...and 2017 seems pretty much the same as 2016.
...and 2017 seems pretty much the same as 2016.
It's a little different.
For example, now I have to amend a bunch of commits in review with a new copyright message. I didn't have to do that in 2016.
So it's like 2016, but with more work.
There's also that leap second that they added. Although it didn't launch any ICBM's yet, so we might be fine.
2017 will be like 2016, but with more Vladimir, and less sovereignty. :-/
"They" (IERS) add leap seconds all the time. Considering the ICBMs are all 40 years old, if something was gonna happen it probably would have by now.
More Vladimir means less sovereignty by military force. Less Vladimir means less sovereignty by financial force. vv
I'm optimistic about 2017. Also, Google Sheets will finally stop appending 2016 to short hand dates like 1/3 when I'm updating our budget.
Are you speaking from the perspective of your front porch? At the national level, things look pretty grim.
In what regard?
Are you being smart with me? The election of the provincial and childish Manchurian oligarch, what else?
That's what has you so pessimistic? I'm not qualified to opine on what's going to happen with him in charge because nobody knows what's going to happen. I doubt it will be any worse than what his predecessor put us through.
Well, I guess we can all just bookmark this thread and come back to it in four years, from whatever far corner of the galaxy we each choose for self-exile.
Say what you will about Obama, but as an American I can at least be proud of my president for resisting the temptation to subvert our government on behalf of the cancer on the world that is Vladimir Putin.
I understand how you feel it's just that this election cycle turned out in a way that I saw only two terrible options remaining. Having already gone through so much mediocrity in politics, I no longer hinge my optimism to it.
But two evils shouldn't make a "don't care"!
As Louis CK said, if you vote for Trump, you might be a sucker, but if you don’t vote for anyone, you’re an *******.
Well, that doesn't apply to me but it's also bull****.
Yeah, my vote for Clinton really would have helped tip the scales from a California wash for Clinton to a wash for Clinton. Wish I had voted.
Not quite, but it would have been a start.Originally Posted by Reid
Well this thread went to **** fast.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16
Let's try to make it great again, then.
The new year used to cause problems because I'd write the wrong year on checks. Nowadays I don't even write checks. Argh.
Yeah, I'm down to probably a couple a year. I thought I ran out of checks and was thinking about ordering some but then I found a couple of books. One with an address I haven't lived at since 2003 and the other since 2013. Screw it, they still work.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16
Congratulations on finding your s̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶a̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶p̶i̶c̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶v̶o̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ checkbook, Wookie.
Last edited by Reverend Jones; 01-02-2017 at 02:38 PM.
By the way, am I only the male in this thread who thinks something entirely different every time my brain completes the ellipsis in the thread title?
Is that sexist?
Today we're taking down Christmas decorations in and around our house. I guess this means it's time to take down the holiday logos as well, eh?
I don't generally do new years resolutions, but I think this year I'm going to read the news less.
Nah, I'm not an SJW, just a man with an appendage.Is that sexist?
Pretty much all you need is the headline anyway.
I try not to read what most people now call "news" at all, except for Hacker News, which is still a decent filter.
On the other hand, when I sit down for lunch, I read the front page of the PDF replica of the print edition of the WSJ, on my (e-ink) Kindle DX. The Financial Times or The Guardian might also be worthy alternatives, but the point here is that there is more value in not being uninformed, than there is any pressing need to be super informed.
Okay, I'll bite. I have no idea what you mean here. I didn't bring up voting. I didn't bring up checks. I don't know what voting or a scam to defeat Bush or Trump that's irrelevant at this point has to do with 2017. I'm white but I've made it no secret to anyone that asks (or on this website) that I supported and voted for Ted Cruz. Seriously, though, checks are more interesting. I hope to use more checks in the future as they say you can manage better deals when paying with cash and if I'm out somewhere and find someone selling something I want I won't be hampered by the fact that I can't use plastic. I was looking at some designs online.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16
Voting (or consequences) will have a lot to do with 2017, come the 20th of this month!
Well, I guess it'd be a surprise for everybody here if I turned out not to have been barking up another wrong tree, but I had taken your comment that the thread had "gone to ****" to mean that my incessant remarks about politics got you hot under the collar, leaving you with the desire to instead discuss a much less incendiary topic (such as ****ing your wife in the ass).I have no idea what you mean here.
Still, if politics are really that disinteresting to you, I guess you could always wait a few months or years for politics to come to you when the **** begins hitting the fan in sufficient volume.
Since you say you voted for a non-candidate / third party candidate, the "scam" (did you mean to say scheme?) known as NaderTrading would have been perfectly relevant to you, if only pre-election (but then again, I was responding to Reid).
Last edited by Reverend Jones; 01-02-2017 at 07:49 PM.
Done deal but I know where you're coming from here.
No, that was pretty much all about your irrelevant scam but thanks for rising to the highest levels of douchebaggery!
I'm not disinterested in politics and the **** has been hitting the fan for years.
I believe in the electoral system we have in place and a scheme to evade it doesn't interest me.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16
Let me make an analogy. Say that every physician you saw for the past five years failed to resolve your every ailment. Does that mean you should throw your hands in the air and go with an outright quack?
Last edited by Reverend Jones; 01-02-2017 at 08:00 PM.
Okay. Good luck with orange Hitler.
Okay, I didn't mean to make it so personal, so I apologize for the insults, if the idea of vote swapping really is what was so morally offensive to you. I'm a little curious as to why you think that, though.
What, really? Why?
I can't think of a single good argument for the US electoral system that isn't an appeal to tradition. And not even a very good appeal, since what the US has today is very different from what the founding fathers wanted.
When I woke up this morning, I had a boner.
See? This man knows what's up.
I hardly think these comments are appropriate.
I would say I prefer the electoral college system to the popular vote alternative so many pine for. I would say that in that regard our system is very close to the original idea. What certainly is not is the business of political parties and I'm not entirely sure what I think can or should be done about them. Regardless, my comment was in reference to a scheme to evade the constitutional provisions regarding our election process. Other than that, this seems like kind of a tired topic for most of us.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16
Let's be clear here. Do you like the Electoral College, or do you like that voters in less important, low-density states have more sway? These statements are not the same. You do not require one in order to have the other.
What the US has today is certainly not close to the original idea. We know this because the founding fathers said so. The original idea was for white male land-owners from each town to decide which of their friends is the smartest, and appoint that guy to research the candidates and choose one. The entire point of the Electoral College was to insulate the selection of president, as much as possible, from the will of the people. Universal suffrage and pledged electors is the literal opposite of the original idea.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote