Ya know what is sad? Its the fact nobody can even talk about fucking DESKTOPS here without some FOSSies trying to move the goalposts
Actually people can talk about fucking DESKTOPS, if they fucking make it clear they are talking about fucking DESKTOPS. If you see the your post which you thought was talking about fucking DESKTOPS, it didn't fucking mention fucking DESKTOPS. Its parent didn't, nor grandparent. Grandparent's grandparent mentioned
Linux on all supercomputers, here on slashdot, Google, Amazon, The International Space Station, world governments, Android (eys, it's Linux) on the best phones, etc
- the only post in the ancestry of your post to define any context at all.
TFS and TFA also don't limit themselves to desktops. So it was you who fucking moved the fucking goalposts.
Without looking at it, how can you figure out it is an advertisement or a caution / direction sign / legal announcement / public service announcement? You cannot.
Once you do look at it and it turns out to be an advertisement, you can continue your earlier thought process but your attention has been stolen from you, however little you value it.
Yes, but the one being discussed here is not really back-to-back. The *middle* seat faces backwards, windows and aisle seat face towards the front.
So everyone looks at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap, and also exchange sympathetic looks with other people in similar predicament.
Proof by false authority. Good defence against facts, unfortunately facts cannot be beaten. Facts are on my side.
If not, give examples where law does as much (or more) harm to the criminal as the criminal did to his victim. For every such example, I can give 2 where law does far less to the the criminal than the criminal did to the victim.
I already gave some examples in my earlier posts in this same thread. You gave none, the hypothetical ones are false which you didn't even bother to defend so you know that they are false. A competent person does not have to plead to get their competence acknowledged, competence is evident from their arguments. It is missing from yours, though.
History and law includes law. Law includes last century of law, at least includes current law. In which you woefully misinformed as I pointed out. Then how does citing Roman law validate any of your statements?
Are you under the illusion that there is some "best" written somewhere which if done solves everyone's problems and there is no debate as to what the "best" is? Doing what's "best" according to whom?
1. According to himself? Democracy is no place to apply one's theories on the people you represent. Such a politician better find or establish a monarchy with himself as the dictator.
2. According to the people? Democracy supports this, but people's opinions need some channel to reach the politician. Poll could be the channel. The only problem with polls is that they may not be conducted well - due to sampling issues, wording of question etc.. But if these problems were avoided, poll is actually the only piece of data that matters.
politician who uses a poll as the only piece of data he needs.
Democracy, or any public voting based political system, mandates that people's opinion (majority of them anyway) is the only thing that matters subject to very few well defined rules if it is a constitutional democracy. No other "piece of data" is relevant.
This public opinion could be wrong, and it frequently is. Politician might even know it to be wrong. Still he assumes office to fulfill the wishes of people and has no business having his own opinions.
I am more familiar with western philosophy, legal tradition, and culture going back thousands of years than you would probably realize it.
They tried to get someone kidnapped and kept in a cell for 30 years. Imagine if I just grabbed you and threw you in a cell. What would the sentence for that be? Again... at least 30 years of me in being in a cell, no?
Good luck with your boasting of "familiarity", but you are woefully ignorant of about last century of western legal tradition.
I'm okay sending that person away for 30 years. Because that's effectively what they tried to do to someone else
In most jurisdictions except in middle east, law does a lot less to the criminal than the criminal did to his victim. One murder rarely gets a death sentences - in most of Europe and about half the US, a million murders may not get a death sentence because they have simply done away with the concept. Though cruelly incarcerating someone for a month might get years worth of prison - but that is because many prisons are forbidden to execute "cruel and unusual punishment", or "torture", worded and interpreted differently in different places.
The sword of justice must cut both ways.
Once a rape accusation fails to stick, the ex-accused can typically sue for slander if they have a case. The other things you want to "punish" are already crimes - staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence. What new are you looking for?
Just the accusation failing to stick clearly doesn't deserve much punishment for the accuser, as probably you also agree, because it doesn't prove staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence etc.
You are describing the world as it is, but disguised as "that should be done".
X tells a lie. Y believes it to be not a lie but truth. Y tells the same "lie" to Z, but when Y speaks it, it is not a lie. Because Y is telling it true to the best of his ability and belief.
False does not become true by someone believing it. But lie does become not-lie by someone believing it.
Humans are rarely really still. Crocodiles beat us handily in that department (and in no-rules mixed martial arts too, but I digress). "Thinking hard" also causes lots of semi-voluntary movements.
When sitting, in a chair with back support - these same movements largely get restricted to neck, feet, arms from elbows till finger tips, slight weight shift along the bottom. When standing, new possibilities open up.
