I'm pretty sure the space between those tall building in that video footage is not "commercial airspace". As in, no commercial flights are routed through there.
Please correct me if commercial flights are routed between those buildings. Specifically, interstate commercial flights.
I also don't let them keep their favorite spyware and trojan horse programs.
You may read that "I also" to mean "Everything someone else said they do, I also do", but that isn't what I said.
In addition -- or if you prefer, also -- slashmydots never says he does this against his customers' wishes. He could very well mean they specifically ask him to remove Bing because they think it's a steaming pile of crap, and he valiantly toils away at fullfilling his customers' requests. Also, their search provider could already be set to Google or Yahoo or Ask, before they give him their laptop, so there would be no change needed of default search providers.
Did I say I have a problem with Bing. Bing isn't spyware. I prefer Google for myself, but to each his own.
I would ask the customer if they wanted to switch, and I recommend Firefox over IE. But if the customer is knowledgeable on the subject, I don't force my opinion on them. I simply explain why I prefer something else, and leave the decision to them.
As for Firefox, the only addon I always recommend is Adblock, with the Popup addition. I then show the difference between viewing imdb.com with Adblock under FF, and without ad blocking under IE. Security issues aside, that is the biggest selling point for Firefox.
Which is why I am nothing like that character. I actually explain most of what I have to do, in terms they can actually understand. I show them some of the things they can do so they won't have to call me for the simplest stuff (desktop changes or finding files they lost). Then I let them know that I realize they won't remember most of it, but the part they do remember will be beneficial.
I still don't let my customers have a dozen toolbars installed, coupon and save-a-dime search crap, or even WeatherBug.
They want their computer to actually work for them, not someone who is making money by slowing it down and sending them to webpages they don't ask for.
Microsoft also had much more than just the default setting, including a history of abuse that Google's worst behavior is nothing like, and control of about 95% of the consumer and business computer market.
This case is nothing like Microsoft's case other than a company producing an operating system which defaults to their own products.
How do you change the default search functionality in Android?
There is a google search bar in my phone (Android 4.4.2), which, if i tap, long tap, tap and tap menu button, and any other combos, won't offer me an option to change it.
I have a Google search bar on my phone too. It is a gizmo/widget app, and I can delete it if I want to. In fact, I just checked, and can slide to another page, and add a second one there. Then I can delete it. Because it is just another app.
Go find an app for your favorite search engine, install it, and put that gizmo on your phone's desktop. If such an app doesn't exist, that is not Google's fault.
It was impossible to do this until the past 2-3 years.
Tracfone was doing this in 1997. I have had unlimited voice for $50/month since 2006 with MetroPCS. That covers unlimited data now that I have a smartphone instead of my old flip phone. If I wanted to get a new number, I could drop that to $40/month.
There have always been options outside of the regular ATT/Verizon crap.
So you are saying everyone who ever listened to the radio while driving got into accidents constantly.
Or maybe your argument isn't actually as strong as you make it out to be.
And, yes, I do turn down the radio if I need to pay more attention to what is around me. But that doesn't mean I can never have it on while driving down the road.
I believe you. But that precludes talking to other people in the vehicle too, and as other have pointed out, many car accidents are caused by people talking to others in the car.
Making this just about whether a person is on the phone or not is the issue. Someone yesterday pointed out that the issue should simply be distracted driving, which is what the police in his area are concerned with. Not what the cause of the distracted driving is. Phones are no more dangerous than burgers, nagging wives, or yapping dogs.
Most of the accidents I see around here, and they happen every day, are not caused by cell phones. So why focus on one thing like this? It's because it is an obvious target -- people talking on cell phones and ignoring the road. Doesn't mean it is a sensible target, to the exclusion of all else.
Excuse me, please. Where did I say I drive fine, whether on the phone or not?
I said I talk all the time on my cell phone while driving. In fact I meant to say that I place calls as well, but that thought got truncated before it go to my fingers.
