Have never purchased any subscription software of any kind, and will never purchase any subscription software of any kind under any circumstances ever no matter what.
I don't extend to holding the company accountable for offering such a product by refusing to buy any product from them again ever. For instance I bought the Elder Scrolls Online from Bethesda, after it was no longer subscription based. But I feel like those tactics are warranted.
Who cares if there are a bunch of me-too distros? It's not like the existence of Dervogis Linux which by default ships with a strange desktop environment that very few people use and a package manager nobody has ever heard of, affects the ubuntu user in any way.
That's a pretty fair point, but Apple provides a clever engineering solution to a practical problem that the user would rather not enter in a strong 38 character password every time they turn on the phone.
It does make me wonder though how acceptable is the solution that Apple be willing to overwrite the OS to allow for brute force decryption, specifically in case of a court order. In order to do this, the federal government pays apple a prohibitive expense, such as, $1 million, so that the privilege isn't abused. The procedure requires the phone be sent to one particular apple facility in california, and apple gives them the decrypted phone 6 to 8 weeks later. One phone per injunction.
If you trust apple, that solution might not seem so bad. But it requires you to trust apple. And while I think apple's actions here suggest their trustworthiness, I understand the good reasons people have not to do that, after all they are still Apple.
I don't agree with every position he has, but he sits squarely in the "Mostly Libertarian" camp. The exception I believe is his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.
Having no law restricting abortion is firmly libertarian. Having a law restricting abortion, is government enforcement.
Whether as some people argue (ludicrously in my view) that the unborn child has rights in the eyes of the law and therefore it is OK to have laws punishing any aggressors, it is completely undeniable that this is a legislative proposal for laws that do not currently exist. I think it would be a stretch philosophically to say that the choice not to have children, and instead to have them aborted, is a threat to a functioning, orderly society with no excess laws, the one which libertarians dream of.
The fact that many libertarians in the US -- especially libertarians who are also evangelical christians and catholics -- fail to recognize that nonlegislation of abortion is as ideologically libertarian a cause as could be championed (and which was championed famously by Ayn Rand) does not make it not so.
Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian and I am not defending libertarian ideas.
I am a Christian Socialist and I am perfectly comfortable with evolution being taught in school as the one theory which best fits all of the evidence. My copy of scripture does not say G-d did not use evolution to create Life. My copy of scripture is completely silent on the "How?" portion of the origin of Life, as well it should be since religion is often an attempt instead to answer "Why?".
I am a Christian Socialist and I am perfectly comfortable with evolution being taught in school as the one theory which best fits all of the evidence. My copy of scripture does not say G-d did not use evolution to create Life. My copy of scripture is completely silent on the "How?" portion of the origin of Life, as well it should be since religion is often an attempt instead to answer "Why?".
If by "your scripture" you refer to any version of the old testament, it describes in some detail not necessarily all of the "how" but various events that played a role in the creation of life, including various animals in the garden of eden, and the events describing a flood where noah constructed an ark and so on. I admit freely to being broadly ignorant of the details of the old testament. But anyway that scripture does have something to say about the matter. So your comments are inconsistent with the old testament.
If you disbelieve the old testament, and are referring to some other documents as scripture, then ok. If you believe some of the old testament occurred, but do not believe all of it could have occurred, ok. If you find the stories of the old testament to be fables which did not occur but from which we should take moral guidance -- ok. There are numerous perfectly consistent ways to reconcile the metaphysical beliefs you described without contradicting the available evidence.
But the one way you cannot interpret them, reasonably, is to say that the events regarding the origin of life as described in the old testament, are correct.
"Between you and I" is gramatically correct. The "political correctness" that you speak of, I agree of course was innovated away in the language hundreds of years ago (but you can still see this in other indo european languages where "Between you and I" is the only sensible way to say it. But there's nothing ungrammatical about the statement you are pointing out.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who liked cheese. Bennett, you like cheese too? That's amazing! Would you consider sharing some of your thoughts on cheese over the course of eight to ten long paragraphs? That would be fascinating.
You have failed to see the astonishing insights Bennett Haselton offers here, but I will just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are confused.
I just have one question myself about Bennett's suggestion: what is twitter?
I don't know if "unlikely to enjoy" is possible, let alone scientifically reasonable.
The control group should be random. It certainly is in clinical trials that evaluate placebo.
When a robo-truck crushes a kid on a "no pedestrian" highway, that's a lot less bad PR than a robo-bus crushing a kid in a city or residential area.
You're assuming the kid is a pedestrian, which seems extremely unlikely. Far more likely is some other guy is driving recklessly with a kid in the passenger seat, and it's not the robot driver's fault at all but will still be blamed for not getting out of the way.
