> I wonder what is next? After suing their customers, suing a sovereign country was the next logical business move. After Ireland, they will sue the United Nations, only to learn they have less money than Ireland. So then they'll sue Portugal and Greece. Then God.
Then they'll come back to Earth and sue their distribution chain, then their singers and songwriters, and finally, in a final act of desperate cannibalism, they'll finally sue the Master of all Piracy - Weird Al.
As ubiquitous as CPUs have become, maybe understanding how they work is becoming a good idea in general, and not as "specific" to vocational programmers as it once was.
Facebook can refuse to co-operate. Then congress could start an investigation and subpoena the information, which facebook would be obliged to obey. And then congress could write new legislation targeting facebook.
Or, facebook could try to quietly ignore the request and ratchet up their sponsorship of legislators.
in order to sell people on [x], [advertisers] have emphasized the [benefits] of [x] in ideal conditions and failed to tell people that in most ordinary [usage] they will not come close to meeting the [benefits advertised].
Sounds like advertising industry best practices to me.
We bought a Prius six years ago so my wife could use the carpool lanes for an hour-long commute through Los Angeles. We didn't get the EPA's mileage, but it's still double the mileage of our other car.
You can be forgiven for your false accusation, because understanding a two sentence summary could be a lot to ask of an AC. Especially one who fancies himself a psychoanalyst of overseas strangers whilst being undecided on his own mental state.
...the 2nd amendment. The framers knew that at some point the governance may need a solid kick in the pants
So who do we shoot? Cops? Soldiers? Elected officials?
The People could take the country back, but in our context, bloodshed is not the way.
The way forward is to build the civilization we want, ignoring any laws that impede our progress. With simple civil disobedience and nullification we have the necessary, and sufficient, tools to reclaim our government.
The trick is to get all The People to understand the problem and unite in the cause, and killing our opponents won't accomplish that.
Then any restraint of those human rights would need a constitutionally and legal valid reason.
Your point is valid, but the government will never give a damn about breaking laws unless there's somebody to enforce those laws.
Constitutionally, that's Congress, which means nobody. Maybe a few representatives not in POTUS' party might mention something, but POTUS is more likely to be impeached for hiding an affair than for starting unprovoked wars or suspending habeas corpus.
The Constitution is a curious historical artifact that no longer has any practical meaning.
First off, I agree with your original post, and I didn't intend to start an argument. I was just curious if a claim that sounded a little exaggerated could actually be true. And theoretically it could be true, but perhaps we'd all agree such cases would be... unusual.
the dealership would happily give them a 6 year loan
You may be defending your words too hard. I think "could afford to buy a brand new car" is not really the same as "could get a loan for a brand new car."
But that's ok. Your original post was good, you're good, we're all good. Have a happy new year.
To buy the cheapest brand new car, 2012 Nissan Versa, they would have had to start saving in 2001. To buy the lowest end version of the best selling car, a Ford F-series truck, they would have had to start saving in 1989.
So premium coffee is definitely good money down the toilet, but probably not a "brand new car." Practically speaking, they could buy a great computer every year or two.
That site bills itself as "Commentary... by Anthony Watts." Wikipedia says he's a weatherman who started a weather graphics company
Accusing someone of breaking a law is sort of serious. Please support your claim. What is the text of the law IPCC broke, and what is the proof they broke it?
And how do you know Anthony Watts has not hidden any "data or methods"?
But to answer your rhetorical question, the first time we spent $4 for a latte probably wasn't unthinking. We stop thinking after it becomes a habit. And most of us probably don't have a habit of plunking down $1 every morning for an app.
Certainly technical knowledge is important, but I don't see how learning it for its own sake is better than learning it on the road to creating something.
Captain, I deeply respect your courage and sacrifice. Your analysis, however, needs more depth.
Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.
Yes, we all do.
Opinions diverge when into the picture butts in "reality", which is far more complicated than any of us would like.
Unfortunately, outside actors have forced us into situations where we have to chose between a few hundred fighting or a few million dying.
"Forced us"? Is there a gun to our head?
We bear no inherent responsibility for the choices of "outside actors" or for the outcome of 3rd party conflicts. We are a sovereign nation, with the free agency to do, or not do, whatever the hell we want.
Historically our wars are not waged simply to righteously defend innocent civilians from unprovoked aggression. In my lifetime each of our wars has been absolutely elective, motivated by "american interests" that had little to do with the cause of freedom, world peace, or blind justice.
The Taliban didn't need our help. Our psychopathic drive to jump into every conflict on earth (ok, maybe we largely ignore Africa) is a big part of why America is bankrupt and widely despised.
Interesting, but I think once a habitat is destroyed, dependent species are already effectively extinct. Even if we kept growing the creatures in labs/zoos, they wouldn't be viable outside, so the species would still be as dead as Latin.
Slashdot Mirror
> I wonder what is next?
After suing their customers, suing a sovereign country was the next logical business move. After Ireland, they will sue the United Nations, only to learn they have less money than Ireland. So then they'll sue Portugal and Greece. Then God.
Then they'll come back to Earth and sue their distribution chain, then their singers and songwriters, and finally, in a final act of desperate cannibalism, they'll finally sue the Master of all Piracy - Weird Al.
As ubiquitous as CPUs have become, maybe understanding how they work is becoming a good idea in general, and not as "specific" to vocational programmers as it once was.
Probably not yet.
Facebook can refuse to co-operate. Then congress could start an investigation and subpoena the information, which facebook would be obliged to obey. And then congress could write new legislation targeting facebook.