It is not unusual to see standing desk people moving feet around - this feet movement is 20 times more energy intensive than sitting feet movement because the feet are supporting much more weight. Same goes for small bends in knee and ankle joints. Arms are also now free to move much more, even backwards. Torso bends when standing are more energy intensive too. People are also motivated to not keep paper, pen, odds and ends very close to the place of work, but arrange it at some distance such that it is 2-3 small steps to fetch them rather than "making a long arm" that people typically do in a sitting desk.
So simply switching sitting to standing does switch sitting issues to standing issues, but while moving larger parts of the body more frequently. Circulation and calorie consumption increase.
And yes, as you too agree, mixing these up and adding some walking is even better.
It's people like you that make Linux users look like petulant idiots.
Spoilt, actually. UI that changes when the user is ready, even when while receiving the latest performance / security / compatibility updates. Not when the corporate overlords want you to switch UI.
I ran Enlightenment (E 16) in my main system for 9 years - 2003 to 2012. Switched (of my own accord) to fluxbox. Still using it. Using FVWM2 on other systems where it makes sense. Not once did a UI change on my main system without my seeking the change. Same configuration file, moved across upgraded hardware.
On non-main systems, I did experiment with Gnome, KDE which change whimsically. But if I avoid Microsoft's stuff, I can keep things stable where it matters.
WHAT ??? Sign up with "insider", which must know your phone number? So share my phone number with the idiots who thought sharing passwords is a great idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know what is sad? Its the fact nobody can even talk about fucking DESKTOPS here without some FOSSies trying to move the goalposts
Actually people can talk about fucking DESKTOPS, if they fucking make it clear they are talking about fucking DESKTOPS. If you see the your post which you thought was talking about fucking DESKTOPS, it didn't fucking mention fucking DESKTOPS. Its parent didn't, nor grandparent. Grandparent's grandparent mentioned
Linux on all supercomputers, here on slashdot, Google, Amazon, The International Space Station, world governments, Android (eys, it's Linux) on the best phones, etc
- the only post in the ancestry of your post to define any context at all.
TFS and TFA also don't limit themselves to desktops. So it was you who fucking moved the fucking goalposts.
Without looking at it, how can you figure out it is an advertisement or a caution / direction sign / legal announcement / public service announcement? You cannot.
Once you do look at it and it turns out to be an advertisement, you can continue your earlier thought process but your attention has been stolen from you, however little you value it.
You must daydream to be able to live with your own arrogant ignorance.
You could have admitted your ignorance directly. This will also do.
Yes, but the one being discussed here is not really back-to-back. The *middle* seat faces backwards, windows and aisle seat face towards the front.
So everyone looks at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap, and also exchange sympathetic looks with other people in similar predicament.
No, you just can't admit that you were wrong about law doing almost as much harm to criminals as the criminal did to the victim.
Awesome, the "competent " guy who is afraid of facts!
Proof by false authority. Good defence against facts, unfortunately facts cannot be beaten. Facts are on my side.
If not, give examples where law does as much (or more) harm to the criminal as the criminal did to his victim. For every such example, I can give 2 where law does far less to the the criminal than the criminal did to the victim.
I already gave some examples in my earlier posts in this same thread. You gave none, the hypothetical ones are false which you didn't even bother to defend so you know that they are false. A competent person does not have to plead to get their competence acknowledged, competence is evident from their arguments. It is missing from yours, though.
History and law includes law. Law includes last century of law, at least includes current law. In which you woefully misinformed as I pointed out. Then how does citing Roman law validate any of your statements?
It didn't validate your position in any relevant way because :
1. Your original point was about the present, not a distant past
2. My dispute was also about the last century of western law practice, as I mentioned adequately in my initial post about it.
I prefer my stubborn and right to your stubborn and wilfully-ignorant-even-after-proven-wrong.
woefully ignorant of about last century of western legal tradition
Glad that you are accepting that your comment amounts to complaining about WESTERN Roman empire TODAY.
I made it long ago - "In most jurisdictions except in middle east, law does a lot less to the criminal than the criminal did to his victim".
If you don't know this one, read some "law for dummies" about a civilized country, preferably with pictures, because dummy you are for sure.
I've made the case of your woeful ignorance of western law. If "I am not" is the best defense you've got, that's not much.
What else do you want? I don't want to humiliate you any more.
doing what's best for the people he represents
Are you under the illusion that there is some "best" written somewhere which if done solves everyone's problems and there is no debate as to what the "best" is? Doing what's "best" according to whom?
