I'm no champion of the free market, etc, but one thing I do know is that if you work hard at something and become popular -- it might really bother you for someone to then simply take it all away.
As a people, if we want a high quality 'standard' and we have expectations of open-use -- we should be paying for it with our tax dollars.
It is underhanded to have such a society where we would live/thrive by capital gains, urge people to be innovative so as to do so, and then legislatively acquire ALL of what they have worked for simply because most people want to use it.
That's wrong.
If we're gonna change everything about how we interact, I could see this being something plausible... But only in a society where such things would be expected/normal and accepted. But we aren't that way... We are all competing and 'innovating' to succeed...
I have way more keys than this nothing-better-to-worry-about bimbo has and I have yet to wear a hole in my pocket. I'm not saying its Levi's, but the Levi's I own are part of my attire that doesn't have this issue...
Let me reword. QUIT BUYING CHEAP PANTS OR WHATEVER 'STYLE PANTS' YOU'RE WEARING THAT HAVE WEAK-ASS POCKETS.
Pockets are made to hold stuff. Pockets that wear out from doing such are in pants that you should be smart enough not to buy again.
I have lots of keys.. but I'm a man. I put them in my pocket, and maybe sometimes they bulge a little. So what...
The day your bulge of keys is what you're concerned about is the day you realized you're not doing anything to challenge yourself or not pushing yourself to do something seriously worthwhile. That's fine by some people's standards. Not mine, but to some I suppose....
Like I said... I'm a man. There are keys and sometimes I have a lot of them and sometimes I prioritize them. But I'm far too occupied with something far more important to drivel on about it and ask the public for help.
"I mention that there are multiple datasets and measurements taken by independent research projects"
yes, you mention lots of things. without citing anything. you make a very unconvincing argument.
What I mentioned is obvious, what you mentioned is not. So please show it. But i'm kinda sick and tired of hearing from the opinionated layman about whats going on in the world. You're no expert and you've done nothing but spew hot air.
Good riddance, unless you decide to qualify yourself as someone I can listen to or put up something as powerful as what I've seen to the contrary.
I have looked at it, and when I"m not doing what you do, which is pretending that small things are big and big things are small, then it makes sense.
You were just bitching about reporudicibility. I mention that there are multiple datasets and measurements taken by independent research projects -- and now you're not even talking about that and simply just denouncing the whole bit without actually telling me WHY.
You just use some baseless statement that its 'obvious garbage'. Well what you've said here IS obvious garbage, and the post history stands to demonstrate it. Now when you come and show me why all the research which is very clear, parallel, and obvious, seems to fit your bias.
get over it. the evidence is overwhelming and your petty denial doesn't even stand against a fraction of it.
Come on now. These are adults. If they choose to skip class because they feel their time is better spent elsewhere, that's their business. If they're wrong, they'll be punished at exam time. No attendance checks are necessary.
Exactly. At my university attendance is optional, but knowing what to answer on the exams is crucial.
The book is usually only supporting material to the lectures but you can hardly know what will actually be on the exam by reading the book.
My professors are awesome. They hardly want you to learn facts, rather they want you to learn how to tie them together and understand what it all means in concert.
Missing lectures means you won't get all the good stuff and you lose in the long run.
So what is your take on what has changed in the level of realistic understanding of information since Reagan got the FAIR Act removed from television?
I'll tell you what has changed if you don't know or will pretend its all good. Nearly all available media on television is now clearly pushing a corporate bias, which overall is driving the trusting populous further and further into being controlled by information for corporate (or big private money) benefit.
The reason I said the world isn't perfect is that people who usually cry out against things like the FAIR Act usually contend that 'the people are choosing it, and so beit'. The people DEFAULT to it for lack of effort, education, or capacity to discern truth from rhetoric.
Regulations such as the FAIR act are supported by those of us who understand that many people deserve to know something closer to truth, but lack the capacity to seek it by means other than commonplace conventional practice.
Simply put, the ignorant trust what appears as 'normal', but deserve to receive something that *IS* normal.
Get your head out of your free market ass and wake up.
Get real: Very few people cooperate to control very many people. Acting like this isn't real is your own problem; and I'm sorry you may be too naive to see it.
They are major players in the palm computing realm. Minor in phone business.
It's a shame that the law is limited to the creation of a monopoly when the clear problem with our current 'markets' (if you can call them that, lol) is the collusion of the oligopolies. This move reinforces the move to lesser competition and all the maladies that come with it.
