Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 50 minutes ago, Parliament said:

    Again, like I said, our MIC fucking rocks.  Why can't the Europeans do the same.

    Production of shells is something both Europe and the US haven't been great at. We've been able to send more ammo because we have huge stock piles, not because our production exceeds our European allies. Go take a look at the production capacity of South Korea and you'll see how inadequate our production is in comparison.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  2. 38 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    He’s terrible but yes.  You can’t press for someone to be a statesman and show bipartisan ship then punish them for doing it. McCarthy got the axe for being a liar and dishonest with Ds.

     

    Go win the House and get the speakership. Till then, the lesson for Mike is that being an honest broker is rewarded. We might want another aid package with a future speaker. 

    We'll likely need another one this year and need to push for it in August. 

  3. 5 minutes ago, Hate said:

    Many years ago when Kinky was running for governor, he held a campaign rally. One news station reported that Kinky was surrounded by hundreds of enthusiastic supporters while yet another news station reported the evening as disappointing because they were expected thousands of people but only hundreds showed up. 
     

    So what was the actual news?

    From what you stated, it sounds like both of them. And those statements aren't inconsistent. 

    • 100s of people could have shown up. 
    • The campaign may have been disappointed because it expected thousands. 

    The question I would have is whether the latter statement was attributed to a campaign source and thus was reporting on the feelings of the campaign or whether the disappointment was an editorialization opinion by the news outlet.   

    • Hook 'Em 5
  4. 2 minutes ago, Crapinon said:

    Thanks! I'll play with it this afternoon. Duplicate parts numbers will be almost nil. I'll let you know how it works and thanks again! 

    Good deal. If you need additional help, post here or PM me. I'm happy to look at the sheet if you want to make it available on google drive or something. 

    btw, I've researched xlookup now and does appear to address all my concerns with vlookup. Good little function that you could also use for this.  

  5. 14 minutes ago, immamac said:

    Being stupid isn’t why those posts were bad and you know it. It’s just easy to pick on. 

    I'm going to disagree. The fact that all of his Biden "lies" are either severe misrepresentation of the facts, grounded in whacko conspiracy theories, or simply lies themselves is the primary reason why his post his bad. His conclusion that Biden is just as bad or worse than Trump stems from his belief in his provable false listing of "lies." The conclusion wouldn't be so bad if he actually had a listing of bad conduct by Biden somewhat similar to Trump's bad conduct. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
  6. 56 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I've never heard of xlookup.  I am a big vlookup guy, what does X do better?

    Vlookup has issues if data isn't sorted. It requires the searching column to be the far left. It breaks if a column is added to an array. It does exact match searches only. It can't search horizontally. It has a fairly low character limit. It works fine when it works. But it can be finicky and break in a lot of ways people don't expect. Xlookup appears to fix some of these issues. index match or sumproduct are more flexible. If you're looking to do anything more complicated, they are good to learn. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. 19 minutes ago, Crapinon said:

    I'll try to get e screenshot but basically what I'm trying to do is this: We have a master sheet of our web products on sheet 1 of an excel file, in alphabetical order by part number. Column A contains the part numbers, B the description, C UOM, D Main category location and E secondary category location.

    I imported our vendors spread sheet on sheet 2 of the same excel file. On that sheet (2) column A is part number, column B Description and Column C is the list price. 

    I would like to get sheet 1, column A to find the corresponding part number on sheet 2, column A and bring the list price from sheet 2, to a new column F on sheet 1.

    Not all the part numbers are from the same vendor so I thought I could import each different vendor price list to a different sheet and repeat the process. I tried using the VLOOKUP function, but the formulas I found on the internet wouldn't work the way I wanted and always returned a null value or "incomplete formula". Thanks again for the help!

    My main concern would be that your vendor part list may have duplicates of parts numbers for some reason or another. Personally, I've always used Index Match rather than a lookup function because it is more flexible. Frankly, I wasn't aware of xlookup until recently and haven't played with it. But my understanding is that it addresses some of the limitations of vlookup. 

    Anyway, based on your description, it would look something like this:

    =index(table2,match([@[part number]], table2[part number],0),3)

    First, I'm assuming you've turned your sheets from ranges into a table (select the data and press control 't'). There are a few reasons to do this, including that it prevents sorting from fucking up your data and that it makes these formulas easier and more readable.

    I'm also assuming the Vendor sheet table is named table2. And I'm assuming your web products sheet is also a table, but the name isn't important for the formula.

    Finally, I'm assuming the name you provided above for the columns is the actual column header. If it isn't, just adjust the formula to match the header column wording. 