Or, facebook could try to quietly ignore the request and ratchet up their sponsorship of legislators.
The problem is not individual elected officials, it's the entire machine. You can't really change the machine just by swapping nuts and dolts.
The article claims "small cracks that have appeared on the wing ribs". Airbus calls it "some noncritical wing rib-skin attachments".
This sounds like the difference between a cracked bone and a sore ligament. One really is less worrisome than the other.
I love our Prius, but the savings on fuel probably won't pay for the added cost of the hybrid powertrain within the car's lifetime.
A plug-in hybrid charged at non-peak rates or on-site solar could be a different story.
in order to sell people on [x], [advertisers] have emphasized the [benefits] of [x] in ideal conditions and failed to tell people that in most ordinary [usage] they will not come close to meeting the [benefits advertised].
Sounds like advertising industry best practices to me.
We bought a Prius six years ago so my wife could use the carpool lanes for an hour-long commute through Los Angeles. We didn't get the EPA's mileage, but it's still double the mileage of our other car.
You can be forgiven for your false accusation, because understanding a two sentence summary could be a lot to ask of an AC. Especially one who fancies himself a psychoanalyst of overseas strangers whilst being undecided on his own mental state.
FWIW, I'd say yes, you appear to be confused.
...the 2nd amendment. The framers knew that at some point the governance may need a solid kick in the pants
So who do we shoot? Cops? Soldiers? Elected officials?
The People could take the country back, but in our context, bloodshed is not the way.
The way forward is to build the civilization we want, ignoring any laws that impede our progress. With simple civil disobedience and nullification we have the necessary, and sufficient, tools to reclaim our government.
The trick is to get all The People to understand the problem and unite in the cause, and killing our opponents won't accomplish that.
Then any restraint of those human rights would need a constitutionally and legal valid reason.
Your point is valid, but the government will never give a damn about breaking laws unless there's somebody to enforce those laws.
Constitutionally, that's Congress, which means nobody. Maybe a few representatives not in POTUS' party might mention something, but POTUS is more likely to be impeached for hiding an affair than for starting unprovoked wars or suspending habeas corpus.
The Constitution is a curious historical artifact that no longer has any practical meaning.
Some of us walk on eggshells, some of us throw eggs. If the worst that could happen is deportation, I could egg a tyrant.
Yes. I'm sure somebody can.
If you meant to ask if AT&T will follow this Chilean law, then I'd say you'd sooner get Disney to endorse the Pirate Party.
Well, I think they're cute.
Your ignorance proves you're too lazy to google "climate change raw data", but doesn't prove that the IPCC broke some as-yet-unspecified law.
First off, I agree with your original post, and I didn't intend to start an argument. I was just curious if a claim that sounded a little exaggerated could actually be true. And theoretically it could be true, but perhaps we'd all agree such cases would be... unusual.
the dealership would happily give them a 6 year loan
You may be defending your words too hard. I think "could afford to buy a brand new car" is not really the same as "could get a loan for a brand new car."
But that's ok. Your original post was good, you're good, we're all good. Have a happy new year.
spending enough on lattes that they could afford to buy a brand new car
$4 * 50 weeks/year * 5 workdays/week = $1,000/year
To buy the cheapest brand new car, 2012 Nissan Versa, they would have had to start saving in 2001. To buy the lowest end version of the best selling car, a Ford F-series truck, they would have had to start saving in 1989.
So premium coffee is definitely good money down the toilet, but probably not a "brand new car." Practically speaking, they could buy a great computer every year or two.
That site bills itself as "Commentary... by Anthony Watts." Wikipedia says he's a weatherman who started a weather graphics company
Accusing someone of breaking a law is sort of serious. Please support your claim. What is the text of the law IPCC broke, and what is the proof they broke it?
And how do you know Anthony Watts has not hidden any "data or methods"?
Great point.
But to answer your rhetorical question, the first time we spent $4 for a latte probably wasn't unthinking. We stop thinking after it becomes a habit. And most of us probably don't have a habit of plunking down $1 every morning for an app.
Why not? Who is more authoritative, and why?
Certainly technical knowledge is important, but I don't see how learning it for its own sake is better than learning it on the road to creating something.
Captain, I deeply respect your courage and sacrifice. Your analysis, however, needs more depth.
Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.
Yes, we all do.
Opinions diverge when into the picture butts in "reality", which is far more complicated than any of us would like.
Unfortunately, outside actors have forced us into situations where we have to chose between a few hundred fighting or a few million dying.
"Forced us"? Is there a gun to our head?
We bear no inherent responsibility for the choices of "outside actors" or for the outcome of 3rd party conflicts. We are a sovereign nation, with the free agency to do, or not do, whatever the hell we want.
Historically our wars are not waged simply to righteously defend innocent civilians from unprovoked aggression. In my lifetime each of our wars has been absolutely elective, motivated by "american interests" that had little to do with the cause of freedom, world peace, or blind justice.
> Is that an inherent property of capitalism?
Is genocide an inherent property of marxism?
Or how about a third option:
c) do nothing
The Taliban didn't need our help. Our psychopathic drive to jump into every conflict on earth (ok, maybe we largely ignore Africa) is a big part of why America is bankrupt and widely despised.
the overpriced adafruit outfit
As a fellow PDP-11 user, you may be unaware that currently fruit is in fashion, and that since 1913 the value of the dollar has dropped 96%.
Interesting, but I think once a habitat is destroyed, dependent species are already effectively extinct. Even if we kept growing the creatures in labs/zoos, they wouldn't be viable outside, so the species would still be as dead as Latin.