I suppose the law should be rewritten to be applicable when a specific total market share is controlled by a specific low number of companies -- and one company of large share buys another of large share. -----
I guess I had assumed anti-trust laws were written more clearly and protectively. I guess I was wrong... the lawyers always find a way, I guess.
Seriously... How does this junk fly without the greasing of political pockets?
But don't worry... some distraction of an explanation will come up... some B.S. to lure you away from the main point that these two companies compete directly and now they won't be.
If they can consolidate, that's fine. But then I want my government to set maximum pricing, and set it nice and low so as to protect me from olig/monopoly gouging.
I don't disagree at all, but I think most passengers would feel more comfortable with thinking that one of the pilots is paying attention. It's theater. Just like the security checks at the airport.
This is DEFINITELY theater. There are very likely other laws that already pertain to pilot negligence to their duty. And since when has a regulation of this nature EVER truly affected how people carry out their lives... it doesn't. They weigh their responsibilities and try to make the best assumptions, but break the regs because they feel they will do things correctly anyway --- and in the end almost every time they are right. And the almost absolute lack of evidence that we need this regulation demonstrates how these people really are quite responsible in reality.
This really is nothing more than a 'show' for the chicken-littles to get a little peace. Nevermind that they need therapy... God forbid someone fixes their own problems -- such as being overly paranoid and fearful of every little thing with risk in it... aka life.
Kick chicken little. He won't remember it in 11 seconds anyway.
On another post of mine someone replied with another single incident Eastern Flight 401.
These two, combined, only resulted in one crash, which may have been inevitable anyway due to landing gear failure distracting the pilots... And considering the thousands and thousands of flights out there --- I don't feel there is a big enough case or need for this kind of regulation.
There are crashes. And though they result in less deaths than automobiles, they are still bad... But considering that 'distraction' is basically one of the extremely low causes of any flight issue --- its just a bit ridiculous to be regulating it.
And I'm sure there are plenty of overlapping laws that already cover a pilot being negligent.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
As I wrote/asked in another reply... where are the people dying from these supposed distracted pilots? I've yet to hear about them.
I have not seen a need for this law. The reason I'm replying to you specifically is that your approach has an implicit degree of acceptance to there being a need; can you give me evidence of this need? I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
"focus on flying and on safety at all times" is staring at a big blue sky of nothing for hours on end. That will put anyone to sleep. Let them keep their minds doing something, who really cares what they do.
What you wrote relates to something I was thinking about this... I realize they must pay attention and that lives are at stake... and I understand the purpose of what they are trying to do here. But what I don't see is any evidence that we have distracted pilots resulting in death to travelers...
I have yet to hear of a single incident where some distracted pilot crashed and killed people. And so I am forced to ask if this ban/rule ACTUALLY makes any sense. In theory it seems good; but if nobody is actually dying from distracted pilots, wtf? Really.
Why don't they just take a bunch of polls and ask if people use Ubuntu, and if they pay?
Or maybe they could make it so that paying ubuntu users get a slight bandwidth preference for update/distro packages --- but this actually means a very small flag is applied to their system. Those numbers can be counted.
What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?
Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.
They could also just open maps.google.com in their browser.... The browser does support it, I hope. It runs on the regular stuff most browsers have.
Like I said, my experience with muslims is not aligned with this data. But I think you might be a bit deluded when you say that Christianity is defanged -- in reality hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Christians in the US are in support of our wars no more than the simple killing of Muslims for that fact alone. In reality, many Christians are just as hateful, militant, and in support of killing others as these muslims in these polls. If you don't see it, its likely you're christian and blind to criticism and reality. To the agnostic, it is quite clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
I'm no champion of the free market, etc, but one thing I do know is that if you work hard at something and become popular -- it might really bother you for someone to then simply take it all away.
As a people, if we want a high quality 'standard' and we have expectations of open-use -- we should be paying for it with our tax dollars.
It is underhanded to have such a society where we would live/thrive by capital gains, urge people to be innovative so as to do so, and then legislatively acquire ALL of what they have worked for simply because most people want to use it.
That's wrong.
If we're gonna change everything about how we interact, I could see this being something plausible... But only in a society where such things would be expected/normal and accepted. But we aren't that way... We are all competing and 'innovating' to succeed...
Dude.. buy some Levi's.
