Give them a couple of case studies of food filled with adulterants and contaminants, or of listeria outbreaks, and I suspect they'd understand why oversight became necessary.
You're dripping with cynicism, but I say, hey, if it works to get the treatment out there and eventually others can benefit, I'm still all for it. There's things to be said for efficiency, or picking the path of least resistance.
It'd be nice if The Powers That Be seemed as concerned about single moms as veterans, but... well, once we can get some MDMA in them, maybe that'll open up their sense of love and community, right?
Then he also made some passing comment about the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (the Jupiter-turned-star is called Lucifer in the book) and says "I wonder if they somehow knew?" which really stretched it for me.
I see Smart TVs as being about the same as the combination printer/scanner/fax systems. It's wedging three separate technologies into one device, and in the process cheapening all of them. Also, when one goes down, they all go down, and then you get absurdities like not being able to fax because you're out of toner.
My typical streaming device lasts 3-6 years, and the technology is changing rapidly. My typical TV lasts a decade or more, and for the most part I'd rather not try to keep up with expensive features there, and just want a nice screen at a reasonable price. I've avoided smart TVs simply because I figure the streaming part is likely to fail or become obsolete long before the screen does, and I'd like to be able to replace that component independently. If non-smart TVs ever go extinct, I'd still be inclined to leave the TV disconnected, and continue using the streaming device of my choice.
Besides, most of my dumb TVs can't even do their own tuning and display interfaces right. I've got an RCA that insists on turning itself on every single day, via a timer feature that cannot be disabled. If they're that terrible about simple features, do you really want them putting their hands on proprietary streaming interfaces? I'd rather leave that to the experts.
I'm surprised at the number of AC comments posting venomous bile about a mere device, but the inaccuracy of this post is laughable. I don't even know what "three-button remote" you're objecting to, but my Roku remote has something like a dozen buttons, covering all the normal features you'd expect. It's a far sight more intuitive than the PS3 controller is for streaming, for sure.
I first heard about them on a financial forum, where people were talking about what to do if they cut cable. Those were definitely not technical people on the whole, though the "let's talk budget" crowd is probably a bit of a niche, too.
Really? My wife got ours set up in just a few minutes. I think we spent more time trying to remember our Netflix password than doing any other part of the setup. It's basically:
1) plug connectors to TV 2) connect Roku to wifi (or physical cable) 3) enter account details into the channels (like Netflix, Amazon) that you subscribe to.
Look, you'll believe it better if you do it yourself. Just type it out in Excel. With cut and paste it's about 8 seconds of work. You'll see 36 combinations with two dice, of which 6 are hits and 30 are not. 6/36 = 1/6, which is the same thing as a static die.
Basically, the idea that there are "two moving targets" is wrong. There's a target. It doesn't matter if the target is moving or not, because the odds of any of the targets is the same. It doesn't matter if you always pick 6, always pick 1, or have some random number. The odds that the draw matches the target are still 1/6, regardless.
While it could be a false narrative, it could also be a convenient truth. I mean, it's almost guaranteed there's some fraction of the workforce unhappy with their jobs. It only makes sense to identify that segment and market to it. It doesn't have to be a lie just because it fits what they're selling.
Yeah. Like the Onion article the AC posted, I've been doing what pays during the day, and what I love in evenings and weekends, around family and other obligations. Sometimes it's slightly profitable, sometimes it's slightly unprofitable (though not really any worse than a lot of other hobbies might be), and it does manage to take the edge off the lack of fulfillment, but it definitely isn't into the "satisfying" territory.
On the one hand, I feel like after a couple of decades I'm finally becoming competent, in a way that I might have reached at 28 if I'd been doing it full time and starving.
On the other hand, I've got a friend who's roughly 28, has been trying it full time for 5 years while starving, and boy is she a wreck, too.
I'm led to conclude there *is* no good option. (I haven't tried the "be independently wealthy and see if you're still motivated and also not drugged out and ruined angle" to see if that's possible, but it's statistically unlikely. I also haven't had the chance to try out the "get really, incredibly lucky" scheme.)
Get tired of doing PHP, jump over to Java. Get tired of that, jump over to a C/C++ stack. Get tired of that, jump to a WCF project. Get tired of that, jump back to C.
Does that honestly make the job different enough it feels fresh? I would have guessed that felt like the exact same job, just with a different coffee mug. Or does the nature of the projects shift enough with the changing language that it's more than that?
I understand the sentiment, but find this poor logic. If your two objections are commercials and poor timing with the programming, then a streaming service would fix both. There would be no commercials (I assume), and you could pick what shows you wanted to watch and when. Sounds like this would be perfect for you!