Bullshit. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Period. You may call it "positive sexism" but it's still sexism. (It's also weird how this "positive sexism" doesn't apply to increasing the number of men teaching elementary school or the number of women garbage collectors. Wonder why THAT is.)
I totally agree, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
However, why the hell are we talking about discrimination? We are talking about a coding initiative using characters from a Disney Movie. I am aware of both men and women who dislike Frozen. My nephew, who I think is about 7 or 8, rather likes it, for instance.
You are a man who doesn't like Frozen? Perhaps your son or other male children in your family do not like frozen? That's not a problem, I am a 25 year old dude and I don't like it either. You, and others, are not being *discriminated against*, simply because somebody makes or promotes content that *you don't like.*
In languages such as Spanish where gender is an important feature of the language and considerable syntax is devoted to dealing with it, yes, what you say is correct.
In English, it isn't. At least certainly not in the colloquial english spoken natively in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Maybe some English professor somewhere has a revolutionary theory that all of these native speakers who don't use masculine pronouns in a gender-neutral way are wrong, but I see no reason why I should care about such a person.
I rarely would bother to use other search engines (and especially not bing), but if someone told me to google something, and for some reason I used another search engine, I would in my understanding of the terms have complied with the request to google the thing.
The only way in which this could realistically occur, in my estimation, is if I conducted the search on a new installation of a distribution such as mint which doesn't have google as the default engine, and decided temporarily that completing the search using the default search engine were more important right now than changing the settings to use google.
Input: what is the population of the city where abraham lincoln was born
Input interpretation: ((Abraham Lincoln | City of Birth) | City population)
Results:
Hide details
Abraham Lincoln: place of birth: Hodgenville, Kentucky, United States
Population: Hodgenville, KY, city population: 3232 people (2012 estimate)
Why sumerian? At what point did language evolve? Surely there was some degree of diaspora at that point.
If you had said, "central african" or "Bantu" or something I would understand that you were making a joke about it and selected your choice of language based on an extremely long term scale of human history. If you said "Indian" or "Hindi" or "Sanskrit" or "Proto-Indo-European" I would understand your choice of language based on the progression of linguistics within recorded history (Which might be the earliest correct scale although probably not).
But Sumerian does strike as a rather odd choice with basis in mythology only rather than history.
I don't understand what is the issue here. (IANAL and I don't really have any knowledge of what the actual law says, I am just an observer curious about common law rather than actual law).
I agree that it seems reasonable that the merchant cannot selectively deny credit if the bank accepts the credit. In this scenario, however, the bank clearly does not accept the credit, it says "no I reject the credit." So we are not talking about whether or not the merchant is liable for accepting the credit that the bank issued, we are talking about the situation in which the customer wants to appeal the bank's rejection and whether or not the merchant is liable for refusing to process this appeal.
Independently of the merchant, the customer can go to the bank and settle the issue (i.e., have the restrictions on the card revoked). I understand that some merchants might want to sell their goods and so would help the customer process the appeal, that's great. But it seems like a thing that should be at the discretion of the merchant. Why should the merchant be liable for not agreeing to do that and telling the customer "I don't trust you. Go settle this with your bank, and if you do and your bank offers me credit I will be happy to take it"?
By what objective measures is fascism in Ukraine lower than in most countries across the globe?
I will not purport to describe any objective measures of Ukrainian fascism because I don't know of any way to measure this. However, I will describe my subjective views on the situation: there are some minor right-wing nationalist parties that have a small but loudly articulated position in Ukrainian national politics, whereas the majority of the population is much more moderate and indeed most of the protesters in western Ukraine who overthrew the Yanukovych government were much more moderate. To reach this conclusion I have scoured various media sources, mostly mainstream, and talked to several of my friends in socionics who used to live in Ukraine (I don't know anyone who currently lives in Ukraine) who mostly agree that this description is true, and the tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine are real but overstated and simplified by western media.
If you agree that this seems like a reasonable summary of the situation, then it is very likely *not* true that fascism in Ukraine is lower than in most countries across the globe. Instead I would argue that fascism in Ukraine is broadly comparable to that of other countries across the globe. Use of this rhetoric merely harms your argument, with which I agree -- mainly, the current ruling body in western Ukraine is not particularly fascist
While this is an issue in esports, potentially, Riot is not dumb enough to do this. They -- and a lot of other companies -- realize that the emergence of esports is tremendously profitable for their game in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Have never purchased any subscription software of any kind, and will never purchase any subscription software of any kind under any circumstances ever no matter what.
I don't extend to holding the company accountable for offering such a product by refusing to buy any product from them again ever. For instance I bought the Elder Scrolls Online from Bethesda, after it was no longer subscription based. But I feel like those tactics are warranted.
