those horrible XML files as the preferred way of designing a UI
Hmm...separating the UI description out in xml files is a good thing. In fact, it's a standard thing across all platforms. Android has those xml files, Windows has xaml, and iOS has.xib files.
Sure, interface builder abstracts you from the.xib files, and you never have to look inside it, but you can do xaml and android xml via their respective design interfaces too. The fact that you can also edit the xml manually is a feature, not a bug.
Most commercial products do interface shifts. Microsoft has done several recently and Apple on 10.7 did a large one and a decade ago a complete interface replacement.
Yes, I know. I updated to 10.7. I realized it sucked and I went back to 10.6.
There's nothing about being "commercial" that prevents them from doing stupid things.
The hatred for all things new in the FLOSS community never ceases to surprise me. When they change Facebook, all my nontech friends all winge for days about it.
You'd think it'd be different around here, but it's not.
There's a reason for that. Change for change's sake is a very bad thing. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
There's nothing wrong with a different desktop type. If you like a gnome 3 style interface, more power to you. It shouldn't have been an update to gnome, though. It should have been launched with a brand new name as a competitor to gnome. After all, think about it: the reason all those people were using gnome 2 was because they liked that interface. Now you removed what they liked.
Basically, updates to an interface should be to add features and fix bugs, but never to change how you interface with it. If you want to do that, that's fine, and it's entirely possible you'll create a superior interface. However, to do that, you create a competing interface, while still fully supporting the old interface, and see whether enough people flock to it that it makes sense to discontinue the old interface. You don't tell all your users that you're not supporting the interface they like, and to just tough it out and learn to like the new one.
A pro football player's team will usually pay for the repair. Amateur - yeah, it's a dumb idea to play football if you can't pay for the expected repairs. I haven't been skiing for a few years for this very reason. I can't think of anybody who's played football more than very occasionally and not been hurt.
But people still do it. My point is that when you do something dangerous, the consequence is that you might need help after the fact. That's no reason not to supply the help.
Take the Gloucestershire Cheese Rolling event. People get hurt. Everyone knows they might get hurt. Ambulances are there for that reason. The consequence is that you might break something and need a trip to the hospital. You *might* get hurt bad enough that they can't help you. These people know that and they have no right to complain if it happens. They do have a right to complain if they're not helped once they get hurt. There's no reason to say, "you know what, these are all stupid fucks, we're not going to send the ambulances there."
Basically, there are three separate and distinct events happening. The first is that somebody gets hurt. That's the fault of the idiot taking place in the event. Nothing bad has happened yet, and they can walk away and keep everything good. The second is that there's a situation in which people are likely to get hurt. You can either take precautions to make a potentially bad situation better, or let all hell break loose. The third is that there's somebody already hurt. If you can help somebody who is hurt, you help them, it doesn't matter HOW they got hurt. Something bad already happened, you can either make it better or worse. Nothing is gained by doing otherwise.
it could've just been the Ambulance Service captain saying "I think this is dangerous."
Too bad he didn't say, "and if you persist at it anyway, we're not going to help you."
I don't get why you'd want that. The whole, "you asked for it, so now you have to take it" attitude is bullshit. No matter whose fault it is, if we can fix a bad situation, we should fix it. Let's apply your way to other activities, shall we?
Skydiving is dangerous. If you hit a powerline while landing, we're not going to help you down.
Playing football is dangerous. If you get hit badly and fuck up your knee, tough. You don't get reconstructive surgery.
Driving is dangerous. If you get into an accident, we'll let you die on the road.
I was, but it also were Shatner's actual feelings on the subject as well. He felt, at the time the show was canceled, that the people nerding out over it at conventions were a bit obsessive and creepy. I guess to him, the entire thing looked like a relationship that ended and the ex was still stalking him. If I had that mindset, I'd find it a bit creepy too.
Dude, shortly after Trek, he went to a convention where people tried to strip his clothes off. Then he didn't go to conventions for decades after.