I used to print out web sites. So the copy editor could mark them up and hand me back the changes. God, it seems stupid how that works.
Also, it took nearly a year for her to stop querying the lack of double spaces after periods. I kept insisting that HTML didn't support double spaces and she didn't really believe me. (I know I could have faked it with forced whitespace, but I wasn't going to admit to that atrocious possibility.)
Profiling on a trait someone is born with is wrong, because it doesn't say anything about them as a person.
Profiling based on a person's self-proclaimed interests and intentions is nothing at all like that. It is perfectly valid to judge someone based on what they say and do.
Well, it could be that Russia has discovered the principles of free speech. It could also be that they just like things that look really destructive to American society. Which is more likely?
No, you're just pushing stereotype or prejudice. There is of course a definite conflict in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians, and that has even spilled over along religious lines, but lump the whole religion in as "known haters" is patently ridiculous.
Yes, it's a religion. You can convert to it, and you can convert away from it.
The matrilineal tradition goes back a long way as a way of assigning default membership, but how many people aren't raised in the religions of their mothers? And of course there are cultural ties as well, which is another reason I think some people mix it up with ethnicity, but it really isn't, any more than it would make sense to call the French a race, or Buddhists a race.
Well, he asked, and she said yes. And then he spit on her. Now why he had a reason to ask, I don't know. But it was clearly and explicitly because of her faith.
Up until today, I'd never heard of it happening to anyone, either. But there's a shit-storm of riled up people right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other weird things don't happen before they settle down.
That's a fine conclusion to draw. I always thought it seemed unnecessary, though as I kid I worried more about unfaithful delegates than scenarios like this one. Still, "we should change this to something more sensible" isn't the same argument as "if we had changed it to something more sensible in the past, things would be different now, so let's talk about that imaginary world a lot."
Slashdot Mirror
Give them a couple of case studies of food filled with adulterants and contaminants, or of listeria outbreaks, and I suspect they'd understand why oversight became necessary.
Also, even if you can only cure one person once, we're always making more people.
The more things you cure, the longer people live and the more *other* things they come down with. There's plenty more fixes to chase.
You're dripping with cynicism, but I say, hey, if it works to get the treatment out there and eventually others can benefit, I'm still all for it. There's things to be said for efficiency, or picking the path of least resistance.
It'd be nice if The Powers That Be seemed as concerned about single moms as veterans, but ... well, once we can get some MDMA in them, maybe that'll open up their sense of love and community, right?
Then he also made some passing comment about the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (the Jupiter-turned-star is called Lucifer in the book) and says "I wonder if they somehow knew?" which really stretched it for me.
May I recommend Nebuchadnezzar as a middle name? It's biblical, so everyone should know it.
Funny, subtle, sneaky. Well played.
I see Smart TVs as being about the same as the combination printer/scanner/fax systems. It's wedging three separate technologies into one device, and in the process cheapening all of them. Also, when one goes down, they all go down, and then you get absurdities like not being able to fax because you're out of toner.
My typical streaming device lasts 3-6 years, and the technology is changing rapidly. My typical TV lasts a decade or more, and for the most part I'd rather not try to keep up with expensive features there, and just want a nice screen at a reasonable price. I've avoided smart TVs simply because I figure the streaming part is likely to fail or become obsolete long before the screen does, and I'd like to be able to replace that component independently. If non-smart TVs ever go extinct, I'd still be inclined to leave the TV disconnected, and continue using the streaming device of my choice.
Besides, most of my dumb TVs can't even do their own tuning and display interfaces right. I've got an RCA that insists on turning itself on every single day, via a timer feature that cannot be disabled. If they're that terrible about simple features, do you really want them putting their hands on proprietary streaming interfaces? I'd rather leave that to the experts.
I'm surprised at the number of AC comments posting venomous bile about a mere device, but the inaccuracy of this post is laughable. I don't even know what "three-button remote" you're objecting to, but my Roku remote has something like a dozen buttons, covering all the normal features you'd expect. It's a far sight more intuitive than the PS3 controller is for streaming, for sure.
I first heard about them on a financial forum, where people were talking about what to do if they cut cable. Those were definitely not technical people on the whole, though the "let's talk budget" crowd is probably a bit of a niche, too.
Really? My wife got ours set up in just a few minutes. I think we spent more time trying to remember our Netflix password than doing any other part of the setup. It's basically:
1) plug connectors to TV
2) connect Roku to wifi (or physical cable)
3) enter account details into the channels (like Netflix, Amazon) that you subscribe to.
