We aren't missing the point. We got the point, almost chuckled at the silly joke, and moved on to a topic with real meat to discuss. Quit trying to be clever.
Your use of the word douche would not be considered incorrect. To be more specific 'douches' are people who have a sense of un-based superiority. Your definition fits under that umbrella. You may also come across 'douchebag' which is the full term. It references a feminine hygiene product that is anything but hygienic.
The failed to predict the mobile phone camera. They focused on the lower end of the market, and smart phones with their 5-15megapixel cameras blew them out the market.
As someone currently learning traditional Chinese and finding it personally easier, I agree that overall the roman alphabet is superior. The roman alphabet is tied to sound only, and therefore can be used with any spoken language. Minor discrepancies in pronunciation aside, once you know the sounds you can sound out a word you don't know. You can't do that in Chinese. That feature of the alphabet makes it infinitely more adaptable than the character system, where your main choices are memorization and more memorization. It literally is the difference in learning 30-odd characters and 1200. (the 30-odd number is leeway to reintroduce some characters that American English doesn't have at this time, such as one for the 'ch' and the 'sh' sounds.)
And just so you know I personally like the character system better, and I think it is due to my rather severe dyslexia. These roman letters are used over and over again and it can be hard to tell what it is supposed to be. Easiest example to give is 'p', 'b', 'd', and 'q'. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I sure have. They are all the same fucking letter.
Why do you think we should get rid of other languages, specifically? Is it only the inconvenience of translation? And why do you chose English to be the 'standard'?
I agree, it is the parents responsibility. Not the governments. We should limit freedom because you are not comfortable with the choices other people might make for their families? Laws should not help parents parent. And it's none of your or anyone else's darned business what anyone else decides or (like the example you gave) doesn’t decide to do. Limiting others freedom for your personal comfort is wrong.
The responses sound canned not because of auto generation, but because they have be repeated so many times without the people they are aimed at actually listening. Hence the repetition. You cannot filter the internet in a way that will make everyone happy. It's too big, too much, and the requirements for filtering are too diverse. No one can do this for you. The parent has to do it themselves, just like picking out schools, acceptable playmates and so on.
And even the argument that everyone can agree that porn is bad is false. I don't have kids and I'm fairly young, so I won't go there, but I will honestly say that my parents never censored me. I watched R-rated movies, without the hands over the eyes at the sex scene. This did not create a traumatized little girl, it created a woman who is comfortable with her sexuality and everyone elses. Think back on history, on families of 4, 6, 8 or more all sharing one room or one bed, and the babies kept coming. I doubt Mom and Dad were renting a hotel room. Children have always been exposed to the harsher lessons in life early on until very recently in history. And you can't really argue that its any improvement.
Porn and sex are just an example here. This argument can be moved to any of the bad ideas out there in the world. Prejudice, violence, hate, suffering and cruelty can all be applied.
It's not law but the Declaration of Independence says:
...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence....
Again, it's not law but it is one of the documents on which our country is based.
Because the fuel is literally free? Of course there are infrastructure costs, but those exist with any power system.
Because what we have *isn't* acceptable, that's the whole point. What we have now, coal/oil/gas, is destroying the very environment we need to survive.
I'm going to address these at the same time. You can not disregard infrastructure costs or maintenance fees. Plus even if we switched to solar and it became cheaper to provide electricity, I highly doubt that prices will drop. Consumers are used to the current prices so companies will continue to try and extort those prices from us. As for the second statement about the system being acceptable, I was playing devil's advocate. The infrastructure is in place. They only have to pay for maintenance. Since corporations goal is to make the quickest, biggest money that they can, sometimes spending more now to make much more later isn't an option.
As for your fifty cars...cars need oil changes, tires, belts, coolant and a thousand other things that I don't know about. Infrastructure maintenance is a constant cost that cannot be disregarded.
Now to elaborate on my opinion that lowering consumption is the way to a greener future. If we lower the amount of infrastructure needed to support our needs then the cost on putting it in becomes more viable to the corporations. We have to make it appealing to them.
2 billion Chinese might beg to differ with you. Yes you can lower your usage 30%, but if population goes up 50%, it's still a net increase in usage.
Higher population density = less transmission loss.
And how exactly do you plan to pay $0 for electricity? Even using solar, there is infrastructure and and maintenance cost. And it is almost cost prohibitive to the average person right now.
Higher efficiency has its place in this system. If the load becomes lighter, providers or individuals will need to spend less on infrastructure to support a clean energy source. It still won't be free, but it'll be cheaper. That will make it easier to switch over.
