Technically, nobody knows what's real. We build elaborate models that represent our sense data, comparing it with other people's sense data in order to approximate objectivity. But none of this actually demonstrates reality, so much as the collective human body of sense data.
'Thar reminds me of when Brian and Stewie were stoned on an episode of Family Guy. There might be a bit of that going on in your response, mebbe?
And yet, no one has asked Hillary whether she's in favor or opposed to taking the face off of a fetus while the heart's still beating in order to harvest the brain.
Thank you for proving my point exactly. Rail on brother.
Curiously, Carson did not reject natural selection – the engine that drives evolution – saying he “totally believe[s]” that useful genetic traits are more often passed on than less useful traits. But he could not draw the connection between that process acting over millennia and the human eye: “Give me a break. According to their scheme – boom, it had to occur overnight.”
So he doesn't believe evolution nor does he even know enough about it to understand that the evolution of the eye happened over time and does not have to happen overnight. The fact that he can be a doctor and hold these views just shows how extreme cognitive dissonance can be.
Aint that da truth!
Ugh - the human eye isn't even close to perfection. You want the raptors for that.
But the weird thing about fundies bringing up they eye, again, and again, and again, is that the irreducible complexity argument has been debunked, again and again, and again. But just like Chucky, it refuses to die.
For the uninitiated, an eye like ours would definitely not spring up overnight. But it didn't have to.
Light is electromagnetic energy. And since energy always has some sort of effect on the thing the energy strikes, wherther warming for IR, sensing the energy is a pretty normal thing to happen.
A lot of chemicals, fully natural, will undergo changes when hit by light. If an organism happens to have these chemicals within it, it might end up reacting in some way to light.
Sound far fetched? Well, it has happened, and still does.
There are bacteria and tiny little critters in the ocean that have day/night feeding cycles based on sensing light. No "eyes" as such, but a chemical reaction
There are relatively primitive critters like bivalves that have primitive eyes. Not focusing, but many have multiple eyes that sense light, and can determine the direction of the light, or more important, the direction where the light goes away, as in a predator.
Then from there, we run an entire gamut of eyes, all leading up to where we are today. In the end, although an amazing organ, it is anything but magic, and needs no divine intervention to exist.
Hey creationists - any other examples of irreduceable complexity you need skewered - again?
Interesting take, but I think the article is a bit of a red herring. I don't see companies really bending over backwards to find high skilled people that don't already have a degree or body of work that can't already be identified. I thinks this is a boost article for someone's start up nothing more...
Because once you get your degree, you are completely up to date forever and ever, world without end, amen.
Where I spent my career in a University environment, I was required to keep up with technology. Until the mid-late 90's, I was required to get training once a year, and to travel to a relevant trade show at least every two years.
Then the bean counters took over, hired more and more bean counters, and sucked up all the overhead. But the requirement on my part didn't go away, so Ridiculous things became training, like Wikipedia articles, or online tutorials.
I never claimed a TED talk as career development, but in a world ruled by accountants, who think the main product is accounting, I could see that.
I'll be there will be an accountant hired to keep track of it too.
A Evolution is a hodgepodge of facts that don't point to the conclusions being drawn by its adherents.
Sweet Jesus on an M-80, thank Gawd you posted AC.
A hodgepodge of facts is about as bizzare a description of Evolution as you can get. The theory of evolution will always remain as such, because we weren't there to witness every single event from the origin of life.
But experiments are all there, and non have refuted it.
One of the biggest ones is the fact that in accordance with physics, the species in the various geologic strata confirm that the creatures of an age do not show up earlier than their age. Evolution could be disproven in a New York minute if a modern human was found at the wrong place in the geologic column. But synclines, anticlines and chemistry and radiodating all confirm that this has never happened.
That is a fact borne out by experiments
Species change over time - that is a true fact, and not a theory at all. Borne out by experiments and simple observation.
You might as well deny that the sun creates electromagnatic energy we call light.
Republican politicians do not just have to think about the will of the voter. They have to think about the will of the Republican base, because voter appeal won't matter if they don't get on the ballot at all.