It's not a mindset thing. If you need bodyguards to protect you because people are idolizing you, it's creepy. I say this as a Trekkie. I also say this as a Trekkie who would not attack Jolene Blalock trying to rip her clothes off.
How many 'Wayne sponsored' private patrol could be funded with that money? How many 3rd party group could he hired to investigate the police? Hell, he could become Mayor and clean house in the PD.
First, it's not an either or proposition. Wayne Enterprises does everything you say. He doesn't run for office himself, but he supports the right candidates, funds plenty of social programs, and works to get rid of corruption.
Batman does two things nobody else can do: He can apparently deal with specific threats better than a swat team can, which may not be realistic, but is fact in the DC universe. He also provides something mysterious for criminals to fear and for the people in the city to look up to as a source of hope, since they're far too jaded about police and politicians. Now, Nolan did a good job in his movies to show the unintended consequences of that approach, but you should still be able to see how Bruce Wayne could choose to do what he does without being a psychotic thug.
A lot of ad-supported sites will do this. They'll release an article and split it up into multiple pages so they can display more ads. What happens when an article like that gets posted to slashdot? Everyone understandably complains that it's harder to read the article, and somebody posts a link to the printer-friendly version.
Multiple pages are not easier to navigate. Not even on tablets.
The non-open source parts of virtual box are free as in beer. That said, PXE isn't a part of it, USB peripherals are.
Where is the -1, Incorrect mod? Just kidding of course, but under Sun the OSE version used an open source "openboot" library that contains implementation flaws. The commercially licensed version actually contains a closed-source, more accurate implementation of PXE booting that works with our Windows SCCM servers.
This is the understanding I developed regarding PXE and open source vs commercial editions of VirtualBox 3.x after making many repeated trips to their support forums. It may be partially or entirely incorrect. But I am sure that after three days of trying to troubleshoot PXE booting in the open source version, that all of my troubles went away without a single configuration change by switching to the commercial licensed VirtualBox.
Ah, fair enough, my bad. I also forgot that it's only free as in beer for personal use, which is probably why you were weary of getting the extension.
If you want to network boot your VM by PXE, you need to pony up the cash for the closed source version maintained by Oracle.
The non-open source parts of virtual box are free as in beer. That said, PXE isn't a part of it, USB peripherals are.
The open source version supposedly supports PXE boot, but I was never able to make that version work with our environment.
Have you tried getting PXE working with the proprietary virtualbox? I suspect it won't work either, and that the problem is that VirtualBox doesn't like your PXE setup, not that they're trying to force you into the proprietary version.
As with MySQL, open source contributions to dual licensed software are not frequent nor great. With someone like Oracle at the helm, community cooperation with their free and open version is even further diminished.
As much as I would generally agree with you about Oracle, they really haven't screwed up VirtualBox at all since they bought Sun. In fact, it's been seeing pretty good development with the addition of some nice features.
Are you all forgetting that the DRM on iTunes was there only at the request of the record companies, and that it was apple that gained enough leverage to force them to withdraw that policy on iTunes?
No. However, Apple fans everywhere forget that Apple was happy to have their DRM on iTunes, and in fact defaulted to ripping your own CDs to DRMed aac, right up until all the lawsuits saying that unless Apple opens up Fairplay, then they're abusing a monopoly position.
Music studios, on the other hand, were trying to push for tiered pricing. Apple had a huge amount of leverage there, because nobody else could sell with fairplay DRM. That set the stage for Amazon to launch their drm-free service first, as in before Apple removed DRM from iTunes, which Amazon only managed to negotiate because the studios really wanted competition to iTunes, and it was the only way to sell music that would play on the iPod without Fairplay.
At that point, and only at that point, did Apple remove DRM from iTunes. They had lost the battle, but they spun it up as winning, as defending the rights of every consumer. Idiots everywhere bought it, without asking themselves why Apple isn't working to remove DRM from movies as well.