And just for an example I am updating an older home from the early 60s. Pricing on just supplementing our power usage with a home solar array is crazy. Upwards of $8,000 plus the cost of batteries every few years. Updating windows, sealing house, re-insulating with R60 and replacing appliances with energy star will cost about the same amount and according to our rough calculations can at worst cut our consumption in half. Our real guesstimate is more like 75%. Then the money we save on electricity and the fact that we need so much less in the way of wattage we can install a much smaller solar array to meet our needs. Now this is the microcosm of our home but the example can scale up all the way to the power-plants themselves. Why pay for massive amounts of new infrastructure that will cost you more money when what you have is acceptable?
Lowering consumption is the way to a greener future. Making the cost of new infrastructure worthwhile is the only way to switch over.
The way I handle passwords is I developed and code based on the name of whatever I am assigning the password to. That way you don't have to remember a hundred different passwords, just one code. Use different indicators such as colors, letters and numbers based on the item. Ex. gmail password =5GLmai the password is 5 for the number of letters, first and last letter together capitalized, then the middle letters together lowercase.
I own an IT company that does this sort of work. When setting up a system of this sort, we prefer to administer remotely for two reasons: firstly it's easier on us, and secondly its easier on the customer.
It's easier on us to just be able to do the work without having someone breathing down our neck. It's easier on the customer to not have to constantly worry about breathing down someone's neck. It's a trust issue.
Honestly, if you don't trust them, why would you let them set it up in the first place? Also do you know enough to police them either way?
Seriously, if you don't know how to maintain your server yourself, you won't know whether that command he just added to your log-on scripts is going to add a new network share for each user, or download a remote kill switch to every computer in the network. You have to trust them, or you have to do it yourself.
Our company spends a good bit of time with a customer, going over everything, documenting our every move so that the customer knows what's going on.
They eventually start to trust us and then they just want us to fix issues instead of explaining them. Building that trust is important.
If your company is not willing to build that trust with you then I would be nervous about them, but remote administering is not the problem.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven.;)
I think that before this subject can be discussed fully a definition on exactly what constitutes as a disability or other undesirable condition should be developed.
I happen to have several genetic conditions that many people feel are undesirable. I don't share that opinion. Sometimes a difference in ability is mistaken for a disability, example repeat: Beethoven
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't missing the point. We got the point, almost chuckled at the silly joke, and moved on to a topic with real meat to discuss. Quit trying to be clever.
Your use of the word douche would not be considered incorrect. To be more specific 'douches' are people who have a sense of un-based superiority. Your definition fits under that umbrella. You may also come across 'douchebag' which is the full term. It references a feminine hygiene product that is anything but hygienic.
The failed to predict the mobile phone camera. They focused on the lower end of the market, and smart phones with their 5-15megapixel cameras blew them out the market.
As someone currently learning traditional Chinese and finding it personally easier, I agree that overall the roman alphabet is superior. The roman alphabet is tied to sound only, and therefore can be used with any spoken language. Minor discrepancies in pronunciation aside, once you know the sounds you can sound out a word you don't know. You can't do that in Chinese. That feature of the alphabet makes it infinitely more adaptable than the character system, where your main choices are memorization and more memorization. It literally is the difference in learning 30-odd characters and 1200. (the 30-odd number is leeway to reintroduce some characters that American English doesn't have at this time, such as one for the 'ch' and the 'sh' sounds.)
And just so you know I personally like the character system better, and I think it is due to my rather severe dyslexia. These roman letters are used over and over again and it can be hard to tell what it is supposed to be. Easiest example to give is 'p', 'b', 'd', and 'q'. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I sure have. They are all the same fucking letter.
Why do you think we should get rid of other languages, specifically? Is it only the inconvenience of translation? And why do you chose English to be the 'standard'?
Here's the pony: http://youtu.be/qAxeOBomNME The guy who did it has done many of them.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
I agree, it is the parents responsibility. Not the governments. We should limit freedom because you are not comfortable with the choices other people might make for their families? Laws should not help parents parent. And it's none of your or anyone else's darned business what anyone else decides or (like the example you gave) doesn’t decide to do. Limiting others freedom for your personal comfort is wrong.
The responses sound canned not because of auto generation, but because they have be repeated so many times without the people they are aimed at actually listening. Hence the repetition. You cannot filter the internet in a way that will make everyone happy. It's too big, too much, and the requirements for filtering are too diverse. No one can do this for you. The parent has to do it themselves, just like picking out schools, acceptable playmates and so on.