I think - I'm crossing my fingers and hoping - that they will work their way out of this mess. The intelligent ones fully understand the problem, and to put it mildly as possible - they fucked up big time.
I mean, I'm ready to vote Republican again if they stop worrying about what we do in our bedrooms, decide to pay the bills instead of the country killing "starve the beast" policy, and accept that the King James version of the bible is not a physics manual.
And doesn't that sound batshit crazy? But once upon a time kiddies, the Republican party was much much different. Occasional forays into kookville no doubt, but don't we all from time to time?
We need a party of Barry Goldwaters, not Ted Cruzes and Sarah Palins
It depends on the enemy they need. Many fundamentalist versions of religion need enemies that they can rail against. Hatred is a integral part of humanity, and in some it is more needed than in others. They become fundamentalists, and have successfully created their god in their own image. So there ya go.
But the problem is people who need to reject and apply hatred, cannot stop. If for some reason, we were to reject the science behind Evolution - bearing in mind that means a rejection of all biology and most of physics - a new target will have to be found. Basically, a return to the dark ages after their success.
So Good on Alabama! I'm hoping so much that the Republican party can extricate itself from the iron grip of the social conservatives and their batshit insane ideas. Then we can get back to a proper conservative/liberal mix of governance.And yes, we do need both. Although I do have to confess, I was a 80 percent Republican voting until GWB and his Trotskyist crew came around. Sweet Jeebuz, where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?
When an otherwise intelligent Republican is forced to answer questions about evolution and global warming with "Well, I'm not a scientist", or "there are controversies", because he or she is worried about offending the kookwing segment of the party, but doesn't want to outright lie, its just indicative of where the kooks are going to take you.
Because the normal Republicans can see that in a state where the religious can reject physics and force their views on others, makes for a workforce that simply isn't worth shit for anything other than menial jobs.
And you came to this conclusion due to the fact the word "theory" was used no less than four times in reference to evolution in TFS.
I have a theory about that conclusion...
No, you have a hypothesis about that conclusion.
If you don't understand what a scientific theory is, you need to learn before you criticize it too deeply.
Let's tak an example that even fundies are likely to accept.
Gravity
Gravity is real. Hard to deny that if you jump off the Golden gate bridge, you'll fall.
But we don't understand every single thing about gravity, so we have a theory for it. The theory is a framework to work within, not some wild-ass guess, not some thought of "Maybe the world just sucks". The theory is the body of work - and if testing proves the theory wrong, changes need to be made.
he is 200% correct. or do you have information on high crime mostly white neighborhoods?
There are high crime areas in black, hispanic, and yes, lily white Scotch Irish only neighborhoods. And more of those whites only than you would ever believe.
And the white ones will bust a cap in your ass for your antihistamines they need to make meth. Much easier than smurfing for it.
Seriously, if you want to look like a racist jackass unencumbered by the thought process, you are doing very very well.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
It is a trivial problem. You and those like you merely have to stop assuming they're the only good person on Earth.
Someone should have to prove they're entering with harmful intent before you assume they're not. Assuming they're bad until they somehow prove otherwise to you is a problem with you, not society or anyone else.
So your rationale is that I have to allow him to blow my head off before I can make a decision on his intent?
So when I installed Mint 16, by going to their page and getting it, I did it wrong? Good one. I don't really care, windows won, and now nobody because its all mobile. Linux has its uses, but not on a regular person's desktop.
Download an obsolete version then bitch about it. Then bitch about not getting updates for an obsolete product.
Hey, no problem fellow. Your level of competence in computing is simply awesome. Yahoo comment boards might be a good place to work with your peers.
Yes they are in that they are two completely different things. If someone can prove discrimination on the grounds of gender, then it doesn't matter that they've had an affair or not. Having an affair does not make one, as the OP claimed and so what you are implicitly defending, less or more credible. It's just one fact.
You are mixing up your opinion with facts. The preponderance of evidence, including her affair, her odd defense of the affair and accusation that the man she had an affair with sexually assaulted her when she had been struck by a taxi, and before they had the affair, and her subsequent asking for 10 million not to sue, just made her a bad example of a victim.