That said, another poster pointed out that the researchers apparently did account for the effects of gravity when synchronizing their clocks. The paper just wasn't sufficiently clear on that point, and they're rewriting that section.
would i understand/benefit from the course material from an undeveloped background?
From their webpage:
Programming is not required, however we believe it will be very helpful for some of the homework assignments. You may write code in any language you would like to (we recommend Python if you are new to programming) and your code will not be graded.
So, don't let all these people saying it's too advanced for you discourage you. Try it out, what do you have to lose? Worst case scenario, you don't finish the course and don't get a little certificate that, really, isn't worth anything. Best case scenario, you find you have aptitude for the subject and learn quite a lot.
No, they refer you up to the department of the hospital that does chemo. Hospitals do not means-check you before they treat you--they just have you sign a piece of paper saying you are responsible for paying the bill. They are even pretty agreeable about letting you set up payment schedules for paying it back--they'd rather have you pay it back a little at a time than get zip because you default on the bill.
Now the fact that chemotherapy without insurance costs about as much as a high-end luxury car is an atrocity--but at least they don't require you to pay for it upfront. Or sign a contract for financing.
Well, I stand corrected, I had been informed otherwise.
And I'm glad you came out of that alright. Cancer is bad enough without having to worry about paying for the treatment without insurance.
When it reached the point that treatment was required, my doctor told me to go to the Emergency Room RIGHT NOW, then called the ER, told them I was coming, and told them to check me in immediately...Long story short, my cancer was treated.
So you had something that was operable? Because as far as I know, ERs can't provide chemotherapy treatments.
Or the general hospitals, who treat people who are uninsured.
Hospitals are required to help anyone at the ER. They stabilize you and kick you out. If it's a condition for which you don't need immediate attention NOW, you're screwed.
Have you been shot, and don't have insurance? You'll be ok. Do you have cancer and don't have insurance? You're screwed.
I can make an appointment and be seen TODAY. You can't do that in socialized medicine.
First, where do you live? Because I have insurance, live in columbia, SC and had a bad cough that lasted a month. When I decided it was time to see a doctor (obviously not an emergency room), I was told the soonest they could see me was in a week.
Second, have you ever lived somewhere with socialized medicine? I used to live in Brazil, where they have a mix of private and public care. You can say a lot of unflattering things about the public care there, but not that they can't schedule you for an appointment on the same day. I used to call right before leaving the house and make an appointment for however long it would take me to get there. The waiting lists you hear about are for things with limited supplies, such as organ transplants.
Never lived in either of those places, but I hear places like Canada and the UK don't have the same issues Brazil has with public health care.
Until you realize that no one is being denied access to anything, you are not worth talking to on this topic.
And yet, here you are replying to me.
Here's the relevant quote from my post which you apparently missed:
It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
When people ask a school library to remove a book, for example, they're taking that step. Whether they succeed or not, we should bring attention to it and discourage the censorship line of thought, lest we make it easier for others to succeed by assuming that they can't. Constant vigilance and all that.
Dead wrong. I don't want my kids reading, "How to build a bomb using common household chemicals" until they are mature enough to do it safely!
If they're capable of understanding and following the instructions, but you haven't talked to them enough to get them to the point of understanding the dangers, you've already failed in an important parental duty. It's ok, you can still fix it, and learn to teach your kids how to make good decisions instead of making decisions for them.
You keep the cabinets with cleaning supplies locked while your toddler can find it and accidentally drink it. By the time your kids can read and comprehend instructions about which cleaning supplies to use to make a bomb, he damn well should be old enough to understand the implications of home-made explosives. Some parents have the same problem regarding sex. If your kid has reached puberty, they should know the consequences of unprotected sex. If they haven't, you talk to them in preparation for when they do reach puberty. You don't try to hide sex from them, it doesn't work that way, and it really doesn't work with anything else. Kids will encounter many things in life their parents don't think they're the right age to handle. Either they will be prepared or they won't. Assume they will encounter it earlier than you'd like, and do your best to make sure they're prepared instead of trying to shelter them from existence.