I have way more keys than this nothing-better-to-worry-about bimbo has and I have yet to wear a hole in my pocket. I'm not saying its Levi's, but the Levi's I own are part of my attire that doesn't have this issue...
Let me reword. QUIT BUYING CHEAP PANTS OR WHATEVER 'STYLE PANTS' YOU'RE WEARING THAT HAVE WEAK-ASS POCKETS.
Pockets are made to hold stuff. Pockets that wear out from doing such are in pants that you should be smart enough not to buy again.
That's weird.
I have lots of keys .. but I'm a man. I put them in my pocket, and maybe sometimes they bulge a little. So what...
The day your bulge of keys is what you're concerned about is the day you realized you're not doing anything to challenge yourself or not pushing yourself to do something seriously worthwhile. That's fine by some people's standards. Not mine, but to some I suppose....
Like I said... I'm a man. There are keys and sometimes I have a lot of them and sometimes I prioritize them. But I'm far too occupied with something far more important to drivel on about it and ask the public for help.
By the way. I knew I had to ask you (an opinionated layman) to show your cards... and in the end you had none.
GTFO.
You've got nothing to say but B.S. and no reputation for me to care.
"I mention that there are multiple datasets and measurements taken by independent research projects"
yes, you mention lots of things. without citing anything. you make a very unconvincing argument.
What I mentioned is obvious, what you mentioned is not. So please show it. But i'm kinda sick and tired of hearing from the opinionated layman about whats going on in the world. You're no expert and you've done nothing but spew hot air.
Good riddance, unless you decide to qualify yourself as someone I can listen to or put up something as powerful as what I've seen to the contrary.
I have looked at it, and when I"m not doing what you do, which is pretending that small things are big and big things are small, then it makes sense.
You were just bitching about reporudicibility. I mention that there are multiple datasets and measurements taken by independent research projects -- and now you're not even talking about that and simply just denouncing the whole bit without actually telling me WHY.
You just use some baseless statement that its 'obvious garbage'. Well what you've said here IS obvious garbage, and the post history stands to demonstrate it. Now when you come and show me why all the research which is very clear, parallel, and obvious, seems to fit your bias.
get over it. the evidence is overwhelming and your petty denial doesn't even stand against a fraction of it.
the other bodies of research that were done independently also support the same results and predictions.
get over it. all the evidence is very very clear to anyone who is willing to look at it.
... but for an experienced gamer, pretty much everything else out there really can't challenge me.
Demon's Souls has the taste of difficulty you might remember from early 90s titles.
Come on now. These are adults. If they choose to skip class because they feel their time is better spent elsewhere, that's their business. If they're wrong, they'll be punished at exam time. No attendance checks are necessary.
Exactly. At my university attendance is optional, but knowing what to answer on the exams is crucial.
The book is usually only supporting material to the lectures but you can hardly know what will actually be on the exam by reading the book.
My professors are awesome. They hardly want you to learn facts, rather they want you to learn how to tie them together and understand what it all means in concert.
Missing lectures means you won't get all the good stuff and you lose in the long run.
So what is your take on what has changed in the level of realistic understanding of information since Reagan got the FAIR Act removed from television?
I'll tell you what has changed if you don't know or will pretend its all good. Nearly all available media on television is now clearly pushing a corporate bias, which overall is driving the trusting populous further and further into being controlled by information for corporate (or big private money) benefit.
The reason I said the world isn't perfect is that people who usually cry out against things like the FAIR Act usually contend that 'the people are choosing it, and so beit'. The people DEFAULT to it for lack of effort, education, or capacity to discern truth from rhetoric.
Regulations such as the FAIR act are supported by those of us who understand that many people deserve to know something closer to truth, but lack the capacity to seek it by means other than commonplace conventional practice.
Simply put, the ignorant trust what appears as 'normal', but deserve to receive something that *IS* normal.
Yeah... and the world is perfect.
Get your head out of your free market ass and wake up.
Get real: Very few people cooperate to control very many people. Acting like this isn't real is your own problem; and I'm sorry you may be too naive to see it.
They are major players in the palm computing realm. Minor in phone business.
It's a shame that the law is limited to the creation of a monopoly when the clear problem with our current 'markets' (if you can call them that, lol) is the collusion of the oligopolies. This move reinforces the move to lesser competition and all the maladies that come with it.
I suppose the law should be rewritten to be applicable when a specific total market share is controlled by a specific low number of companies -- and one company of large share buys another of large share.