The affair speaks to her veracity, the affair provides a differential explanation of her possibly trying to gain upward mobility by engaging in sex with a superior where she worked. It is completely related to the case, and the lawyers and judge and jury all saw it that way. That you do not is irrelevant.
Or another outlook - what does it do to her veracity if she says she was approached by this guy, she refused his advances, and he was eventually fired for harassing another female employee. That sounds very relevant to her case, and a damning indictment of the group she was working for.
But according to you, that would have nothing to do with the case, right? It has everything to do with the case.
If they walk into a Lowe's with a gun, they can assume that other citizens also have a gun, and hence if they start shooting, they will themselves be shot in short order. That is exactly why mass shootings are done in places full of unarmed people...there's nobody to shoot back.
So what you are saying is that in Ahghanistan, where even little children are armed to the teeth, there is no gun violence ever?
And in Texas, there is no gun violence ever?
This isn't an anti gun argument, its about people feeling teh need to carry deadly force in an eatery or hardware store. If you are of the sort who feels teh need to carry, conceal it. Then you don't become a friendly casualty.
they guy with the older car behind you from rear ending you instead? Or are these systems going to optimize between the risk of crashing into the guy in front of you vs the risk it will stop too quickly for the guy behind you to respond (yeah I know we all leave sufficient space between us and the car in front to brake)?
Probably will optimize for the legal system It's a human thing, thinking the person who is at fault is the wronged person. Not leaving enough room to react and stop is a risk many take, and many people learn every year that "The guy in front of me "stopped short" is never a successful defense.
It's become even worse with the advent of the evil for profit redlight cams, where in servicing the stockholders and inflating the coffers, yellow lights are shortened to the extent that when a driver sees a yellow light, they hit the sprags hard. And Joey who was checking his facebook behind them finds out who's at fault for rearending another driver.
Which is to say, that if I run through the now altered traffic light - I am at fault. If Joey rear ends me, because I did the legal thing, it's his fault.
The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.
You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
Not sure if you're stupid or retarded. Let me break it down for you:
Well, since yuou've descided to go with the insults, let me break it down for you.
If you are having a metric ton of trouble, and others are not......
You have the issue, not me, and not all all the others who don't have your issue.
You aren't doing it correctly, that much is clear from your posts.
You are using an obsolete version of Mint, and if you installed it a year ago, it was obsolete when you installed it. Are you likewise pissed off about no more updates for XP, or no direct seamless upgrade fom XP to Windows 10?
Because that is exactly your complaint.
Use a long term supported package, here's a list of them in mintland - http://www.linuxmint.com/oldre... along with the obsolete versions, of which yours is one.
There might be a clue in all this for you, although I fear you won't take it.
Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits
Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.
No, they are not unrelated. This is not some criminal trial, where evidence can be suppressed and become irrelevant.
The jury in the case had a lot of questions about Pao's affair
To most people, they want a victim to be a victim, not to use their sex as a way to possibly get ahead, which is sure as hell what it looked like.
After reading a lot of the testimony, I came to the conclusion that is exactly what she was doing. Her account of the "pressure" was unconvincing, and her account that the guy sexually assaulted her in 2006 after she was hit by a taxi ( she claimed she was unable to move in a daze, while he was innapropriately touching her) Something a little odd about that whole story, unless you buy into her having Stockholm syndrome. I mean innapropriate touching is sexuall assault, so why didn't she make criminal charges against the guy then?
She had vivid memories, except when she didn't. And her memories seemed to falter on matters that might not have made her look so good.
Serious credibility problem here.
Finally, after all these apparent insults, she offered for KP to pay her 10 million in exit money. They didn't, and she filed the suit.
You can believe whatever you want. I'll come to the conclusion that she rather liked her money, and was having a rather good time until things went south.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, nobody knows what's real. We build elaborate models that represent our sense data, comparing it with other people's sense data in order to approximate objectivity. But none of this actually demonstrates reality, so much as the collective human body of sense data.
'Thar reminds me of when Brian and Stewie were stoned on an episode of Family Guy. There might be a bit of that going on in your response, mebbe?
...and it's all turtles, all the way down.
That would be awesome. I loves them turtles.
And yet, no one has asked Hillary whether she's in favor or opposed to taking the face off of a fetus while the heart's still beating in order to harvest the brain.