The line about my accidents wasn't simply for laughs.
You're so off kilter by this idea that you're conflating two very different scenarios - the criminal justice system is rather different than national defense in a number of ways,
But quite similar in a number of ways. Do governments have the right to decide to protect their citizens from attack? Do governments have the right to take a life if needed to protect their citizens?
How much difference is it if the threat is from an external source or internal source?
but your emotionality about the subject is preventing you from making a reasoned argument, and you're flailing around trying to make something - anything - stick.
You are the one making the argument, that only people with no emotional attachment to the offense are qualified to deal with the offender. In fact, only people with no attachment to any offense are so qualified. Everyone else is a mindless animal out for blood.
The only group of professionals I see that fit your requirement of detachment is the mental health doctors and therapists. This is also the group that time and again wants to set murderers and rapists free, because the criminal -- oh, sorry, the patient -- yes, the patient has been cured and is no longer a threat. Until they do it again.
Which is exactly the opposite of what any person should want from a criminal justice system.
What we should want from a criminal justice system is to know our families are safe from random or deliberate attack. We should want to ensure those who would attack and kill average citizens are removed from society, with no chance to harm any one else. That is the simple truth of what the criminal justice system should be designed to provide.
We shouldn't want people desperate to extract revenge, but rather people who want to minimize the overall harm done to society.
I agree, we shouldn't want people who are desperate to extract revenge. But that doesn't mean that the system does not have some amount of revenge built in. And it doesn't mean that all punishment is about revenge. Sometimes it is simply doing what needs to be done to prevent a future attack on another person.
If I am ever charged with a crime, I want people who aren't going to let some flowery description of what people THINK I might have done causing them to undervalue evidence that is exculpatory. Wouldn't you want the same?
And that applies how in cases such as this, where there is overwhelming evidence that the convicted person performed inhumane acts on a child, and finally killed him?
Let's say you were accused of raping and murdering a child - would you really want the public's demand for revenge, the jury's disgust with the crime, the prosecutor's inflammatory rhetoric to sway the jury, or would you rather the evidence be evaluated instead, emotions put to the side?
I begin to see your problem.
You can't separate the sentence from the prosecution.
Of course I would want the trial to be as fair as it could be. But if convicted I would want the sentence to ensure the defendant could never do those actions again. Even if the defendant was myself.
You think you are the first to attempt to show I'm wrong because I don't think about it happening to me? This is one of the topics I have been discussing for a couple decades with various people, both in person and online. Trust me, my stance doesn't change just because I may be the one facing the death penalty.
Further, were I actually convicted of a crime, I would want people to decide on what to do with me to be people who are able to resist the urge to merely punish me, but rather seek to rehabilitate me or, if they believe it isn't possible, to be able to recognize that removing me from society so tha
They're very emotional about this kind of thing, and as a result they are the absolute worst kind of people to have any kind of say into how people who commit (or, at least, are convicted of committing) crimes are treated.
Instead it should be the doctors and therapists who decide the person who butchered four people wasn't really responsible, and we should all show our love for him instead of punishing him? Those people should be in charge of deciding how murderers are treated?
Do you also think that the people in Ukraine who feel that Putin is an enemy who is invading their country are the worst kind of people to decide how to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the space between those tall building in that video footage is not "commercial airspace". As in, no commercial flights are routed through there.
Please correct me if commercial flights are routed between those buildings. Specifically, interstate commercial flights.
Yes Susan. But don't worry, they'll grow out after your first baby.
Then your husband will never leave them alone.
No. What I said was:
I also don't let them keep their favorite spyware and trojan horse programs.
You may read that "I also" to mean "Everything someone else said they do, I also do", but that isn't what I said.