Before you ask, I don't have kids, but I was raised in a zero censorship environment. I was encouraged to feed my curiosity with whatever it is that I was curious about. I supposedly got my first sex talk the very first time I asked where babies came from, which I don't remember, but I believe, since I don't remember a time I didn't know about sex. I do, however, remember many more talks after that. People get angered when celebrities do immoral things because they should be "role models" but forget that somebody doing something wrong is a very good role model as to what not to do. Unprotected sex talks were sometimes prompted by something on TV. "Do you think what this fictional character / celebrity / politician is doing is right? Why, or why not?" Same thing about stealing, climbing dangerous objects, whatever other opportunity presented itself.
If you were to ask my parents, I'm fairly sure they'd say they are happy with the way I turned out. I survived to adulthood without losing an eye, I'm honest, and I'd say I'm successful (not rich or even close, but I have a job I enjoy and can support myself with some money left over for indulgences now and again and to save for retirement...what else do you need?) That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they believed in and everything they tried to teach me, I'm my own person. That doesn't mean I didn't make any mistakes along the way or that I always followed their directions. That said, I learned from my mistakes, and took to heart the most important lesson one can ever learn from their parents: how to make your own decisions responsibly. That's not something you can learn all at once when you turn 18 and move away to college. That's something that needs to be painstakingly taught from the moment you start walking and talking.
If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not again...censorship does not require involvement by the government to be called censorship. If you mean it that way, you need to specifically qualify it and say, "government censorship."
Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
I know you're being facetious, but it's worth pointing out that it's always a great thing when others get denied access to things you disapprove of. It's only a problem when you get denied access to things others disapprove of.
Let's please not fall into the trap of justifying censorship by arguing the literary value of Twilight. We can all agree Twilight sucks, but that's really not relevant to whether it should be available to those who would like to read it.
At least banks will let you use their web site because 3.6.x is tested.
v4 to Infinity? not so much.
No problem using HSBC's website, including viewing statements, making payments, etc. using Firefox 7. Are there really banks that block it?
Intuit's turbotax website blocks it, when you try to view a past year's return, and presumably if you're trying to work on anything new.
To be fair, as much as I hate the fast release cycle that firefox now has, problems like these are the fault of web administrators. I don't want to go back to "best viewed with IE 4" days. They're free to look at the user agent to make any browser specific fixes if the want to, but if they don't recognize the string, they should just serve the damn standard-compliant html (and yes, I know I can change my user-agent string, and I do. But I shouldn't have to).
Not only will a lot of cars be getting unplugged right when you need them, but few people will be willing to part with charge they might need to get home.
It's not just the charge issue. I would be completely and utterly unwilling to lower my battery life through this extreme charge-recharge cycle. Those things are expensive.
AFAIK, the Foxconn factory is in Jundiaí, near São Paulo. That's almost as far away from Manaus as possible in Brazil. However, the São Paulo state government is pretty aggressive in cutting taxes for big industrial complexes implemented onstate; that helps increase the state's industry and employment levels. Quite sure Foxconn got some very nice incentives for this factory.
I stand corrected. I saw this article which mentions they also have factories in Manaus, but it does appear you're correct, and the Jundiai one is where the bulk of the operation takes place.
Slashdot Mirror
those horrible XML files as the preferred way of designing a UI
Hmm...separating the UI description out in xml files is a good thing. In fact, it's a standard thing across all platforms. Android has those xml files, Windows has xaml, and iOS has .xib files.
Sure, interface builder abstracts you from the .xib files, and you never have to look inside it, but you can do xaml and android xml via their respective design interfaces too. The fact that you can also edit the xml manually is a feature, not a bug.