Thank you for proving my point exactly. Rail on brother.
Curiously, Carson did not reject natural selection – the engine that drives evolution – saying he “totally believe[s]” that useful genetic traits are more often passed on than less useful traits. But he could not draw the connection between that process acting over millennia and the human eye: “Give me a break. According to their scheme – boom, it had to occur overnight.”
So he doesn't believe evolution nor does he even know enough about it to understand that the evolution of the eye happened over time and does not have to happen overnight. The fact that he can be a doctor and hold these views just shows how extreme cognitive dissonance can be.
Aint that da truth!
Ugh - the human eye isn't even close to perfection. You want the raptors for that.
But the weird thing about fundies bringing up they eye, again, and again, and again, is that the irreducible complexity argument has been debunked, again and again, and again. But just like Chucky, it refuses to die.
For the uninitiated, an eye like ours would definitely not spring up overnight. But it didn't have to.
Light is electromagnetic energy. And since energy always has some sort of effect on the thing the energy strikes, wherther warming for IR, sensing the energy is a pretty normal thing to happen.
A lot of chemicals, fully natural, will undergo changes when hit by light. If an organism happens to have these chemicals within it, it might end up reacting in some way to light.
Sound far fetched? Well, it has happened, and still does.
There are bacteria and tiny little critters in the ocean that have day/night feeding cycles based on sensing light. No "eyes" as such, but a chemical reaction
There are relatively primitive critters like bivalves that have primitive eyes. Not focusing, but many have multiple eyes that sense light, and can determine the direction of the light, or more important, the direction where the light goes away, as in a predator.
Then from there, we run an entire gamut of eyes, all leading up to where we are today. In the end, although an amazing organ, it is anything but magic, and needs no divine intervention to exist.
Hey creationists - any other examples of irreduceable complexity you need skewered - again?
Interesting take, but I think the article is a bit of a red herring. I don't see companies really bending over backwards to find high skilled people that don't already have a degree or body of work that can't already be identified. I thinks this is a boost article for someone's start up nothing more...
Because once you get your degree, you are completely up to date forever and ever, world without end, amen.
Then the bean counters took over, hired more and more bean counters, and sucked up all the overhead. But the requirement on my part didn't go away, so Ridiculous things became training, like Wikipedia articles, or online tutorials.
I never claimed a TED talk as career development, but in a world ruled by accountants, who think the main product is accounting, I could see that.
I'll be there will be an accountant hired to keep track of it too.
You're partially right. Evolution isn't a theory.
A Evolution is a hodgepodge of facts that don't point to the conclusions being drawn by its adherents.
Sweet Jesus on an M-80, thank Gawd you posted AC.
A hodgepodge of facts is about as bizzare a description of Evolution as you can get. The theory of evolution will always remain as such, because we weren't there to witness every single event from the origin of life.
But experiments are all there, and non have refuted it.
One of the biggest ones is the fact that in accordance with physics, the species in the various geologic strata confirm that the creatures of an age do not show up earlier than their age. Evolution could be disproven in a New York minute if a modern human was found at the wrong place in the geologic column. But synclines, anticlines and chemistry and radiodating all confirm that this has never happened.
That is a fact borne out by experiments
Species change over time - that is a true fact, and not a theory at all. Borne out by experiments and simple observation.
You might as well deny that the sun creates electromagnatic energy we call light.
Republican politicians do not just have to think about the will of the voter. They have to think about the will of the Republican base, because voter appeal won't matter if they don't get on the ballot at all.
I think - I'm crossing my fingers and hoping - that they will work their way out of this mess. The intelligent ones fully understand the problem, and to put it mildly as possible - they fucked up big time.
I mean, I'm ready to vote Republican again if they stop worrying about what we do in our bedrooms, decide to pay the bills instead of the country killing "starve the beast" policy, and accept that the King James version of the bible is not a physics manual.
And doesn't that sound batshit crazy? But once upon a time kiddies, the Republican party was much much different. Occasional forays into kookville no doubt, but don't we all from time to time?