In addition -- or if you prefer, also -- slashmydots never says he does this against his customers' wishes. He could very well mean they specifically ask him to remove Bing because they think it's a steaming pile of crap, and he valiantly toils away at fullfilling his customers' requests. Also, their search provider could already be set to Google or Yahoo or Ask, before they give him their laptop, so there would be no change needed of default search providers.
Have another whack at the windmill if you want.
Did I say I have a problem with Bing. Bing isn't spyware. I prefer Google for myself, but to each his own.
I would ask the customer if they wanted to switch, and I recommend Firefox over IE. But if the customer is knowledgeable on the subject, I don't force my opinion on them. I simply explain why I prefer something else, and leave the decision to them.
As for Firefox, the only addon I always recommend is Adblock, with the Popup addition. I then show the difference between viewing imdb.com with Adblock under FF, and without ad blocking under IE. Security issues aside, that is the biggest selling point for Firefox.
I also don't let them play with loaded guns, or drink bleach, or swim in the swamp out back.
Sorry if my level of concern for my customers' computers isn't in line with your personal beliefs. Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all.
Which is why I am nothing like that character. I actually explain most of what I have to do, in terms they can actually understand. I show them some of the things they can do so they won't have to call me for the simplest stuff (desktop changes or finding files they lost). Then I let them know that I realize they won't remember most of it, but the part they do remember will be beneficial.
I still don't let my customers have a dozen toolbars installed, coupon and save-a-dime search crap, or even WeatherBug.
They want their computer to actually work for them, not someone who is making money by slowing it down and sending them to webpages they don't ask for.
Microsoft also had much more than just the default setting, including a history of abuse that Google's worst behavior is nothing like, and control of about 95% of the consumer and business computer market.
This case is nothing like Microsoft's case other than a company producing an operating system which defaults to their own products.
How do you change the default search functionality in Android?
There is a google search bar in my phone (Android 4.4.2), which, if i tap, long tap, tap and tap menu button, and any other combos, won't offer me an option to change it.
I have a Google search bar on my phone too. It is a gizmo/widget app, and I can delete it if I want to. In fact, I just checked, and can slide to another page, and add a second one there. Then I can delete it. Because it is just another app.
Go find an app for your favorite search engine, install it, and put that gizmo on your phone's desktop. If such an app doesn't exist, that is not Google's fault.
And when you have Chicken stock on your phone, you are a messy cook.
I also don't let them keep their favorite spyware and trojan horse programs.
Do you have a problem with that?
I had to read chmod's post three times to figure out which letter you dropped.
Welcome to the "Dropped R's Club", there's punch and doughnuts available to the right.
So, what was that? Some sort of pedestrian accident?
--(inspired by) George Carlin
I tend to hit the "i" instead of the "e". But I usually catch myself, and correct it.
We just called him Zak. Good guy.
Why don't your youngest two wives deserve their own phones?
It was impossible to do this until the past 2-3 years.
Tracfone was doing this in 1997. I have had unlimited voice for $50/month since 2006 with MetroPCS. That covers unlimited data now that I have a smartphone instead of my old flip phone. If I wanted to get a new number, I could drop that to $40/month.
There have always been options outside of the regular ATT/Verizon crap.
So you are saying everyone who ever listened to the radio while driving got into accidents constantly.
Or maybe your argument isn't actually as strong as you make it out to be.
And, yes, I do turn down the radio if I need to pay more attention to what is around me. But that doesn't mean I can never have it on while driving down the road.
Yes, she was naked in a bowl of grits.
Wait a sec, wrong meme.
Sorry.
Are you saying to throw Hitler at the child playing in the road? Sounds kinda dangerous. ;^)
I believe you. But that precludes talking to other people in the vehicle too, and as other have pointed out, many car accidents are caused by people talking to others in the car.
Making this just about whether a person is on the phone or not is the issue. Someone yesterday pointed out that the issue should simply be distracted driving, which is what the police in his area are concerned with. Not what the cause of the distracted driving is. Phones are no more dangerous than burgers, nagging wives, or yapping dogs.