    This formula compares the part number in your web product sheet to the part number list in the vendor sheet. When it finds an exact match, it outputs the third column (list price) from your vendor sheet. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

    My point is that the *government* allows a range of alternatives that address the concerns you raise (e.g., protection from the elements) while also ensuring that  the public space will be available to others. I'm not saying they need to go somewhere else. Protest right there. You don't need a tent to do that.

    I understand. And in my post I acknowledged that other mechanisms exist for protesters to address those concerns. That said, I want to focus on the bolded portion of your statement as it has the structure of our system of government backwards. It isn't for the government to decide what freedoms we are "allowed" to have. Rather, it is for us decide what power the government has to restrict those freedoms. By phrasing it as you've done, you've implicitly suggested the government is being generous by letting us do certain things. I'm not saying this is intentional, but this sort of phrasing can color how one views the issue. My suggestion is that the proper view recognizes the government is curtailing our ability to do something because that is ultimately how the exercise of power here works. And, in doing Constitutional analysis we're generally more focused on whether what government restriction was reasonable and necessary for the purpose it sought rather than whether the government could have taken even more restrictive action. 

  9. 7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    And that's why the Governor said he was busting up the protests!  No tents!  Follow the rules!

    Oh wait...that's not what he said at all.  He said, in plain language, that the protests were busted up for their content:

     

     

    Yeah, also this. The rest of it is an interesting legal discussion. This is the primary point. 

  10. 6 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

    Yes, shoes assist in protesting for the reason you mention, and a ban on shoes would burden speech.

    Less restrictive measures exist and are permissible. If you need protection from the elements, then you can use an umbrella, wear a raincoat, or assemble in a covered space. If you need somewhere to sit and rest, bring a folding chair or find a bench. A tent adds absolutely nothing other than exclude people from using public space.

    You're confused about what "less restrictive measures" refers to. In constitutional analysis, it refers to government action, not the actions of the public, i.e., the government could choose an action less restrictive than outlawing the use of tents entirely. Here, that would be time limits and registration/reservation. Further, the solution to a problem caused by government restriction of free speech in a public forum cannot be "go someplace else". Literally, the place people are suppose to be able to go is the public forum. That said, I agree that a no tent policy isn't extremely restrictive and that so long as other government restrictions aren't in play, free speech is only marginally affected by the restriction. As I said, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But because less restrictive options are available to the government, I'm not entirely sure that conclusion is obvious. 

  11. 2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    It's hot and humid.  Who is getting in a tent vs a canopy/shade?  It's clear why the rule was implemented.  There have been tent cities all over the city and for a school trying to attract the best & brightest, it's not the best look for visiting students vs a hypothetical about shoes and rocky ground.  

    What's the difference between a tent vs a canopy? As far as UT's rules go, they appear to be the same thing and would both be prohibited. 

    As to whether the rule was specifically implemented with recent events in mind, I don't know that to be the case. It seems like the tent rule pre-dated the tent city stuff, but maybe I'm wrong. Again, if we weren't talking about a public university with a statutorily designated public forum, concerns about student recruitment/retention would be a pretty fair reason for the rule. But, this is a special place with a special designation. The administration does not get to do with it what it pleases. A reasonable restriction in one context (private university land) is not reasonable in another (public forum). No tents ever is a harsh rule. Why would all of your concerns not be solved with a registration requirement? Why would @Frank Drebin's concerns not be resolved with a registration requirement? 

  12. 18 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

    A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

    If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do. An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used. 

  13. 17 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Yesterday was not Precrime.  There was a rule.  It was enforced.   You are writing essays on whether or not that rule was "reasonable" and ignoring the reality which is whatever UT's interpretation of the rule was (including, Brisket's 10PM cut-off) it was getting broken.  You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point enjoying your first amendment hypothetical and missing your days in ConLaw debating with the other fucking gunners. 

    I haven't been focused on yesterday. You're spending time dismissing last week and diminishing us pointing out the problem.  That's what I have an issue with. 

  14. 2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

     

    Yeah, I'm quite sure that after the publicity last week, that this week's stuff is attended by more folks outside of the student body. Given that it is a public forum, I'm not sure that is relevant. I also always question reporting that tries to blame protests on outsiders. They weren't UT students, but were they graduates? Austinites? Texans? The UT community is much broader than its students. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  15. Just now, BabaYaga said:

    Is that not the case now?  Tents having curfew times of 10pm?

    Well that is an interesting question. The rule as written as vague. It could either mean no tents at all, ever, or no tents past 10 pm. The administration chose to enforce it as no tents ever. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

    No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

  17. 5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    The argument is that by setting up tents, you are taking a public space and rendering it occupied and unusable to other members of the public.

    That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...