contains a comment I posted in response to what some might perceive as an "attack" on Ayn Rand (a person who undoubtedly doesn't care a bit about it, as she's dead). In broad strokes, if pushed to classify myself in terms of political affiliation, I might reasonably be described as strongly identifying with many of the principles espoused by the Libertarian party.
Based on that single comment thread and my open admission of apparent LP affiliation, I'm curious whether you would presume to make a summary judgement of my character per your post. In different terms, I wonder if you would not only believe that you have a deep understanding of me as a whole person based on this limited criteria, but would also act upon that belief if you believed it would serve to reinforce your particular worldview. I look forward to your reply.
Charitable donations aren't the only way of creating value in the world.
I'm probably wasting my time here as you're posting AC, and it's certainly offtopic, but I feel compelled to respond to this. What you've posted is a perfect example of rejecting a message you would otherwise hold in esteem because you have a personal problem with the core philosophy of the messenger, followed by substitution of a message with that is quite nearly functionally equivalent, yet represents the work of someone you happen to like more.
If anything, I would characterize your behavior as irrational, and thus amusingly at odds with both your reference to meds and the point of both quotes. The end result, at least to my perception, is apparent manifestation of quite an elitist attitude. Are you perchance employed in academia?
You seem insecure. It may surprise you that I don't really care whether you served or not, nor do I consider the fact that I did to be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things. If we're honest, neither of us really matter all that much in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, you seem to be demonstrating an oft-seen reaction to exposure to people who affirm prior service in the context of conversations like these, and I'd guess it's probably based on insecurity stemming from something else in your life. That's too bad, but it is your problem, not mine.
Getting back to the topic of the story, the statement that there was a fuck-up is redundant. That failures occurred is obvious, but the specific nature of those failures and their dependencies are something that neither of us are direct parties to. One of us simply has more subject matter experience here, and is better qualified to point out ignorant and puffed-up speculation on the part of others. Really, the core problem remains that you simply have no basis of experience to speak from. In other words, you don't know what you don't know. That's perfectly okay as long as you can admit it and work forward from there. You don't seem prepared to do that, though.
It doesn't really matter here, but I can't help but note in closing my suspicion that you also wouldn't be prepared to use your closing line in person. Thus, it seems one of us is indeed interested in attempting to prove his manhood, but it isn't me. Have a great day!
A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai