The later versions however may have problems. We were told by IT at work that they were going to roll out Office 2016 and that we needed to upgrade to Yosemite or it wouldn't work.
Enterprise people tend to always want the latest Office despite it never having any new features that anyone needs.
They already got money from the current customers so why continue to pander to them? Now they want new customers with new wallets to extract money from.
This is standard business practice in many places. New customers make you money but old customers are a drain on your financials.
That seems to be a large goal of some far right conservatives - utterly destroy all government. Neo-anarchists. They think local government will work better, but then they revoke local rights if the state government ends up being more conservative than the locals. They're stuck in a fantasy world where everything can go back to the good old days as long as the government stops doing stuff to screw it up. We can be the 50s nuclear family and watch Father Knows Best forever and ever, the kids never grow up and leave, the lawn never turns brown, and the wife never gets old.
They should be allowed to prevent people from putting their land into productive use IF this harms other people, or the land of other people, or the land of neighboring public lands, or causes multigenerational destruction of the land, etc. There is no ingrained natural or moral right to destroy land that you "own". The only reason people own the land is because at some point in history someone stole it from someone else and the government defended this stealing. Thus the landowners should acknowledge that they wouldn't even have this land without the government's support.
Nixon was very much conservative. However the definitions change over time. The meanings today are almost the reverse of what they were a century ago. Reagan would not be considered conservative enough by today's Tea Party for example.
Nixon was also very practical. And being practical is anathema to idealogues who think that compromising is traitorous. Lowering the voting age should not have been a conservative vs liberal issue, it's just plain fair and practical to extend voting age to those we were drafting to fight and die for us. Negotiating with China may not have been the Goldwater approach, but to accuse Nixon of being pro-communist is ridiculous, the negotiation was practical and good for the country and the president's FIRST job is to govern. He created the EPA but the environment at that time was an utter shambles and the EPA was needed. Some of the most conservative people I know are very staunch environmentalists, though they'd never use that word - they hate garbage on the side of the road, they don't want pollution runoff onto their lands, the love national parks, and to use a Christian idea they want to be good stewards of the land. Back when Nixon was president, the environment was not a conversative vs liberal litmus test like it is today. Ballistic missile treaties is about wanting peace and safety, and any good liberal or conservative should want those.
Remember, Nixon helped to get the segregationist southern Democrats to switch ranks and become Republicans, which caused a strongly conservative change of direction in the party. Nixon was the ultimate authoritarian figure to the younger free speech movement and anti Vietnam war protesters, more so than any of the Democratic leadership. Nixon was for the New Federalism to give more power to local governments, an idea embraced by conservatives.
It will however be impossible to convince some people of that, especially those who think John Boehner was not conservative and secretly a democrat in disguise. Those people are a hopeless cause because they'd rather rant than think.
Except the current congress is very much pro-pollution. Having independent agencies can be a good thing as you don't get politicians mucking with them.
Maybe instead of separate unions for every single subtype of job, there is just one union for all workers. Normally this would be considered the government but it seems most governments have abdicated their roles as protectors of their citizens.
Carrying a gun openly is like being a cat with the claws out. The logical mind says "this stranger is dangerous". The gun is not there for my protection, it is not there to protect life, it is there to take life. Maybe the life of a robber, but it's still a life. I'd rather have my wallet taken than to take a life; but I think those who openly carary guns don't think that way.
The NRA needs to go back to being about gun safety instead of gun flaunting and political grand standing.
Don't forget bikes. They'll hit pedestrians too. If they won't slow down for cars then they won't slow down for walkers either. Only making left turns is actually helpful when you can manage it (though some streets won't allow left turns).
The residents, especially those with some economic means, need to learn that it's ok to cross the border and live somewhere else rather than treat the city as a walled off commune.
Except that in reality all the other patrons in Starbucks do feel intimidated when grumpy men show up and start to flaunting their guns. If someone shows up in a classroom carrying a gun, it is a logical and sane response to want to be in a different location.
I've had a lot of gun owners in my family. None of them openly carried them unless they were hunting, and they always kept them unloaded. Even those in the NRA never took them down to the store when they went shopping and they certainly never took them to school.
This may be true for terrorists. But most mass shooters don't seem to aim for the guards first. These are unhinged people, they're not thinking logically. They want to kill the people who they think need killing before they're taken down. If they kill the guards first then the other targets get away.
But there were armed people on campus, despite being "gun free". They're called campus police.
And Finland had a mass shooting a few years back. And just like most mass shootings in the US the shooter did not hunt for a good place to find victims, but was previously associated with that location (a school). Just like most mass shootings in the US, race or class had nothing to do with the shootings. There are a large number or people in Finland who shoot guns as a hobby as well, and gun ownership is up around 30%. In a many ways it's very much like the US except for size.
Black on black shootings and people cluck their tongues and say "glad I don't live there". White on white shootings and people say "something needs to be done!"
This is also the reason the voting age was lowered to 18 in the US. If they're old enough to be drafted and die for pointless reasons, then they're old enough to vote against the people who create the wars.
"Gun free" is not intended to be a message to criminals. It is a message that in an area where guns are allowed to be carried on the streets, that they must be left behind when entering certain areas. Ie, in my home you can not bring your gun, no matter how much you whine that I will be safer if you bring your guns inside. Schools may be public but they are allowed to make restrictions on who or what can enter. Learning is easier when there are not a lot of open carry advocates walking around intimidating people.
Slashdot Mirror
Powerful you have become. The Timothy I sense in you.
The later versions however may have problems. We were told by IT at work that they were going to roll out Office 2016 and that we needed to upgrade to Yosemite or it wouldn't work.
Enterprise people tend to always want the latest Office despite it never having any new features that anyone needs.
They already got money from the current customers so why continue to pander to them? Now they want new customers with new wallets to extract money from.
This is standard business practice in many places. New customers make you money but old customers are a drain on your financials.
Except that they want to grow the portion of the government that consumes the largest amount of the federal budget, the military.
That seems to be a large goal of some far right conservatives - utterly destroy all government. Neo-anarchists. They think local government will work better, but then they revoke local rights if the state government ends up being more conservative than the locals. They're stuck in a fantasy world where everything can go back to the good old days as long as the government stops doing stuff to screw it up. We can be the 50s nuclear family and watch Father Knows Best forever and ever, the kids never grow up and leave, the lawn never turns brown, and the wife never gets old.
They should be allowed to prevent people from putting their land into productive use IF this harms other people, or the land of other people, or the land of neighboring public lands, or causes multigenerational destruction of the land, etc. There is no ingrained natural or moral right to destroy land that you "own". The only reason people own the land is because at some point in history someone stole it from someone else and the government defended this stealing. Thus the landowners should acknowledge that they wouldn't even have this land without the government's support.
Nixon was very much conservative. However the definitions change over time. The meanings today are almost the reverse of what they were a century ago. Reagan would not be considered conservative enough by today's Tea Party for example.
Nixon was also very practical. And being practical is anathema to idealogues who think that compromising is traitorous. Lowering the voting age should not have been a conservative vs liberal issue, it's just plain fair and practical to extend voting age to those we were drafting to fight and die for us. Negotiating with China may not have been the Goldwater approach, but to accuse Nixon of being pro-communist is ridiculous, the negotiation was practical and good for the country and the president's FIRST job is to govern. He created the EPA but the environment at that time was an utter shambles and the EPA was needed. Some of the most conservative people I know are very staunch environmentalists, though they'd never use that word - they hate garbage on the side of the road, they don't want pollution runoff onto their lands, the love national parks, and to use a Christian idea they want to be good stewards of the land. Back when Nixon was president, the environment was not a conversative vs liberal litmus test like it is today. Ballistic missile treaties is about wanting peace and safety, and any good liberal or conservative should want those.
