But if TFS is to be believed, Google was originally calling it a feature, not a bug. Now I don't know what I would do in such a situation, but I can understand how someone might think "well, if they view it as a feature, then I should share this feature with the world".
I don't know why others think it's better. I just don't.
The thing is, "better" is subjective. For you, working from home is better. For me, I'm more easily tempted to "goof off" when not in the office.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you should have to come into the office just because I am incapable of telecommuting. I am simply explaining one possible reason other people may consider cube farms to be "better".
Exactly. When we say this is evolution in action, we aren't talking about the mosquito who touches it today suddenly evolving an immunity to DEET. We're talking about the generations of mosquitoes before it that have had to face DEET, and how those mosquitoes least impacted by it ended up reproducing more, effectively selecting for what we see today.
You get to choose whether or not what you're protecting is worth a "contempt of court"or "obstruction" charge or whatever.
That assumes that those charges can even be applied. Ignoring the fact that Canada's equivalent to the 5th Amendment should have something to say about being forced to divulge information, how does one prove that the person hasn't forgotten the password? Or maybe it wasn't a password at all, but a passfile, and they've lost that file? Can you be held in contempt of court if the police have a warrant to search a padlocked box, but you are unable to produce the physical key?
The email has no spelling errors, a dead giveaway.
Wasn't there a story a while back that said the exact opposite of that? That scammers want their emails to look as poorly written as possible (among other things) so as to only attract the most gullible people?
If you hadn't had your study of evolution replaced by fundamental Christian teachings
Uh, no. Saying that humans have come up with internal combustion, digital computers, drone strikes, Minecraft, or anything else does not logically lead to "I believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy". On the other hand, dismissing human accomplishments as having come from "nature" does. You know, like how hand-egg players will thank their particular flavor of Invisible Sky Daddy for the skills to do what they did.
If you want to believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy, that's fine. But when you claim that the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to humanity equates to a belief in an Invisible Sky Daddy, while the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to "nature" does not? I don't know what to say to that, other than it feels like you are trying to be deliberately deceptive.
Reminds me of something I read about a long time ago. If you were to one day put on glasses that flipped the world upside-down, and wear them non-stop, after a few weeks, your brain would adjust to make that look right to you, and then if you take the glasses _off_ the world would look upside-down.
Interesting.. and where exactly do you get your information claiming that porn is as harmful as unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, and lying about the ingredients you put in food? I'm not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of banning those three items, only that the comparison to porn kind of falls flat.
Logic also seems to be missing from your post. How the hell does the existence of murders surrounding bicycle robberies lead to harsher sentences for bicycle robberies that do not include murder? These are two separate crimes that occurred at the same time. For a car analogy, it'd be like increasing penalties for just speeding down the highway because sometimes people will get drunk off their ass before getting behind the wheel and speeding down the highway.
Punish for the crime that was committed, not for that crime plus other crimes that are sometimes committed alongside it.
Additionally, what makes you think I even know anything about what my dad has done? Since I am speaking hypothetically, "I" could be a snot-nosed little 2 year old who knows absolutely nothing about anything. You clearly find it despicable when one person ruins the life of an innocent (as do I), yet for some reason you seem to think it ok for another innocent life to be ruined just because they are related to the perpetrator of the initial act.
why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance
My dad killing your kid does not justify you killing me. Go after my dad, but leave me out of it, or my siblings may decide they need to take you out before they become targets, and your remaining kids go after my siblings, and it just goes on and on and on...
Actually, yes, yes it is. When you're trying to do it while driving down the highway doing 80mph. Much easier to sip a drink than nom a sandwich that drips or just plain falls apart.
Actually, I have, though I was unaware that they might be placed that far away. Furthest I've seen would be like.. 1 block from the furthest house it serves, if that.
Slashdot Mirror
But if TFS is to be believed, Google was originally calling it a feature, not a bug. Now I don't know what I would do in such a situation, but I can understand how someone might think "well, if they view it as a feature, then I should share this feature with the world".
I don't know why others think it's better. I just don't.
The thing is, "better" is subjective. For you, working from home is better. For me, I'm more easily tempted to "goof off" when not in the office.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you should have to come into the office just because I am incapable of telecommuting. I am simply explaining one possible reason other people may consider cube farms to be "better".
Exactly. When we say this is evolution in action, we aren't talking about the mosquito who touches it today suddenly evolving an immunity to DEET. We're talking about the generations of mosquitoes before it that have had to face DEET, and how those mosquitoes least impacted by it ended up reproducing more, effectively selecting for what we see today.
You get to choose whether or not what you're protecting is worth a "contempt of court"or "obstruction" charge or whatever.