Rooftop solar does have to deal with things like, wind, and snow, and occasionally, hail.
Who cares if there are a bunch of me-too distros? It's not like the existence of Dervogis Linux which by default ships with a strange desktop environment that very few people use and a package manager nobody has ever heard of, affects the ubuntu user in any way.
That's a pretty fair point, but Apple provides a clever engineering solution to a practical problem that the user would rather not enter in a strong 38 character password every time they turn on the phone.
It does make me wonder though how acceptable is the solution that Apple be willing to overwrite the OS to allow for brute force decryption, specifically in case of a court order. In order to do this, the federal government pays apple a prohibitive expense, such as, $1 million, so that the privilege isn't abused. The procedure requires the phone be sent to one particular apple facility in california, and apple gives them the decrypted phone 6 to 8 weeks later. One phone per injunction.
If you trust apple, that solution might not seem so bad. But it requires you to trust apple. And while I think apple's actions here suggest their trustworthiness, I understand the good reasons people have not to do that, after all they are still Apple.
I don't agree with every position he has, but he sits squarely in the "Mostly Libertarian" camp. The exception I believe is his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.
Having no law restricting abortion is firmly libertarian. Having a law restricting abortion, is government enforcement.
Whether as some people argue (ludicrously in my view) that the unborn child has rights in the eyes of the law and therefore it is OK to have laws punishing any aggressors, it is completely undeniable that this is a legislative proposal for laws that do not currently exist. I think it would be a stretch philosophically to say that the choice not to have children, and instead to have them aborted, is a threat to a functioning, orderly society with no excess laws, the one which libertarians dream of.
The fact that many libertarians in the US -- especially libertarians who are also evangelical christians and catholics -- fail to recognize that nonlegislation of abortion is as ideologically libertarian a cause as could be championed (and which was championed famously by Ayn Rand) does not make it not so.
Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian and I am not defending libertarian ideas.
I am a Christian Socialist and I am perfectly comfortable with evolution being taught in school as the one theory which best fits all of the evidence. My copy of scripture does not say G-d did not use evolution to create Life. My copy of scripture is completely silent on the "How?" portion of the origin of Life, as well it should be since religion is often an attempt instead to answer "Why?".
I am a Christian Socialist and I am perfectly comfortable with evolution being taught in school as the one theory which best fits all of the evidence. My copy of scripture does not say G-d did not use evolution to create Life. My copy of scripture is completely silent on the "How?" portion of the origin of Life, as well it should be since religion is often an attempt instead to answer "Why?".
If by "your scripture" you refer to any version of the old testament, it describes in some detail not necessarily all of the "how" but various events that played a role in the creation of life, including various animals in the garden of eden, and the events describing a flood where noah constructed an ark and so on. I admit freely to being broadly ignorant of the details of the old testament. But anyway that scripture does have something to say about the matter. So your comments are inconsistent with the old testament.
If you disbelieve the old testament, and are referring to some other documents as scripture, then ok. If you believe some of the old testament occurred, but do not believe all of it could have occurred, ok. If you find the stories of the old testament to be fables which did not occur but from which we should take moral guidance -- ok. There are numerous perfectly consistent ways to reconcile the metaphysical beliefs you described without contradicting the available evidence.
But the one way you cannot interpret them, reasonably, is to say that the events regarding the origin of life as described in the old testament, are correct.
"Between you and I" is gramatically correct. The "political correctness" that you speak of, I agree of course was innovated away in the language hundreds of years ago (but you can still see this in other indo european languages where "Between you and I" is the only sensible way to say it. But there's nothing ungrammatical about the statement you are pointing out.
Debian does not do this by default, but recent versions of debian installer do allow not setting a root password as an option.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who liked cheese. Bennett, you like cheese too? That's amazing! Would you consider sharing some of your thoughts on cheese over the course of eight to ten long paragraphs? That would be fascinating.
You have failed to see the astonishing insights Bennett Haselton offers here, but I will just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are confused.
I just have one question myself about Bennett's suggestion: what is twitter?
I don't know if "unlikely to enjoy" is possible, let alone scientifically reasonable. The control group should be random. It certainly is in clinical trials that evaluate placebo.
When a robo-truck crushes a kid on a "no pedestrian" highway, that's a lot less bad PR than a robo-bus crushing a kid in a city or residential area.
You're assuming the kid is a pedestrian, which seems extremely unlikely. Far more likely is some other guy is driving recklessly with a kid in the passenger seat, and it's not the robot driver's fault at all but will still be blamed for not getting out of the way.
Bullshit. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Period. You may call it "positive sexism" but it's still sexism. (It's also weird how this "positive sexism" doesn't apply to increasing the number of men teaching elementary school or the number of women garbage collectors. Wonder why THAT is.)
