Ah, the good old days of building autoexec.bat files with menu trees for different configs for different games. Using loadhigh to load drivers in JUST the right order so that you weren't just a few KB short of the main memory needed to play Wing Commander 2 with full sound, and the animations getting all stutter.
Two hundred years ago, the guy who was laughed into the insane asylum for suggesting that it might be a bad idea for doctors to finish dissecting a corpse, then immediately go and deliver babies, hadn't even been born yet.
The founding fathers were quite versed in the concept of 'regular' versus 'irregular' troops. They wanted their pool of 'irregular' troops to be well armed.
In that case, they won't. So now you need to weigh the desire for two people to not be out of touch from their precious little snowflakes for three hours versus every other person there wanting to have an enjoyable event.
Guess what? They all win. Your choice, upon being told that it's a cell-free zone, is either a) accept the fact that during that three hours, something horribly could, in theory, happen to your children, and hopefully your babysitter is capable of dialing 911, or b) deciding that you simply cannot be incommunicado for three hours, and therefore declining to attend the event.
There is no c) your magical status as a parent trumps everything else.
You've missed my original point. Which is more likely to 'get the ambulance rolling' fastest, but more importantly, *get it to where it needs to be* fastest? You dialing into 911, or the event staff notifying the on-site EMS who then use the inside track to get an ambulance to where it needs to be? Or event staff simply having that inside track to medical personnel who have been briefed that there's a major event, and are on some sort of standby?
maybe there are things about the medical history that the baby sitter does not know that are important,
If this is the case, you fail as a parent. Either it's important enough that the sitter needs to know it, or it's unimportant.
maybe the parent just wants to know that their kid(s) are safe
I'm a parent, and I accept that even if my kids are in the same room as me, shit can happen. If I can't trust my babysitter, I wouldn't leave them alone with my kids.
Maybe the parent is more assertive about getting the right medication, and the nurse is a dumbass who keeps tying to give them either the wrong dose, or the entirely wrong medication (and it could kill them).
Edge case. If you're that paranoid about needing to be available at a second's notice, then you choose not to attend events that prevent that from happening. Though I wonder how you make it through life wondering every second of every minute of every hour of every day what horrible things could be happening to your child RIGHT NOW OH GOD.
And what do you think is going to garner the fastest response?
a) calling 911 from your cell phone during a Stones concert, and shouting into the mouth piece
b) flagging down security, who radio the on-site first responders, who radio directly into dispatch and request additional personnel, who are probably already briefed on the concert, how to get there, where to go to pick up patients, and so on, and who are available to perform on-site stabilization and treatment while waiting for the additional personnel?
No, but they can cross your name against a ticket list, and send an usher to quietly roust you out of your seat.
But if the sitter is capable of calling you, they're capable of calling 911. If the emergency doesn't require 911, it doesn't require immediate access to you.
If the employer wants to prevent you from working, they need to be paying for your time. They're paying money in exchange for the benefit of you not providing your time and labour to another country.
If they're not willing to pay, why should you be willing to do something in return?
How about non-competes require to pay out at the highest salary the worker has had with the company, with automatic COL raises baked in, over the length of the NDA, minimum two years.
Without even getting into things like the Inquisition and the Crusades, how many people have died in the modern world due to being denied things like birth control?
As a Canadian gun owner, I'll just point out that our laws are laxer than some American states.
To own most rifles or shotguns, you get your PAL, or Posession and Acquisition License. You take and pass a one day course, you send in your application, which includes things like contact info for two years worth of 'conjugal partners' and references.
For handguns or 'scary' rifles (literally; an AR-15 in.223 is 'restricted.' You can get other semi-auto rifles in.223 which are considered 'non-restricted.' But people still have this weird idea that the AR-15 is 'military' and a hunting rifle isn't.) you do an extra six hour course and apply for the 'restricted' part of the license.
I'm a flaming Canadian lib, and I own more handguns, let alone more guns, than any conservative I personally know.
America doesn't have a gun problem; America has various problems which guns exacerbate. But if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have driven through the sidewalk crowd, or walked in with a backpack full of Molotov cocktails, or an amfo bomb, or chlorine and bleach, or a machete bought from the camping section of Wal-Mart, or any number of other things.
The issue here shouldn't be 'OMG he shot people!' It should be 'OMG he killed people.'
It's like when your kids are fighting; if Bobby is hitting Billy with a Tonka Truck, the solution isn't to ban Tonka Trucks from the house.
Pluck a scientist from, say, 1990. Lock him in a room with all sorts of 1990s scientific equipment.
Could he identify and decode somebody making a modern cellular telephone call? Could he identify the encrypted digital signal as not noise? Figure out how to demodulate it? Decrypt it? Then figure out the codec?
Or could he identify standard 2.4 ghz wifi traffic with standard WPA2 encryption? Could he further decode, say, a Netflix stream running across it? Demodulate it, decrypt it, figure out the file format, figure out the codec, figure out the display parameters for a 1080p signal?
What about a scientist from the 1980s? From the 1970s? From the 1960s?
On one hand, government isn't providing these services with a profit motive, so it has no imperative to cut corners and do all of the short-term-gain, long-term-loss things that regulation is intended to prevent.
On the other hand, government isn't providing these services with a profit motive, so legitimate streamlining, efficiency, and innovation aren't necessarily an imperative either.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the good old days of building autoexec.bat files with menu trees for different configs for different games. Using loadhigh to load drivers in JUST the right order so that you weren't just a few KB short of the main memory needed to play Wing Commander 2 with full sound, and the animations getting all stutter.
Semmelweiss, was my reference.
"Organic," however, tends to mean 'disease, parasite and vermin ridden.' Especially 200 years ago.