Most commercial products do interface shifts. Microsoft has done several recently and Apple on 10.7 did a large one and a decade ago a complete interface replacement.
Yes, I know. I updated to 10.7. I realized it sucked and I went back to 10.6.
There's nothing about being "commercial" that prevents them from doing stupid things.
The hatred for all things new in the FLOSS community never ceases to surprise me. When they change Facebook, all my nontech friends all winge for days about it.
You'd think it'd be different around here, but it's not.
There's a reason for that. Change for change's sake is a very bad thing. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
There's nothing wrong with a different desktop type. If you like a gnome 3 style interface, more power to you. It shouldn't have been an update to gnome, though. It should have been launched with a brand new name as a competitor to gnome. After all, think about it: the reason all those people were using gnome 2 was because they liked that interface. Now you removed what they liked.
Basically, updates to an interface should be to add features and fix bugs, but never to change how you interface with it. If you want to do that, that's fine, and it's entirely possible you'll create a superior interface. However, to do that, you create a competing interface, while still fully supporting the old interface, and see whether enough people flock to it that it makes sense to discontinue the old interface. You don't tell all your users that you're not supporting the interface they like, and to just tough it out and learn to like the new one.
A pro football player's team will usually pay for the repair. Amateur - yeah, it's a dumb idea to play football if you can't pay for the expected repairs. I haven't been skiing for a few years for this very reason. I can't think of anybody who's played football more than very occasionally and not been hurt.
But people still do it. My point is that when you do something dangerous, the consequence is that you might need help after the fact. That's no reason not to supply the help.
Take the Gloucestershire Cheese Rolling event. People get hurt. Everyone knows they might get hurt. Ambulances are there for that reason. The consequence is that you might break something and need a trip to the hospital. You *might* get hurt bad enough that they can't help you. These people know that and they have no right to complain if it happens. They do have a right to complain if they're not helped once they get hurt. There's no reason to say, "you know what, these are all stupid fucks, we're not going to send the ambulances there."
Basically, there are three separate and distinct events happening. The first is that somebody gets hurt. That's the fault of the idiot taking place in the event. Nothing bad has happened yet, and they can walk away and keep everything good. The second is that there's a situation in which people are likely to get hurt. You can either take precautions to make a potentially bad situation better, or let all hell break loose. The third is that there's somebody already hurt. If you can help somebody who is hurt, you help them, it doesn't matter HOW they got hurt. Something bad already happened, you can either make it better or worse. Nothing is gained by doing otherwise.
it could've just been the Ambulance Service captain saying "I think this is dangerous."
Too bad he didn't say, "and if you persist at it anyway, we're not going to help you."
I don't get why you'd want that. The whole, "you asked for it, so now you have to take it" attitude is bullshit. No matter whose fault it is, if we can fix a bad situation, we should fix it. Let's apply your way to other activities, shall we?
Skydiving is dangerous. If you hit a powerline while landing, we're not going to help you down.
Playing football is dangerous. If you get hit badly and fuck up your knee, tough. You don't get reconstructive surgery.
Driving is dangerous. If you get into an accident, we'll let you die on the road.
I was, but it also were Shatner's actual feelings on the subject as well. He felt, at the time the show was canceled, that the people nerding out over it at conventions were a bit obsessive and creepy. I guess to him, the entire thing looked like a relationship that ended and the ex was still stalking him. If I had that mindset, I'd find it a bit creepy too.
Dude, shortly after Trek, he went to a convention where people tried to strip his clothes off. Then he didn't go to conventions for decades after.
It's not a mindset thing. If you need bodyguards to protect you because people are idolizing you, it's creepy. I say this as a Trekkie. I also say this as a Trekkie who would not attack Jolene Blalock trying to rip her clothes off.
Unless I was invited to do so, that is.
I agree with the GP, whether you like it or not, upwards mobility is only possible for the vast majority as positions above them become vacant.