1. According to himself? Democracy is no place to apply one's theories on the people you represent. Such a politician better find or establish a monarchy with himself as the dictator.
2. According to the people? Democracy supports this, but people's opinions need some channel to reach the politician. Poll could be the channel. The only problem with polls is that they may not be conducted well - due to sampling issues, wording of question etc.. But if these problems were avoided, poll is actually the only piece of data that matters.
politician who uses a poll as the only piece of data he needs.
Democracy, or any public voting based political system, mandates that people's opinion (majority of them anyway) is the only thing that matters subject to very few well defined rules if it is a constitutional democracy. No other "piece of data" is relevant.
This public opinion could be wrong, and it frequently is. Politician might even know it to be wrong. Still he assumes office to fulfill the wishes of people and has no business having his own opinions.
2 incompatible statements :
I am more familiar with western philosophy, legal tradition, and culture going back thousands of years than you would probably realize it.
They tried to get someone kidnapped and kept in a cell for 30 years. Imagine if I just grabbed you and threw you in a cell. What would the sentence for that be? Again... at least 30 years of me in being in a cell, no?
Good luck with your boasting of "familiarity", but you are woefully ignorant of about last century of western legal tradition.
I'm okay sending that person away for 30 years. Because that's effectively what they tried to do to someone else
In most jurisdictions except in middle east, law does a lot less to the criminal than the criminal did to his victim. One murder rarely gets a death sentences - in most of Europe and about half the US, a million murders may not get a death sentence because they have simply done away with the concept. Though cruelly incarcerating someone for a month might get years worth of prison - but that is because many prisons are forbidden to execute "cruel and unusual punishment", or "torture", worded and interpreted differently in different places.
The sword of justice must cut both ways.
Once a rape accusation fails to stick, the ex-accused can typically sue for slander if they have a case. The other things you want to "punish" are already crimes - staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence. What new are you looking for?
Just the accusation failing to stick clearly doesn't deserve much punishment for the accuser, as probably you also agree, because it doesn't prove staging the whole thing, perjury, falsifying evidence etc.
You are describing the world as it is, but disguised as "that should be done".
Lies cannot become truth
X tells a lie. Y believes it to be not a lie but truth. Y tells the same "lie" to Z, but when Y speaks it, it is not a lie. Because Y is telling it true to the best of his ability and belief.
False does not become true by someone believing it. But lie does become not-lie by someone believing it.
Do you also don't want marketers to use research and statistics to alter their marketing strategy?
How many of us work in an environment full of sick people?
Those many of us who benefit from sick people?
Humans are rarely really still. Crocodiles beat us handily in that department (and in no-rules mixed martial arts too, but I digress). "Thinking hard" also causes lots of semi-voluntary movements.
When sitting, in a chair with back support - these same movements largely get restricted to neck, feet, arms from elbows till finger tips, slight weight shift along the bottom. When standing, new possibilities open up.
It is not unusual to see standing desk people moving feet around - this feet movement is 20 times more energy intensive than sitting feet movement because the feet are supporting much more weight. Same goes for small bends in knee and ankle joints. Arms are also now free to move much more, even backwards. Torso bends when standing are more energy intensive too. People are also motivated to not keep paper, pen, odds and ends very close to the place of work, but arrange it at some distance such that it is 2-3 small steps to fetch them rather than "making a long arm" that people typically do in a sitting desk.
So simply switching sitting to standing does switch sitting issues to standing issues, but while moving larger parts of the body more frequently. Circulation and calorie consumption increase.
And yes, as you too agree, mixing these up and adding some walking is even better.
It's people like you that make Linux users look like petulant idiots.
Spoilt, actually. UI that changes when the user is ready, even when while receiving the latest performance / security / compatibility updates. Not when the corporate overlords want you to switch UI.
I ran Enlightenment (E 16) in my main system for 9 years - 2003 to 2012. Switched (of my own accord) to fluxbox. Still using it. Using FVWM2 on other systems where it makes sense. Not once did a UI change on my main system without my seeking the change. Same configuration file, moved across upgraded hardware.
On non-main systems, I did experiment with Gnome, KDE which change whimsically. But if I avoid Microsoft's stuff, I can keep things stable where it matters.
WHAT ??? Sign up with "insider", which must know your phone number? So share my phone number with the idiots who thought sharing passwords is a great idea?
You must be a moron.
When the law is the way you want, probably Uber will be law abiding. Since it isn't, uber is illegal.
It is 4 am, so you drive at 80 mph. If it were 8 am you would (be able to) drive at 7 mph.
Not sure, but if you don't do it completely, you get windows.