I totally agree, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
However, why the hell are we talking about discrimination? We are talking about a coding initiative using characters from a Disney Movie. I am aware of both men and women who dislike Frozen. My nephew, who I think is about 7 or 8, rather likes it, for instance.
You are a man who doesn't like Frozen? Perhaps your son or other male children in your family do not like frozen? That's not a problem, I am a 25 year old dude and I don't like it either. You, and others, are not being *discriminated against*, simply because somebody makes or promotes content that *you don't like.*
In languages such as Spanish where gender is an important feature of the language and considerable syntax is devoted to dealing with it, yes, what you say is correct. In English, it isn't. At least certainly not in the colloquial english spoken natively in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Maybe some English professor somewhere has a revolutionary theory that all of these native speakers who don't use masculine pronouns in a gender-neutral way are wrong, but I see no reason why I should care about such a person.
It isn't at all difficult, but I agree this is rather dickish of them. Personally I'll still use mint though.
Good, I hope you enjoy not talking to some odd 50% of people who use gmail. I certainly don't see any further reason to talk to you.
I rarely would bother to use other search engines (and especially not bing), but if someone told me to google something, and for some reason I used another search engine, I would in my understanding of the terms have complied with the request to google the thing.
The only way in which this could realistically occur, in my estimation, is if I conducted the search on a new installation of a distribution such as mint which doesn't have google as the default engine, and decided temporarily that completing the search using the default search engine were more important right now than changing the settings to use google.
No mod points, but +1 for recognizing provident plantation as a type of governing body.
Yeah, Pretty much.
Input: what is the population of the city where abraham lincoln was born
Input interpretation: ((Abraham Lincoln | City of Birth) | City population)
Results:
Hide details
Abraham Lincoln: place of birth: Hodgenville, Kentucky, United States
Population: Hodgenville, KY, city population: 3232 people (2012 estimate)
Brought to you by the Wolfram language
Why sumerian? At what point did language evolve? Surely there was some degree of diaspora at that point.
If you had said, "central african" or "Bantu" or something I would understand that you were making a joke about it and selected your choice of language based on an extremely long term scale of human history. If you said "Indian" or "Hindi" or "Sanskrit" or "Proto-Indo-European" I would understand your choice of language based on the progression of linguistics within recorded history (Which might be the earliest correct scale although probably not).
But Sumerian does strike as a rather odd choice with basis in mythology only rather than history.
I wouldn't to less give care to this particular topic of subjective words in would make choices, but it turns out that i didn't would.
I could care less, but instead I choose to wouldn't to.
I don't understand what is the issue here. (IANAL and I don't really have any knowledge of what the actual law says, I am just an observer curious about common law rather than actual law).
I agree that it seems reasonable that the merchant cannot selectively deny credit if the bank accepts the credit. In this scenario, however, the bank clearly does not accept the credit, it says "no I reject the credit." So we are not talking about whether or not the merchant is liable for accepting the credit that the bank issued, we are talking about the situation in which the customer wants to appeal the bank's rejection and whether or not the merchant is liable for refusing to process this appeal.
Independently of the merchant, the customer can go to the bank and settle the issue (i.e., have the restrictions on the card revoked). I understand that some merchants might want to sell their goods and so would help the customer process the appeal, that's great. But it seems like a thing that should be at the discretion of the merchant. Why should the merchant be liable for not agreeing to do that and telling the customer "I don't trust you. Go settle this with your bank, and if you do and your bank offers me credit I will be happy to take it"?
By what objective measures is fascism in Ukraine lower than in most countries across the globe?
I will not purport to describe any objective measures of Ukrainian fascism because I don't know of any way to measure this. However, I will describe my subjective views on the situation: there are some minor right-wing nationalist parties that have a small but loudly articulated position in Ukrainian national politics, whereas the majority of the population is much more moderate and indeed most of the protesters in western Ukraine who overthrew the Yanukovych government were much more moderate. To reach this conclusion I have scoured various media sources, mostly mainstream, and talked to several of my friends in socionics who used to live in Ukraine (I don't know anyone who currently lives in Ukraine) who mostly agree that this description is true, and the tensions between Eastern and Western Ukraine are real but overstated and simplified by western media.
If you agree that this seems like a reasonable summary of the situation, then it is very likely *not* true that fascism in Ukraine is lower than in most countries across the globe. Instead I would argue that fascism in Ukraine is broadly comparable to that of other countries across the globe. Use of this rhetoric merely harms your argument, with which I agree -- mainly, the current ruling body in western Ukraine is not particularly fascist
While this is an issue in esports, potentially, Riot is not dumb enough to do this. They -- and a lot of other companies -- realize that the emergence of esports is tremendously profitable for their game in the long run.