Uh...the economy is not a zero-sum game. Companies expand, new positions are created. Not to mention new companies forming...
How many 'Wayne sponsored' private patrol could be funded with that money? How many 3rd party group could he hired to investigate the police? Hell, he could become Mayor and clean house in the PD.
First, it's not an either or proposition. Wayne Enterprises does everything you say. He doesn't run for office himself, but he supports the right candidates, funds plenty of social programs, and works to get rid of corruption.
Batman does two things nobody else can do: He can apparently deal with specific threats better than a swat team can, which may not be realistic, but is fact in the DC universe. He also provides something mysterious for criminals to fear and for the people in the city to look up to as a source of hope, since they're far too jaded about police and politicians. Now, Nolan did a good job in his movies to show the unintended consequences of that approach, but you should still be able to see how Bruce Wayne could choose to do what he does without being a psychotic thug.
A lot of ad-supported sites will do this. They'll release an article and split it up into multiple pages so they can display more ads. What happens when an article like that gets posted to slashdot? Everyone understandably complains that it's harder to read the article, and somebody posts a link to the printer-friendly version.
Multiple pages are not easier to navigate. Not even on tablets.
The non-open source parts of virtual box are free as in beer. That said, PXE isn't a part of it, USB peripherals are.
Where is the -1, Incorrect mod? Just kidding of course, but under Sun the OSE version used an open source "openboot" library that contains implementation flaws. The commercially licensed version actually contains a closed-source, more accurate implementation of PXE booting that works with our Windows SCCM servers.
This is the understanding I developed regarding PXE and open source vs commercial editions of VirtualBox 3.x after making many repeated trips to their support forums. It may be partially or entirely incorrect. But I am sure that after three days of trying to troubleshoot PXE booting in the open source version, that all of my troubles went away without a single configuration change by switching to the commercial licensed VirtualBox.
Ah, fair enough, my bad. I also forgot that it's only free as in beer for personal use, which is probably why you were weary of getting the extension.
Parts of VirtualBox are open source.
Correct
If you want to network boot your VM by PXE, you need to pony up the cash for the closed source version maintained by Oracle.
The non-open source parts of virtual box are free as in beer. That said, PXE isn't a part of it, USB peripherals are.
The open source version supposedly supports PXE boot, but I was never able to make that version work with our environment.
Have you tried getting PXE working with the proprietary virtualbox? I suspect it won't work either, and that the problem is that VirtualBox doesn't like your PXE setup, not that they're trying to force you into the proprietary version.
As with MySQL, open source contributions to dual licensed software are not frequent nor great. With someone like Oracle at the helm, community cooperation with their free and open version is even further diminished.
As much as I would generally agree with you about Oracle, they really haven't screwed up VirtualBox at all since they bought Sun. In fact, it's been seeing pretty good development with the addition of some nice features.
Are you all forgetting that the DRM on iTunes was there only at the request of the record companies, and that it was apple that gained enough leverage to force them to withdraw that policy on iTunes?
No. However, Apple fans everywhere forget that Apple was happy to have their DRM on iTunes, and in fact defaulted to ripping your own CDs to DRMed aac, right up until all the lawsuits saying that unless Apple opens up Fairplay, then they're abusing a monopoly position.
Music studios, on the other hand, were trying to push for tiered pricing. Apple had a huge amount of leverage there, because nobody else could sell with fairplay DRM. That set the stage for Amazon to launch their drm-free service first, as in before Apple removed DRM from iTunes, which Amazon only managed to negotiate because the studios really wanted competition to iTunes, and it was the only way to sell music that would play on the iPod without Fairplay.
At that point, and only at that point, did Apple remove DRM from iTunes. They had lost the battle, but they spun it up as winning, as defending the rights of every consumer. Idiots everywhere bought it, without asking themselves why Apple isn't working to remove DRM from movies as well.