And even the argument that everyone can agree that porn is bad is false. I don't have kids and I'm fairly young, so I won't go there, but I will honestly say that my parents never censored me. I watched R-rated movies, without the hands over the eyes at the sex scene. This did not create a traumatized little girl, it created a woman who is comfortable with her sexuality and everyone elses. Think back on history, on families of 4, 6, 8 or more all sharing one room or one bed, and the babies kept coming. I doubt Mom and Dad were renting a hotel room. Children have always been exposed to the harsher lessons in life early on until very recently in history. And you can't really argue that its any improvement.
Porn and sex are just an example here. This argument can be moved to any of the bad ideas out there in the world. Prejudice, violence, hate, suffering and cruelty can all be applied.
Again, it's not law but it is one of the documents on which our country is based.
I'm going to address these at the same time. You can not disregard infrastructure costs or maintenance fees. Plus even if we switched to solar and it became cheaper to provide electricity, I highly doubt that prices will drop. Consumers are used to the current prices so companies will continue to try and extort those prices from us. As for the second statement about the system being acceptable, I was playing devil's advocate. The infrastructure is in place. They only have to pay for maintenance. Since corporations goal is to make the quickest, biggest money that they can, sometimes spending more now to make much more later isn't an option.
As for your fifty cars...cars need oil changes, tires, belts, coolant and a thousand other things that I don't know about. Infrastructure maintenance is a constant cost that cannot be disregarded.
Now to elaborate on my opinion that lowering consumption is the way to a greener future. If we lower the amount of infrastructure needed to support our needs then the cost on putting it in becomes more viable to the corporations. We have to make it appealing to them.
Higher population density = less transmission loss.
And how exactly do you plan to pay $0 for electricity? Even using solar, there is infrastructure and and maintenance cost. And it is almost cost prohibitive to the average person right now.
Higher efficiency has its place in this system. If the load becomes lighter, providers or individuals will need to spend less on infrastructure to support a clean energy source. It still won't be free, but it'll be cheaper. That will make it easier to switch over.
And just for an example I am updating an older home from the early 60s. Pricing on just supplementing our power usage with a home solar array is crazy. Upwards of $8,000 plus the cost of batteries every few years. Updating windows, sealing house, re-insulating with R60 and replacing appliances with energy star will cost about the same amount and according to our rough calculations can at worst cut our consumption in half. Our real guesstimate is more like 75%. Then the money we save on electricity and the fact that we need so much less in the way of wattage we can install a much smaller solar array to meet our needs. Now this is the microcosm of our home but the example can scale up all the way to the power-plants themselves. Why pay for massive amounts of new infrastructure that will cost you more money when what you have is acceptable?
Lowering consumption is the way to a greener future. Making the cost of new infrastructure worthwhile is the only way to switch over.
The way I handle passwords is I developed and code based on the name of whatever I am assigning the password to. That way you don't have to remember a hundred different passwords, just one code. Use different indicators such as colors, letters and numbers based on the item. Ex. gmail password =5GLmai the password is 5 for the number of letters, first and last letter together capitalized, then the middle letters together lowercase.
I own an IT company that does this sort of work. When setting up a system of this sort, we prefer to administer remotely for two reasons: firstly it's easier on us, and secondly its easier on the customer.
It's easier on us to just be able to do the work without having someone breathing down our neck. It's easier on the customer to not have to constantly worry about breathing down someone's neck. It's a trust issue.
Honestly, if you don't trust them, why would you let them set it up in the first place? Also do you know enough to police them either way?
Seriously, if you don't know how to maintain your server yourself, you won't know whether that command he just added to your log-on scripts is going to add a new network share for each user, or download a remote kill switch to every computer in the network. You have to trust them, or you have to do it yourself.
Our company spends a good bit of time with a customer, going over everything, documenting our every move so that the customer knows what's going on. They eventually start to trust us and then they just want us to fix issues instead of explaining them. Building that trust is important.
If your company is not willing to build that trust with you then I would be nervous about them, but remote administering is not the problem.
Never attribute to malice, something that can result from ignorance.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven. ;)
I think that before this subject can be discussed fully a definition on exactly what constitutes as a disability or other undesirable condition should be developed. I happen to have several genetic conditions that many people feel are undesirable. I don't share that opinion. Sometimes a difference in ability is mistaken for a disability, example repeat: Beethoven