We need a party of Barry Goldwaters, not Ted Cruzes and Sarah Palins
Their stated fiscal views or what's actually happened over the last 15 years or so? Because I'm all kinds of on board with their stated views.
Views aren't real.
Maybe the church should get on board
Many churches have done so, or at least have asserted that religion and evolution are not in conflict.
It depends on the enemy they need. Many fundamentalist versions of religion need enemies that they can rail against. Hatred is a integral part of humanity, and in some it is more needed than in others. They become fundamentalists, and have successfully created their god in their own image. So there ya go.
But the problem is people who need to reject and apply hatred, cannot stop. If for some reason, we were to reject the science behind Evolution - bearing in mind that means a rejection of all biology and most of physics - a new target will have to be found. Basically, a return to the dark ages after their success.
So Good on Alabama! I'm hoping so much that the Republican party can extricate itself from the iron grip of the social conservatives and their batshit insane ideas. Then we can get back to a proper conservative/liberal mix of governance.And yes, we do need both. Although I do have to confess, I was a 80 percent Republican voting until GWB and his Trotskyist crew came around. Sweet Jeebuz, where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?
When an otherwise intelligent Republican is forced to answer questions about evolution and global warming with "Well, I'm not a scientist", or "there are controversies", because he or she is worried about offending the kookwing segment of the party, but doesn't want to outright lie, its just indicative of where the kooks are going to take you.
Because the normal Republicans can see that in a state where the religious can reject physics and force their views on others, makes for a workforce that simply isn't worth shit for anything other than menial jobs.
And in many respects, already has.
That's not what TFS says.
And you came to this conclusion due to the fact the word "theory" was used no less than four times in reference to evolution in TFS.
I have a theory about that conclusion...
No, you have a hypothesis about that conclusion.
If you don't understand what a scientific theory is, you need to learn before you criticize it too deeply.
Let's tak an example that even fundies are likely to accept.
Gravity
Gravity is real. Hard to deny that if you jump off the Golden gate bridge, you'll fall.
But we don't understand every single thing about gravity, so we have a theory for it. The theory is a framework to work within, not some wild-ass guess, not some thought of "Maybe the world just sucks". The theory is the body of work - and if testing proves the theory wrong, changes need to be made.
So long as they're aware that it is only a theory.
Gravity is "only a theory".
Which I insist that fundamentalists put it to the test.
he is 200% correct. or do you have information on high crime mostly white neighborhoods?
There are high crime areas in black, hispanic, and yes, lily white Scotch Irish only neighborhoods. And more of those whites only than you would ever believe.
And the white ones will bust a cap in your ass for your antihistamines they need to make meth. Much easier than smurfing for it.
Seriously, if you want to look like a racist jackass unencumbered by the thought process, you are doing very very well.
Programmers day ain't official until Hallmark makes a card for it.
If they're brandishing they're not a good guy. Brandishing means to draw and display to give the impression of intent to use.
One of the first things I was taught was that don't you don't ever draw your gun unlless you are going to use it.
And yes, sitting around with friends and checking them out does not apply to that.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
It is a trivial problem. You and those like you merely have to stop assuming they're the only good person on Earth. Someone should have to prove they're entering with harmful intent before you assume they're not. Assuming they're bad until they somehow prove otherwise to you is a problem with you, not society or anyone else.
So your rationale is that I have to allow him to blow my head off before I can make a decision on his intent?
So when I installed Mint 16, by going to their page and getting it, I did it wrong? Good one. I don't really care, windows won, and now nobody because its all mobile. Linux has its uses, but not on a regular person's desktop.
Download an obsolete version then bitch about it. Then bitch about not getting updates for an obsolete product.
Hey, no problem fellow. Your level of competence in computing is simply awesome. Yahoo comment boards might be a good place to work with your peers.
No, they are not unrelated.
Yes they are in that they are two completely different things. If someone can prove discrimination on the grounds of gender, then it doesn't matter that they've had an affair or not. Having an affair does not make one, as the OP claimed and so what you are implicitly defending, less or more credible. It's just one fact.
You are mixing up your opinion with facts. The preponderance of evidence, including her affair, her odd defense of the affair and accusation that the man she had an affair with sexually assaulted her when she had been struck by a taxi, and before they had the affair, and her subsequent asking for 10 million not to sue, just made her a bad example of a victim.