You missed the best part when she defended herself:
Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell.God created iPhone for that purpose! :)
She's just confirming what Apple fans already knew: God works at Apple.
Heh...I don't use twitter, but all you guys who does should use it to poke a little fun with that
WBC says Steve Jobs is God!
WBC says God is dead (at 56)!
WBC to picket God's funeral!
I hate to say this, because I know it's probably painfully obvious to most people, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
He's talking about GPS. In order for the triangulation to work correctly, relativity must be taken into account.
That said, another poster pointed out that the researchers apparently did account for the effects of gravity when synchronizing their clocks. The paper just wasn't sufficiently clear on that point, and they're rewriting that section.
Im a beginner learning how to program.
would i understand/benefit from the course material from an undeveloped background?
From their webpage:
Programming is not required, however we believe it will be very helpful for some of the homework assignments. You may write code in any language you would like to (we recommend Python if you are new to programming) and your code will not be graded.
So, don't let all these people saying it's too advanced for you discourage you. Try it out, what do you have to lose? Worst case scenario, you don't finish the course and don't get a little certificate that, really, isn't worth anything. Best case scenario, you find you have aptitude for the subject and learn quite a lot.
No, they refer you up to the department of the hospital that does chemo. Hospitals do not means-check you before they treat you--they just have you sign a piece of paper saying you are responsible for paying the bill. They are even pretty agreeable about letting you set up payment schedules for paying it back--they'd rather have you pay it back a little at a time than get zip because you default on the bill.
Now the fact that chemotherapy without insurance costs about as much as a high-end luxury car is an atrocity--but at least they don't require you to pay for it upfront. Or sign a contract for financing.
Well, I stand corrected, I had been informed otherwise.
And I'm glad you came out of that alright. Cancer is bad enough without having to worry about paying for the treatment without insurance.
When it reached the point that treatment was required, my doctor told me to go to the Emergency Room RIGHT NOW, then called the ER, told them I was coming, and told them to check me in immediately...Long story short, my cancer was treated.
So you had something that was operable? Because as far as I know, ERs can't provide chemotherapy treatments.
Or the general hospitals, who treat people who are uninsured.
Hospitals are required to help anyone at the ER. They stabilize you and kick you out. If it's a condition for which you don't need immediate attention NOW, you're screwed.
Have you been shot, and don't have insurance? You'll be ok. Do you have cancer and don't have insurance? You're screwed.
I can make an appointment and be seen TODAY. You can't do that in socialized medicine.
First, where do you live? Because I have insurance, live in columbia, SC and had a bad cough that lasted a month. When I decided it was time to see a doctor (obviously not an emergency room), I was told the soonest they could see me was in a week.
Second, have you ever lived somewhere with socialized medicine? I used to live in Brazil, where they have a mix of private and public care. You can say a lot of unflattering things about the public care there, but not that they can't schedule you for an appointment on the same day. I used to call right before leaving the house and make an appointment for however long it would take me to get there. The waiting lists you hear about are for things with limited supplies, such as organ transplants.
Never lived in either of those places, but I hear places like Canada and the UK don't have the same issues Brazil has with public health care.
Until you realize that no one is being denied access to anything, you are not worth talking to on this topic.
And yet, here you are replying to me.
Here's the relevant quote from my post which you apparently missed:
It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
When people ask a school library to remove a book, for example, they're taking that step. Whether they succeed or not, we should bring attention to it and discourage the censorship line of thought, lest we make it easier for others to succeed by assuming that they can't. Constant vigilance and all that.
Dead wrong. I don't want my kids reading, "How to build a bomb using common household chemicals" until they are mature enough to do it safely!
If they're capable of understanding and following the instructions, but you haven't talked to them enough to get them to the point of understanding the dangers, you've already failed in an important parental duty. It's ok, you can still fix it, and learn to teach your kids how to make good decisions instead of making decisions for them.
