I think the point was that gay sex tends not to help us "to be able to spread", i.e., it's not adaptive. There are some theories that suggest it might be, though, at least in the case of male homosexuality. The whole thing about the more older brothers a man has the more likely they are to be gay has led some to speculate that nature is diverting them from reproduction (which could lead to problems with resources) to providing to their siblings (which helps genes they are likely to share). Presumably on that theory nature found it easier to divert the male sex drive than to turn it off -- which I can believe.
Even if you are particularly desperate, there's so much free porn on the Internet that it's almost pointless to pay for porn. Plus, if you're that desperate, just how hard is it to pick girls up at a bar (or if you're a geek Don Juan, Craigslist)?
That gets a lot more difficult for most men as they get older. I'm guessing most of the people paying for porn are not in their 20s or 30s.
It wasn't just a simple power outage at a data centre, though, as far as I can see. And even if it was, it's still a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether it's worth doing anything about it. If you make all of your systems multiply redundant with no regard for the cost-benefit then you are not going to stay in business for long.
Airlines with outstanding reputation for timliness and customer service probably could charge $25-$50 more per ticket and have the customers grateful for it.
Yes, and other customers will choose the airline that charges $25-$50 less per ticket to save the money, then gripe when they get on the wrong side of the inferior reliability.
The problem is that many aren't quantifiable - too many unknowns - so an airline is incapable of knowing if a backup system is cheaper or not.
But the airline still has to make the call. Pay for a backup for system x or take the hit if it fails. And they can only sensibly make that call if they can make an estimate of how much the hit will cost and how often it's going to happen. And don't forget: multiply redundant systems can fail, too. I've seen a power system based on main and standby UPSs fed by different power supply companies, backed up by main and standby generator sets, each of which comprising main and two standby generators, go down completely at an air traffic control centre (due to one maintenance issue and one design error). Just how much do you want the airlines and airport to spend to make sure something like this doesn't happen? How much are you willing to pay for your ticket?
This simply isn't about the problem. It's about whether the solution has been implemented. Nothing more.
And that is down to whether it is cost-effective to implement the solution. You will never be able to get the probability of failure down to zero. and the cost skyrockets the closer you get to zero. How often do outages like this happen, and how much would it cost to prevent them at every airport worldwide? And to prevent every other conceivable scenario? Yes, it could have been prevented, and lots of other possible outages that didn't happen could have been prevented, but the cost of air tickets would be prohibitive.
Look at it this way. You get taken to court for those crimes and for red-light camera offences. You want to fight the charges? You get to pay anyway, both court fees and with your time. The only difference with red-light camera offences is that you get an alternative, cheaper way out if you want to take it.
I think you'll find that "equivocation" is using different meanings of one word or phrase. I suspect you are thinking of "reservations", the holding back of key information, that allowed them to come much closer to what we would think of as lying than what the husband is doing. Using reservations the husband could answer "No, the dress doesn't make you look fat" whilst "reserving" "As long as it's so dark nobody can see you."
Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.
Wife: "Does this dress make me look fat?"
Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified."
Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide."
Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."
The husband can safely and honestly answer "no" to "Does this dress make me look fat." He might not choose to add "It's not the dress, it's all those burgers and fries."
Maybe if you knew you couldn't hide where your nuclear subs were but everybody else could hide where theirs were then you'd have to "cooperate" in the sense of letting them screw you over every which way they like.
Damn right. The best thing those concerned about taxpayer dollars can do is make sure these jerks get moved to a position where their control-freakery doesn't leave the taxpayer liable. The benefits line springs to mind.
That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion
[citation needed]
(FWIW, the government charter specifically recognizes some Jews as Palestinian).
The trouble is, it is free speech in pretty much the sense that the US has it -- there are limitations in the USA too. I doubt Bradley Manning would (will?) get far on a freedom of speech defence. The situation in both countries is that there is a constitutional right to free speech, but there is a recognition that there are limits to freedom of speech, and government from time to time passes laws restricting speech that might or might not be within those limits; it then gets fought out in the courts.