The affair speaks to her veracity, the affair provides a differential explanation of her possibly trying to gain upward mobility by engaging in sex with a superior where she worked. It is completely related to the case, and the lawyers and judge and jury all saw it that way. That you do not is irrelevant.
Or another outlook - what does it do to her veracity if she says she was approached by this guy, she refused his advances, and he was eventually fired for harassing another female employee. That sounds very relevant to her case, and a damning indictment of the group she was working for.
But according to you, that would have nothing to do with the case, right? It has everything to do with the case.
You have not thought that through.
If they walk into a Lowe's with a gun, they can assume that other citizens also have a gun, and hence if they start shooting, they will themselves be shot in short order. That is exactly why mass shootings are done in places full of unarmed people...there's nobody to shoot back.
So what you are saying is that in Ahghanistan, where even little children are armed to the teeth, there is no gun violence ever?
And in Texas, there is no gun violence ever?
This isn't an anti gun argument, its about people feeling teh need to carry deadly force in an eatery or hardware store. If you are of the sort who feels teh need to carry, conceal it. Then you don't become a friendly casualty.
they guy with the older car behind you from rear ending you instead? Or are these systems going to optimize between the risk of crashing into the guy in front of you vs the risk it will stop too quickly for the guy behind you to respond (yeah I know we all leave sufficient space between us and the car in front to brake)?
Probably will optimize for the legal system It's a human thing, thinking the person who is at fault is the wronged person. Not leaving enough room to react and stop is a risk many take, and many people learn every year that "The guy in front of me "stopped short" is never a successful defense.
It's become even worse with the advent of the evil for profit redlight cams, where in servicing the stockholders and inflating the coffers, yellow lights are shortened to the extent that when a driver sees a yellow light, they hit the sprags hard. And Joey who was checking his facebook behind them finds out who's at fault for rearending another driver.
Which is to say, that if I run through the now altered traffic light - I am at fault. If Joey rear ends me, because I did the legal thing, it's his fault.
Joey checking his facebook and driving so close to me at 80 that I can't see his headlights - even when he could pass me - needs reined in.
If people feel they need to ride my backside that hard, they should at least buy me dinner and a movie first.
No, they are taught to shoot until the threat is stopped.
Especially when the threat is running away from them.
The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.
You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
Not sure if you're stupid or retarded. Let me break it down for you:
Well, since yuou've descided to go with the insults, let me break it down for you.
If you are having a metric ton of trouble, and others are not......
You have the issue, not me, and not all all the others who don't have your issue.
You aren't doing it correctly, that much is clear from your posts.
You are using an obsolete version of Mint, and if you installed it a year ago, it was obsolete when you installed it. Are you likewise pissed off about no more updates for XP, or no direct seamless upgrade fom XP to Windows 10?
Because that is exactly your complaint.
Use a long term supported package, here's a list of them in mintland - http://www.linuxmint.com/oldre... along with the obsolete versions, of which yours is one.
There might be a clue in all this for you, although I fear you won't take it.
Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits
Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.
No, they are not unrelated. This is not some criminal trial, where evidence can be suppressed and become irrelevant.
The jury in the case had a lot of questions about Pao's affair
To most people, they want a victim to be a victim, not to use their sex as a way to possibly get ahead, which is sure as hell what it looked like.
After reading a lot of the testimony, I came to the conclusion that is exactly what she was doing. Her account of the "pressure" was unconvincing, and her account that the guy sexually assaulted her in 2006 after she was hit by a taxi ( she claimed she was unable to move in a daze, while he was innapropriately touching her) Something a little odd about that whole story, unless you buy into her having Stockholm syndrome. I mean innapropriate touching is sexuall assault, so why didn't she make criminal charges against the guy then?
She had vivid memories, except when she didn't. And her memories seemed to falter on matters that might not have made her look so good.
Serious credibility problem here.
Finally, after all these apparent insults, she offered for KP to pay her 10 million in exit money. They didn't, and she filed the suit.
You can believe whatever you want. I'll come to the conclusion that she rather liked her money, and was having a rather good time until things went south.