Most of the accidents I see around here, and they happen every day, are not caused by cell phones. So why focus on one thing like this? It's because it is an obvious target -- people talking on cell phones and ignoring the road. Doesn't mean it is a sensible target, to the exclusion of all else.
Excuse me, please. Where did I say I drive fine, whether on the phone or not?
I said I talk all the time on my cell phone while driving. In fact I meant to say that I place calls as well, but that thought got truncated before it go to my fingers.
The line about my accidents wasn't simply for laughs.
Demonstrating my point pretty well, thank you.
No. Not in the least.
You're so off kilter by this idea that you're conflating two very different scenarios - the criminal justice system is rather different than national defense in a number of ways,
But quite similar in a number of ways. Do governments have the right to decide to protect their citizens from attack?
Do governments have the right to take a life if needed to protect their citizens?
How much difference is it if the threat is from an external source or internal source?
but your emotionality about the subject is preventing you from making a reasoned argument, and you're flailing around trying to make something - anything - stick.
You are the one making the argument, that only people with no emotional attachment to the offense are qualified to deal with the offender. In fact, only people with no attachment to any offense are so qualified. Everyone else is a mindless animal out for blood.
The only group of professionals I see that fit your requirement of detachment is the mental health doctors and therapists. This is also the group that time and again wants to set murderers and rapists free, because the criminal -- oh, sorry, the patient -- yes, the patient has been cured and is no longer a threat. Until they do it again.
Which is exactly the opposite of what any person should want from a criminal justice system.
What we should want from a criminal justice system is to know our families are safe from random or deliberate attack. We should want to ensure those who would attack and kill average citizens are removed from society, with no chance to harm any one else. That is the simple truth of what the criminal justice system should be designed to provide.
We shouldn't want people desperate to extract revenge, but rather people who want to minimize the overall harm done to society.
I agree, we shouldn't want people who are desperate to extract revenge. But that doesn't mean that the system does not have some amount of revenge built in. And it doesn't mean that all punishment is about revenge. Sometimes it is simply doing what needs to be done to prevent a future attack on another person.
If I am ever charged with a crime, I want people who aren't going to let some flowery description of what people THINK I might have done causing them to undervalue evidence that is exculpatory. Wouldn't you want the same?
And that applies how in cases such as this, where there is overwhelming evidence that the convicted person performed inhumane acts on a child, and finally killed him?
Let's say you were accused of raping and murdering a child - would you really want the public's demand for revenge, the jury's disgust with the crime, the prosecutor's inflammatory rhetoric to sway the jury, or would you rather the evidence be evaluated instead, emotions put to the side?
I begin to see your problem.
You can't separate the sentence from the prosecution.
Of course I would want the trial to be as fair as it could be. But if convicted I would want the sentence to ensure the defendant could never do those actions again. Even if the defendant was myself.
You think you are the first to attempt to show I'm wrong because I don't think about it happening to me? This is one of the topics I have been discussing for a couple decades with various people, both in person and online. Trust me, my stance doesn't change just because I may be the one facing the death penalty.
Further, were I actually convicted of a crime, I would want people to decide on what to do with me to be people who are able to resist the urge to merely punish me, but rather seek to rehabilitate me or, if they believe it isn't possible, to be able to recognize that removing me from society so tha
I noticed you missed Japan in that list.
Any particular reason for that?
They're very emotional about this kind of thing, and as a result they are the absolute worst kind of people to have any kind of say into how people who commit (or, at least, are convicted of committing) crimes are treated.
Instead it should be the doctors and therapists who decide the person who butchered four people wasn't really responsible, and we should all show our love for him instead of punishing him? Those people should be in charge of deciding how murderers are treated?
Do you also think that the people in Ukraine who feel that Putin is an enemy who is invading their country are the worst kind of people to decide how to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion?
Are you talking about the Democrats, or the KKK?
But, that's being redundant.