That assumes that those charges can even be applied. Ignoring the fact that Canada's equivalent to the 5th Amendment should have something to say about being forced to divulge information, how does one prove that the person hasn't forgotten the password? Or maybe it wasn't a password at all, but a passfile, and they've lost that file? Can you be held in contempt of court if the police have a warrant to search a padlocked box, but you are unable to produce the physical key?
The email has no spelling errors, a dead giveaway.
Wasn't there a story a while back that said the exact opposite of that? That scammers want their emails to look as poorly written as possible (among other things) so as to only attract the most gullible people?
If you hadn't had your study of evolution replaced by fundamental Christian teachings
Uh, no. Saying that humans have come up with internal combustion, digital computers, drone strikes, Minecraft, or anything else does not logically lead to "I believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy". On the other hand, dismissing human accomplishments as having come from "nature" does. You know, like how hand-egg players will thank their particular flavor of Invisible Sky Daddy for the skills to do what they did.
If you want to believe in an Invisible Sky Daddy, that's fine. But when you claim that the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to humanity equates to a belief in an Invisible Sky Daddy, while the attribution of human accomplishments and advancements to "nature" does not? I don't know what to say to that, other than it feels like you are trying to be deliberately deceptive.
Reminds me of something I read about a long time ago. If you were to one day put on glasses that flipped the world upside-down, and wear them non-stop, after a few weeks, your brain would adjust to make that look right to you, and then if you take the glasses _off_ the world would look upside-down.
I actually do grow a significant portion of my family's food. Maybe one-quarter of the meat and 1/10th the vegetables.
25% and 10% are now considered "significant" amounts of something?
Foot off the gas, stick it in third or second gear, and pull slowly but firmly on the handbrake. You can feel it bite, and you just keep on pulling.
And there-in lies the crucial difference. My handbrake can stop me too if I'm not stepping on the gas. But if I am? Forget about it!
Interesting.. and where exactly do you get your information claiming that porn is as harmful as unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, and lying about the ingredients you put in food? I'm not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of banning those three items, only that the comparison to porn kind of falls flat.
the alternative for a man is to just go homeless
You realize that there are men in porn, right?
Logic seems to be missing in many cases.
Logic also seems to be missing from your post. How the hell does the existence of murders surrounding bicycle robberies lead to harsher sentences for bicycle robberies that do not include murder? These are two separate crimes that occurred at the same time. For a car analogy, it'd be like increasing penalties for just speeding down the highway because sometimes people will get drunk off their ass before getting behind the wheel and speeding down the highway.
Punish for the crime that was committed, not for that crime plus other crimes that are sometimes committed alongside it.
Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.
Which is funny, given that we're already drinking recycled dinosaur urine. Plus many people drink urine directly. It's called beer.
And no, that is not a stab at American beer producers. Alcohol == yeast urine.
Additionally, what makes you think I even know anything about what my dad has done? Since I am speaking hypothetically, "I" could be a snot-nosed little 2 year old who knows absolutely nothing about anything. You clearly find it despicable when one person ruins the life of an innocent (as do I), yet for some reason you seem to think it ok for another innocent life to be ruined just because they are related to the perpetrator of the initial act.
Blood feuds are always stupid.
You'd be the first one to tell him so.
Why do you assume I did not already? Why are you assuming I am on his side?
I know exactly what a blood feud is. My whole point was that blood feuds are stupid.
why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance
My dad killing your kid does not justify you killing me. Go after my dad, but leave me out of it, or my siblings may decide they need to take you out before they become targets, and your remaining kids go after my siblings, and it just goes on and on and on...
Code Monkey does like Tab and Mountain Dew...
Actually, yes, yes it is. When you're trying to do it while driving down the highway doing 80mph. Much easier to sip a drink than nom a sandwich that drips or just plain falls apart.
Yes.
;)
Like squares and rectangles, all congresscritters are hypocrites, but not all hypocrites are congresscritters.
Smishing is social engineering.
"Smishing" sounds like something I shouldn't be looking up at work...
Actually, I have, though I was unaware that they might be placed that far away. Furthest I've seen would be like.. 1 block from the furthest house it serves, if that.
4 Steam will allow you to give your "extra" codes to friends (you buy a game pack and since you already have game X you send that code to a friend)
Very few bundles have I seen that allowed this. Sure, they exist, but the vast majority of bundles, you're SOL on the games you already own.
And Halo. Isn't Master Chief a "Space Marine"?
It takes me about 2 minutes to sort my mail once a month
Once a month? Why let it pile up at all? Just sort it as you're walking from the mailbox to your kitchen (or wherever).