The UK government seems to be arguing that the threat of racial violence in the UK is so real and imminent that incitement to racial hatred is comparable to shouting fire in a crowded cinema. I happen to think that argument is rubbish, but that's besides the point. There's nothing to stop the US government trying exactly the same thing. If they do then in both the UK and the USA it's then up to the courts to decide whether the argument is valid or whether it's a violation of the relevant constitution.
How about Article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, which trumps UK law, and the government in question (the EU) does enforce it (via the European Court of Human Rights). Sorry, but this whole "The UK doesn't have freedom of speech" is just a US myth, like the myth that we don't have a constitution -- we do, and it's legally enforceable. It can be difficult and expensive to pursue a case, but I don't think the UK is alone in that.
Yes it does, via article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which is (indirectly) binding on all members of the UN. Of course, there are specific pieces of legislation that are problematic in the light of that right. The UK is not unique in having legislation that is -- er-- problematic in terms of its constitution [*cough* Patriot Act *cough*] is it?
Maybe a Kindle would be better. Until you're in the middle of an emergency and you discover that Amazon have remotely bricked it because of an account dispute.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like a lot of those people use their phone number as their password.
Where is the 123 dialing code, then? Looks like it would be a good place to start selling Kleenex.
I kind of feel for this guy:
uanzmg@fpfzxc.com | tZxHgJNlpRERQEkK
as he clearly put some effort into a difficult password and still got fucked.
No he probably didn't, that's why he was on a porn website.
I think the point was that gay sex tends not to help us "to be able to spread", i.e., it's not adaptive. There are some theories that suggest it might be, though, at least in the case of male homosexuality. The whole thing about the more older brothers a man has the more likely they are to be gay has led some to speculate that nature is diverting them from reproduction (which could lead to problems with resources) to providing to their siblings (which helps genes they are likely to share). Presumably on that theory nature found it easier to divert the male sex drive than to turn it off -- which I can believe.
Even if you are particularly desperate, there's so much free porn on the Internet that it's almost pointless to pay for porn. Plus, if you're that desperate, just how hard is it to pick girls up at a bar (or if you're a geek Don Juan, Craigslist)?
That gets a lot more difficult for most men as they get older. I'm guessing most of the people paying for porn are not in their 20s or 30s.
It wasn't just a simple power outage at a data centre, though, as far as I can see. And even if it was, it's still a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether it's worth doing anything about it. If you make all of your systems multiply redundant with no regard for the cost-benefit then you are not going to stay in business for long.
Airlines with outstanding reputation for timliness and customer service probably could charge $25-$50 more per ticket and have the customers grateful for it.
Yes, and other customers will choose the airline that charges $25-$50 less per ticket to save the money, then gripe when they get on the wrong side of the inferior reliability.
The problem is that many aren't quantifiable - too many unknowns - so an airline is incapable of knowing if a backup system is cheaper or not.
But the airline still has to make the call. Pay for a backup for system x or take the hit if it fails. And they can only sensibly make that call if they can make an estimate of how much the hit will cost and how often it's going to happen. And don't forget: multiply redundant systems can fail, too. I've seen a power system based on main and standby UPSs fed by different power supply companies, backed up by main and standby generator sets, each of which comprising main and two standby generators, go down completely at an air traffic control centre (due to one maintenance issue and one design error). Just how much do you want the airlines and airport to spend to make sure something like this doesn't happen? How much are you willing to pay for your ticket?
This simply isn't about the problem. It's about whether the solution has been implemented. Nothing more.
And that is down to whether it is cost-effective to implement the solution. You will never be able to get the probability of failure down to zero. and the cost skyrockets the closer you get to zero. How often do outages like this happen, and how much would it cost to prevent them at every airport worldwide? And to prevent every other conceivable scenario? Yes, it could have been prevented, and lots of other possible outages that didn't happen could have been prevented, but the cost of air tickets would be prohibitive.