Remember, Nixon helped to get the segregationist southern Democrats to switch ranks and become Republicans, which caused a strongly conservative change of direction in the party. Nixon was the ultimate authoritarian figure to the younger free speech movement and anti Vietnam war protesters, more so than any of the Democratic leadership. Nixon was for the New Federalism to give more power to local governments, an idea embraced by conservatives.
It will however be impossible to convince some people of that, especially those who think John Boehner was not conservative and secretly a democrat in disguise. Those people are a hopeless cause because they'd rather rant than think.
Except the current congress is very much pro-pollution. Having independent agencies can be a good thing as you don't get politicians mucking with them.
Maybe instead of separate unions for every single subtype of job, there is just one union for all workers. Normally this would be considered the government but it seems most governments have abdicated their roles as protectors of their citizens.
Carrying a gun openly is like being a cat with the claws out. The logical mind says "this stranger is dangerous". The gun is not there for my protection, it is not there to protect life, it is there to take life. Maybe the life of a robber, but it's still a life. I'd rather have my wallet taken than to take a life; but I think those who openly carary guns don't think that way.
The NRA needs to go back to being about gun safety instead of gun flaunting and political grand standing.
Border of the city.
Meh, it's not happening for me. And I know better than to follow links sent to me by my friends.
Don't forget bikes. They'll hit pedestrians too. If they won't slow down for cars then they won't slow down for walkers either. Only making left turns is actually helpful when you can manage it (though some streets won't allow left turns).
The residents, especially those with some economic means, need to learn that it's ok to cross the border and live somewhere else rather than treat the city as a walled off commune.
Except that in reality all the other patrons in Starbucks do feel intimidated when grumpy men show up and start to flaunting their guns. If someone shows up in a classroom carrying a gun, it is a logical and sane response to want to be in a different location.
I've had a lot of gun owners in my family. None of them openly carried them unless they were hunting, and they always kept them unloaded. Even those in the NRA never took them down to the store when they went shopping and they certainly never took them to school.
This may be true for terrorists. But most mass shooters don't seem to aim for the guards first. These are unhinged people, they're not thinking logically. They want to kill the people who they think need killing before they're taken down. If they kill the guards first then the other targets get away.
But there were armed people on campus, despite being "gun free". They're called campus police.
And Finland had a mass shooting a few years back. And just like most mass shootings in the US the shooter did not hunt for a good place to find victims, but was previously associated with that location (a school). Just like most mass shootings in the US, race or class had nothing to do with the shootings. There are a large number or people in Finland who shoot guns as a hobby as well, and gun ownership is up around 30%. In a many ways it's very much like the US except for size.
Yes, Oregon has a very high number number of republicans. Both inside and outside of Portlandia.
We don't have that many solid red or blue states in the US, the majority of them are purple-ish, like of the color of a two day old black eye.
Black on black shootings and people cluck their tongues and say "glad I don't live there". White on white shootings and people say "something needs to be done!"
Last I checked, the description was "injured".
And if everyone one of them had been secretly packing a pistol, I don't think anything would have changed.
That's not the intent of a gun free zone sign. The presence or absence of a gun free zone would not have helped those students.
This is also the reason the voting age was lowered to 18 in the US. If they're old enough to be drafted and die for pointless reasons, then they're old enough to vote against the people who create the wars.
"Gun free" is not intended to be a message to criminals. It is a message that in an area where guns are allowed to be carried on the streets, that they must be left behind when entering certain areas. Ie, in my home you can not bring your gun, no matter how much you whine that I will be safer if you bring your guns inside. Schools may be public but they are allowed to make restrictions on who or what can enter. Learning is easier when there are not a lot of open carry advocates walking around intimidating people.
It's not public property, so the owners are allowed to prohibit guns. Even a public college is allowed to control access.
I spend a lot of time removing crap from webpages.
That fastest way to do that is to cancel the ISP.