-----
I guess I had assumed anti-trust laws were written more clearly and protectively. I guess I was wrong... the lawyers always find a way, I guess.
Or you could teach me... but instead you just talk crap. Please explain. I bet you won't, and I want to lose that bet.
HP makes palm devices.
Palm makes palm devices.
They COMPETE.
-----------
Seriously... How does this junk fly without the greasing of political pockets?
But don't worry... some distraction of an explanation will come up... some B.S. to lure you away from the main point that these two companies compete directly and now they won't be.
If they can consolidate, that's fine. But then I want my government to set maximum pricing, and set it nice and low so as to protect me from olig/monopoly gouging.
I don't disagree at all, but I think most passengers would feel more comfortable with thinking that one of the pilots is paying attention. It's theater. Just like the security checks at the airport.
This is DEFINITELY theater. There are very likely other laws that already pertain to pilot negligence to their duty. And since when has a regulation of this nature EVER truly affected how people carry out their lives... it doesn't. They weigh their responsibilities and try to make the best assumptions, but break the regs because they feel they will do things correctly anyway --- and in the end almost every time they are right. And the almost absolute lack of evidence that we need this regulation demonstrates how these people really are quite responsible in reality.
This really is nothing more than a 'show' for the chicken-littles to get a little peace. Nevermind that they need therapy... God forbid someone fixes their own problems -- such as being overly paranoid and fearful of every little thing with risk in it... aka life.
Kick chicken little. He won't remember it in 11 seconds anyway.
Like... one incident that didn't result in death?
On another post of mine someone replied with another single incident Eastern Flight 401.
These two, combined, only resulted in one crash, which may have been inevitable anyway due to landing gear failure distracting the pilots... And considering the thousands and thousands of flights out there --- I don't feel there is a big enough case or need for this kind of regulation.
There are crashes. And though they result in less deaths than automobiles, they are still bad... But considering that 'distraction' is basically one of the extremely low causes of any flight issue --- its just a bit ridiculous to be regulating it.
And I'm sure there are plenty of overlapping laws that already cover a pilot being negligent.
We have a plate luminometer from the mid 90s (runs windows 3.1) in a lab I am working in. A colleague and I repaired it and made it usable last year.
It has a 3.5" floppy drive. That drive will be the only way we can get the data from it when we make our first use of it in coming days.
----
In short: People who use older equipment for lack of funding are going to use floppies.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
As I wrote/asked in another reply... where are the people dying from these supposed distracted pilots? I've yet to hear about them.
I have not seen a need for this law. The reason I'm replying to you specifically is that your approach has an implicit degree of acceptance to there being a need; can you give me evidence of this need? I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
"focus on flying and on safety at all times" is staring at a big blue sky of nothing for hours on end. That will put anyone to sleep. Let them keep their minds doing something, who really cares what they do.
What you wrote relates to something I was thinking about this... I realize they must pay attention and that lives are at stake... and I understand the purpose of what they are trying to do here. But what I don't see is any evidence that we have distracted pilots resulting in death to travelers...
I have yet to hear of a single incident where some distracted pilot crashed and killed people. And so I am forced to ask if this ban/rule ACTUALLY makes any sense. In theory it seems good; but if nobody is actually dying from distracted pilots, wtf? Really.
You should look a little more into the information instead of your feelings. Don't get so upset just because something isn't what you wanted to hear.
This information has been discussed for over a decade now. It is called Global Dimming. There is a great video on Nova about it if you want to learn.
Why don't they just take a bunch of polls and ask if people use Ubuntu, and if they pay?
Or maybe they could make it so that paying ubuntu users get a slight bandwidth preference for update/distro packages --- but this actually means a very small flag is applied to their system. Those numbers can be counted.
What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?
Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.
They could also just open maps.google.com in their browser.... The browser does support it, I hope. It runs on the regular stuff most browsers have.
can we tag the article flamebait ?
Lol. I had one answer "A circle of Kumbaya"
Like I said, my experience with muslims is not aligned with this data. But I think you might be a bit deluded when you say that Christianity is defanged -- in reality hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Christians in the US are in support of our wars no more than the simple killing of Muslims for that fact alone. In reality, many Christians are just as hateful, militant, and in support of killing others as these muslims in these polls. If you don't see it, its likely you're christian and blind to criticism and reality. To the agnostic, it is quite clear.