You keep the cabinets with cleaning supplies locked while your toddler can find it and accidentally drink it. By the time your kids can read and comprehend instructions about which cleaning supplies to use to make a bomb, he damn well should be old enough to understand the implications of home-made explosives. Some parents have the same problem regarding sex. If your kid has reached puberty, they should know the consequences of unprotected sex. If they haven't, you talk to them in preparation for when they do reach puberty. You don't try to hide sex from them, it doesn't work that way, and it really doesn't work with anything else. Kids will encounter many things in life their parents don't think they're the right age to handle. Either they will be prepared or they won't. Assume they will encounter it earlier than you'd like, and do your best to make sure they're prepared instead of trying to shelter them from existence.
Before you ask, I don't have kids, but I was raised in a zero censorship environment. I was encouraged to feed my curiosity with whatever it is that I was curious about. I supposedly got my first sex talk the very first time I asked where babies came from, which I don't remember, but I believe, since I don't remember a time I didn't know about sex. I do, however, remember many more talks after that. People get angered when celebrities do immoral things because they should be "role models" but forget that somebody doing something wrong is a very good role model as to what not to do. Unprotected sex talks were sometimes prompted by something on TV. "Do you think what this fictional character / celebrity / politician is doing is right? Why, or why not?" Same thing about stealing, climbing dangerous objects, whatever other opportunity presented itself.
If you were to ask my parents, I'm fairly sure they'd say they are happy with the way I turned out. I survived to adulthood without losing an eye, I'm honest, and I'd say I'm successful (not rich or even close, but I have a job I enjoy and can support myself with some money left over for indulgences now and again and to save for retirement...what else do you need?) That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they believed in and everything they tried to teach me, I'm my own person. That doesn't mean I didn't make any mistakes along the way or that I always followed their directions. That said, I learned from my mistakes, and took to heart the most important lesson one can ever learn from their parents: how to make your own decisions responsibly. That's not something you can learn all at once when you turn 18 and move away to college. That's something that needs to be painstakingly taught from the moment you start walking and talking.
If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
I think you mean Elvis.
In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not again...censorship does not require involvement by the government to be called censorship. If you mean it that way, you need to specifically qualify it and say, "government censorship."
Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
I know you're being facetious, but it's worth pointing out that it's always a great thing when others get denied access to things you disapprove of. It's only a problem when you get denied access to things others disapprove of.
Let's please not fall into the trap of justifying censorship by arguing the literary value of Twilight. We can all agree Twilight sucks, but that's really not relevant to whether it should be available to those who would like to read it.
At least banks will let you use their web site because 3.6.x is tested.
v4 to Infinity? not so much.
No problem using HSBC's website, including viewing statements, making payments, etc. using Firefox 7. Are there really banks that block it?
Intuit's turbotax website blocks it, when you try to view a past year's return, and presumably if you're trying to work on anything new.
To be fair, as much as I hate the fast release cycle that firefox now has, problems like these are the fault of web administrators. I don't want to go back to "best viewed with IE 4" days. They're free to look at the user agent to make any browser specific fixes if the want to, but if they don't recognize the string, they should just serve the damn standard-compliant html (and yes, I know I can change my user-agent string, and I do. But I shouldn't have to).
Not only will a lot of cars be getting unplugged right when you need them, but few people will be willing to part with charge they might need to get home.
It's not just the charge issue. I would be completely and utterly unwilling to lower my battery life through this extreme charge-recharge cycle. Those things are expensive.
AFAIK, the Foxconn factory is in Jundiaí, near São Paulo. That's almost as far away from Manaus as possible in Brazil. However, the São Paulo state government is pretty aggressive in cutting taxes for big industrial complexes implemented onstate; that helps increase the state's industry and employment levels. Quite sure Foxconn got some very nice incentives for this factory.
I stand corrected. I saw this article which mentions they also have factories in Manaus, but it does appear you're correct, and the Jundiai one is where the bulk of the operation takes place.