I never said it was the same as without the cameras. I said it was the same as with the other offences.
Look at it this way. You get taken to court for those crimes and for red-light camera offences. You want to fight the charges? You get to pay anyway, both court fees and with your time. The only difference with red-light camera offences is that you get an alternative, cheaper way out if you want to take it.
I think you'll find that "equivocation" is using different meanings of one word or phrase. I suspect you are thinking of "reservations", the holding back of key information, that allowed them to come much closer to what we would think of as lying than what the husband is doing. Using reservations the husband could answer "No, the dress doesn't make you look fat" whilst "reserving" "As long as it's so dark nobody can see you."
Sure, what was done in Pennsylvania was a violation of privacy, but the school board wasn't after pictures of the victims undressing.
They say.
If you are right, then you have nothing to hide.
Hmm, let's see how accurate that statement is by using a little political gedankenexperiment.
Husband: "I'm sorry... that information is classified." Wife: "If you are right, then you have nothing to hide." Husband: "OK, since you put it that way, that dress reveals exactly how overweight you are."
The husband can safely and honestly answer "no" to "Does this dress make me look fat." He might not choose to add "It's not the dress, it's all those burgers and fries."
Maybe if you knew you couldn't hide where your nuclear subs were but everybody else could hide where theirs were then you'd have to "cooperate" in the sense of letting them screw you over every which way they like.
Damn right. The best thing those concerned about taxpayer dollars can do is make sure these jerks get moved to a position where their control-freakery doesn't leave the taxpayer liable. The benefits line springs to mind.
A billion tons of material blown away.
But "warming" is caused by "CO2".
Well... if the sun were not there, global warming would not be an issue. I'll grant you that.
A few things about trolls confuse me. How do they use keyboards given the size of their fingers?
Touch keypad and a stylus. Next question.
That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion
[citation needed] (FWIW, the government charter specifically recognizes some Jews as Palestinian).
The trouble is, it is free speech in pretty much the sense that the US has it -- there are limitations in the USA too. I doubt Bradley Manning would (will?) get far on a freedom of speech defence. The situation in both countries is that there is a constitutional right to free speech, but there is a recognition that there are limits to freedom of speech, and government from time to time passes laws restricting speech that might or might not be within those limits; it then gets fought out in the courts.
The UK government seems to be arguing that the threat of racial violence in the UK is so real and imminent that incitement to racial hatred is comparable to shouting fire in a crowded cinema. I happen to think that argument is rubbish, but that's besides the point. There's nothing to stop the US government trying exactly the same thing. If they do then in both the UK and the USA it's then up to the courts to decide whether the argument is valid or whether it's a violation of the relevant constitution.
How about Article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, which trumps UK law, and the government in question (the EU) does enforce it (via the European Court of Human Rights). Sorry, but this whole "The UK doesn't have freedom of speech" is just a US myth, like the myth that we don't have a constitution -- we do, and it's legally enforceable. It can be difficult and expensive to pursue a case, but I don't think the UK is alone in that.
The UK does not have free speech.
Yes it does, via article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which is (indirectly) binding on all members of the UN. Of course, there are specific pieces of legislation that are problematic in the light of that right. The UK is not unique in having legislation that is -- er-- problematic in terms of its constitution [*cough* Patriot Act *cough*] is it?
This is absurd. Tweeting is like saying something on the street in public.
I am not a lawyer, but I know the difference between libel and slander. I'm not sure you do.
Maybe a Kindle would be better. Until you're in the middle of an emergency and you discover that Amazon have remotely bricked it because of an account dispute.
Honestly, I find PoTUS (really, the 'of" should be lower case)
But not "the"?
We need a new category of "Free". As well as "Free as in 'beer'" and "Free as in 'speech'" we need to have "Free as in 'Wishing Well'".