I don't remember there being anything else to it.
And if you still don't believe that, dumb it down further to heads and tails.
Do you really think that you're more likely to win if you always pick tails, than if you flip two coins and see if they match? It's 50% either way.
Look, you'll believe it better if you do it yourself. Just type it out in Excel. With cut and paste it's about 8 seconds of work. You'll see 36 combinations with two dice, of which 6 are hits and 30 are not. 6/36 = 1/6, which is the same thing as a static die.
Basically, the idea that there are "two moving targets" is wrong. There's a target. It doesn't matter if the target is moving or not, because the odds of any of the targets is the same. It doesn't matter if you always pick 6, always pick 1, or have some random number. The odds that the draw matches the target are still 1/6, regardless.
While it could be a false narrative, it could also be a convenient truth. I mean, it's almost guaranteed there's some fraction of the workforce unhappy with their jobs. It only makes sense to identify that segment and market to it. It doesn't have to be a lie just because it fits what they're selling.
Yeah. Like the Onion article the AC posted, I've been doing what pays during the day, and what I love in evenings and weekends, around family and other obligations. Sometimes it's slightly profitable, sometimes it's slightly unprofitable (though not really any worse than a lot of other hobbies might be), and it does manage to take the edge off the lack of fulfillment, but it definitely isn't into the "satisfying" territory.
On the one hand, I feel like after a couple of decades I'm finally becoming competent, in a way that I might have reached at 28 if I'd been doing it full time and starving.
On the other hand, I've got a friend who's roughly 28, has been trying it full time for 5 years while starving, and boy is she a wreck, too.
I'm led to conclude there *is* no good option. (I haven't tried the "be independently wealthy and see if you're still motivated and also not drugged out and ruined angle" to see if that's possible, but it's statistically unlikely. I also haven't had the chance to try out the "get really, incredibly lucky" scheme.)
Get tired of doing PHP, jump over to Java. Get tired of that, jump over to a C/C++ stack. Get tired of that, jump to a WCF project. Get tired of that, jump back to C.
Does that honestly make the job different enough it feels fresh? I would have guessed that felt like the exact same job, just with a different coffee mug. Or does the nature of the projects shift enough with the changing language that it's more than that?
No. I think that's mathematically unsound.
If you want to go on a thought exercise, imagine you're ...
1) Rolling one die, and always trying to hit a predetermined number.
2) Rolling two dice, and trying to get them to match.
The odds will be exactly the same.
I understand the sentiment, but find this poor logic. If your two objections are commercials and poor timing with the programming, then a streaming service would fix both. There would be no commercials (I assume), and you could pick what shows you wanted to watch and when. Sounds like this would be perfect for you!
I used to print out web sites. So the copy editor could mark them up and hand me back the changes. God, it seems stupid how that works.
Also, it took nearly a year for her to stop querying the lack of double spaces after periods. I kept insisting that HTML didn't support double spaces and she didn't really believe me. (I know I could have faked it with forced whitespace, but I wasn't going to admit to that atrocious possibility.)
Profiling on a trait someone is born with is wrong, because it doesn't say anything about them as a person.
Profiling based on a person's self-proclaimed interests and intentions is nothing at all like that. It is perfectly valid to judge someone based on what they say and do.
Well, it could be that Russia has discovered the principles of free speech. It could also be that they just like things that look really destructive to American society. Which is more likely?
No, you're just pushing stereotype or prejudice. There is of course a definite conflict in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians, and that has even spilled over along religious lines, but lump the whole religion in as "known haters" is patently ridiculous.
Yes, it's a religion. You can convert to it, and you can convert away from it.
The matrilineal tradition goes back a long way as a way of assigning default membership, but how many people aren't raised in the religions of their mothers? And of course there are cultural ties as well, which is another reason I think some people mix it up with ethnicity, but it really isn't, any more than it would make sense to call the French a race, or Buddhists a race.
Well, he asked, and she said yes. And then he spit on her. Now why he had a reason to ask, I don't know. But it was clearly and explicitly because of her faith.
Okay.
Up until today, I'd never heard of it happening to anyone, either. But there's a shit-storm of riled up people right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other weird things don't happen before they settle down.
That's a fine conclusion to draw. I always thought it seemed unnecessary, though as I kid I worried more about unfaithful delegates than scenarios like this one. Still, "we should change this to something more sensible" isn't the same argument as "if we had changed it to something more sensible in the past, things would be different now, so let's talk about that imaginary world a lot."