Two hundred years ago, the guy who was laughed into the insane asylum for suggesting that it might be a bad idea for doctors to finish dissecting a corpse, then immediately go and deliver babies, hadn't even been born yet.
Or "Yeah, it's broke. Submit a patch. No? Then fuck off, you freeloading loser."
Will it support VRML?
Here you go Sonny; my FidoNet address, my Geocities address, my angelfire address....
I was speaking simply to the 'no loaf is worse than half a loaf' idea.
I've not been paying enough attention to American politics lately to render an opinion on this particular issue.
The founding fathers were quite versed in the concept of 'regular' versus 'irregular' troops. They wanted their pool of 'irregular' troops to be well armed.
It is, if the loaf is made out of shit.
But is that the gun laws, or is that other things that they tend to have, like sane healthcare, approaches to mental issues, and so on?
In that case, they won't. So now you need to weigh the desire for two people to not be out of touch from their precious little snowflakes for three hours versus every other person there wanting to have an enjoyable event.
Guess what? They all win. Your choice, upon being told that it's a cell-free zone, is either a) accept the fact that during that three hours, something horribly could, in theory, happen to your children, and hopefully your babysitter is capable of dialing 911, or b) deciding that you simply cannot be incommunicado for three hours, and therefore declining to attend the event.
There is no c) your magical status as a parent trumps everything else.
You've missed my original point. Which is more likely to 'get the ambulance rolling' fastest, but more importantly, *get it to where it needs to be* fastest? You dialing into 911, or the event staff notifying the on-site EMS who then use the inside track to get an ambulance to where it needs to be? Or event staff simply having that inside track to medical personnel who have been briefed that there's a major event, and are on some sort of standby?
If this is the case, you fail as a parent. Either it's important enough that the sitter needs to know it, or it's unimportant.
I'm a parent, and I accept that even if my kids are in the same room as me, shit can happen. If I can't trust my babysitter, I wouldn't leave them alone with my kids.
Edge case. If you're that paranoid about needing to be available at a second's notice, then you choose not to attend events that prevent that from happening. Though I wonder how you make it through life wondering every second of every minute of every hour of every day what horrible things could be happening to your child RIGHT NOW OH GOD.
And what do you think is going to garner the fastest response?
a) calling 911 from your cell phone during a Stones concert, and shouting into the mouth piece
b) flagging down security, who radio the on-site first responders, who radio directly into dispatch and request additional personnel, who are probably already briefed on the concert, how to get there, where to go to pick up patients, and so on, and who are available to perform on-site stabilization and treatment while waiting for the additional personnel?
No, but they can cross your name against a ticket list, and send an usher to quietly roust you out of your seat.
But if the sitter is capable of calling you, they're capable of calling 911. If the emergency doesn't require 911, it doesn't require immediate access to you.
Well, they use GPS software that doesn't assume you're on the road, or they use local solutions. Starting point
If the employer wants to prevent you from working, they need to be paying for your time. They're paying money in exchange for the benefit of you not providing your time and labour to another country.
If they're not willing to pay, why should you be willing to do something in return?
How about non-competes require to pay out at the highest salary the worker has had with the company, with automatic COL raises baked in, over the length of the NDA, minimum two years.
Without even getting into things like the Inquisition and the Crusades, how many people have died in the modern world due to being denied things like birth control?
As a Canadian gun owner, I'll just point out that our laws are laxer than some American states.
To own most rifles or shotguns, you get your PAL, or Posession and Acquisition License. You take and pass a one day course, you send in your application, which includes things like contact info for two years worth of 'conjugal partners' and references.
For handguns or 'scary' rifles (literally; an AR-15 in .223 is 'restricted.' You can get other semi-auto rifles in .223 which are considered 'non-restricted.' But people still have this weird idea that the AR-15 is 'military' and a hunting rifle isn't.) you do an extra six hour course and apply for the 'restricted' part of the license.
I'm a flaming Canadian lib, and I own more handguns, let alone more guns, than any conservative I personally know.
America doesn't have a gun problem; America has various problems which guns exacerbate. But if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have driven through the sidewalk crowd, or walked in with a backpack full of Molotov cocktails, or an amfo bomb, or chlorine and bleach, or a machete bought from the camping section of Wal-Mart, or any number of other things.
The issue here shouldn't be 'OMG he shot people!' It should be 'OMG he killed people.'
It's like when your kids are fighting; if Bobby is hitting Billy with a Tonka Truck, the solution isn't to ban Tonka Trucks from the house.
How does this help? The location of the gun was known: at the night club. Where it was being used to shoot people.
But as always, this is the wrong question. Don't figure out how to stop shootings. Figure out how to stop killings.
Pluck a scientist from, say, 1990. Lock him in a room with all sorts of 1990s scientific equipment.
Could he identify and decode somebody making a modern cellular telephone call? Could he identify the encrypted digital signal as not noise? Figure out how to demodulate it? Decrypt it? Then figure out the codec?
Or could he identify standard 2.4 ghz wifi traffic with standard WPA2 encryption? Could he further decode, say, a Netflix stream running across it? Demodulate it, decrypt it, figure out the file format, figure out the codec, figure out the display parameters for a 1080p signal?
What about a scientist from the 1980s? From the 1970s? From the 1960s?
I read this book, what, 17 years ago? https://www.amazon.ca/Corporat...
It's happened before. There's a reason they banned tetraethyl lead from gasoline, for example.
On one hand, government isn't providing these services with a profit motive, so it has no imperative to cut corners and do all of the short-term-gain, long-term-loss things that regulation is intended to prevent.
On the other hand, government isn't providing these services with a profit motive, so legitimate streamlining, efficiency, and innovation aren't necessarily an imperative either.