Besides what is oh so great about boot camp anyways? so what, it is a fancy interface to a boot-loader, and they supply drivers for windows... yay hooray? I've been dual-booting on my PC hmmm... FOREVER.
You pay your bills once per month. So, why not get paid once per month?
I can think of a few reasons:
I was paid biweekly at my last job, and am paid monthly now. I take care not to spend outside of my means (I have a wife and kid), but it's still a bit nerve wracking to see the degree to which the bank statement falls over the course of a month. (Your friends' experience notwithstanding: maybe now that they're monthly they're just nervous enough to pay attention. Those of us already paying attention don't require the extra push.)
We don't pay bills once a month - we pay each bill once a month. We usually pay bills twice a month.
While my employer has money in its coffers that I've earned, my employer accrues interest on it, and I do not. This may not sound like much, but it's a fairly big deal in the large, which is why any accountant worth his salt will tell you that if you're regularly getting a big tax refund, there's something wrong. The object for anyone who has earned money should be to get it as soon as possible (from the employer) and retain it as long as possible.
You're probably getting better service, too. I don't have links handy, but if memory serves Netflix skews their rental policies so that new users have an increased likelihood of getting their picks. They hope it will entice more people to stay.
Ironically, it may instead lead to people doing what you do.
The number of quests the citizens of Tamriel will throw your way would make it impossible to handle if you didn't have a good level of support. The game offers a featureful quest journal, which not only shows what quests you're on, but quests that you've completed and prior steps to ongoing quests. Quest goals are clearly marked on your world map, ensuring that even if you are unsure of what exactly to do you can always know where you're supposed to go.
Seriously - screw the game, I could use this at work!
Although I'd probably settle for being able to use a mace on annoying managers - or, as I like to call them, "boss monsters."
Okay. Now this is just getting silly. To begin, the conflation of condom programs as "promoting promiscuity." Would you define seat belts as promoting unsafe driving?
Then, your justification for opposing programs. In your first reply to me: "No, their motive is to try to reduce the larger social problem of out of wedlock births... Do you think they would want to deprive a vaccine from the millions infected with HIV in Africa? Pretty wacky."
In your second: "Devotion to a policy of encouraging promiscuity among a population to whom such behavior is suicide is better? Yikes!"
So, the goal isn't to prevent people from having sex per se, except where it is. And that's only to prevent either births out of wedlock or life-threatening diseases, except when there are proven methods for reducing the incidence of both.
Abstinence-only education has never been shown to work, as my previous link demonstrated. The use of condoms has a measureable and highly successful track record in the prevention of AIDS. And yet it's me and my wacky "ilk" which are "impervious to logic" in suggesting that de-funding programs which supply condoms, and transferring that money to abstinence-only programs, may not be a good idea.
I also notice that you ignore the issue of the HPV vaccine here. So tell me - how is denying women access to a vaccine to HPV (and therefore reducing their risk of cervical cancer later in life) showing concern for their health?
OTH, this is one of the few communicable lifetime diseases that has NOT resulted in wholesale quarenteens and sanitariums like leprosy and tuberculosis. Instead, Typhoid Mary's are allowed to go about their lives, ending others lives with their actions.
There's good reason for that. Last I checked, for example, it's really hard to get HIV by having someone cough on you.
I suppose I should ask for clarification: what do you mean by "Typhoid Mary's?" Are you suggesting that people with HIV should be quarantined? What actions are you referring to, specifically, that can be generalized to the entire HIV+ popluation?
No, their motive is to try to reduce the larger social problem of out of wedlock births. Children who grow up in single parent homes are at a great disadvantage in any society. You are the one spreading fear by suggesting a special interest group conspiracy is keeping an effective vaccine from being approved.
I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that right-wing groups have tried to block the approval of this vaccine, or that they are, but it's because they're anti-children out of wedlock, and not anti-sex.
If it's the former, the facts I've already quoted simply give the lie to your assertion. Did an FRC rep not say that such a vaccine would have the unwanted effect of encouraging premarital sex? The notion that she isn't against such a vaccine goes against the plain language of her statement.
If it's the latter, consider what you're saying: it's acceptable to block access to a treatment which could save millions of lives (an AIDS vaccine), or greatly reduce the incidence of cervical cancer (an HPV vaccine) if it also achieves the goals of making people get married before they have sex.
Do you think they would want to deprive a vaccine from the millions infected with HIV in Africa? Pretty wacky.
Actually? I do think that. See, we already have a procedure which can greatly lessen the spread of the HIV virus. The technical term is "wearing a condom."
Stephen Lewis, the UN secretary general's special envoy for HIV/Aids in Africa, said US cuts in funding for condoms and an emphasis on promoting abstinence had contributed to a shortage of condoms in Uganda, one of the few African countries which has succeeded in reducing its infection rate... Meanwhile, religious groups that oppose condom use are receiving an increased share of funding, the pressure group says. "Religious fundamentalists, some financially supported by the US government and the office of the first lady, Janet Museveni, have become prominent in attacking condoms and those who distribute them," Change's report said.
So, if the right wing is so intent on preventing unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, how come they're slashing funding for condom-providing facilities in Africa in favor of "abstinence only" education? I mean, besides this administration's devotion to policies that don't work.
My take is that they seriously want to punish people who are having "unapproved" sex. And no matter how many times conservatives insist that this isn't the case - they may even believe that it isn't the case - once engaged on the subject, their speech consistently comes back to a central theme: "You can't deal with the consequences? Don't have sex."
Expect immediate, heavy resistance from the ultra-right wing, Christian conservative political forces in the US. Experience has shown that if there's a disease that increases the potential negative consequences of having sex, especially those which disproportionately affect women, they will oppose efforts to provide treatment. (Women in heterosexual relationships carry an increased risk of HIV transmission when compared to men, although they have a decreased risk in homosexual relationships. The reasons I leave as an exercise for the reader.)
Case in point: the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Now here's the thing with HPV: it's sexually transmitted, condoms don't protect against it, and doctors believe that it's responsible for seven out of ten cases of cervical cancer later in life. So, if we could develop a vaccine against it, that would be a huge strike against cancer, right?
Well... sure. But ultra right groups like the Family Research Council oppose such a vaccine, even though pharmaceutical companies have already conducted successful clinical trials. Why? Because they want to scare people into not having sex.
If this is the reaction an HPV vaccine (or, for that matter, condoms) gets, how do you think they're going to react to a cure to something which disproportionately affects gay men?
The only thing I didn't like about the game was how quickly you could go shift sides from bad to good or good to bad. I wasn't too fond of running around with white armor and having every single adult propose marraige just because my attractiveness attribute was too high.
Yes, I'm sure you get quite enough of that in real life.
(I used to work for a state university. Academia can be as bad as working for the state, especially when your university is run by the state. Worst of both worlds.)
If I were you, I'd throw together a couple of mockups and spend the rest of the time interviewing.
By buying a PC with Windows, you are paying the "Microsoft Tax" as people like to call it. So, you're basically handing MS a cheque, and then not using their product. Not sure why you'd want to do that.
Because sometimes, the price to the consumer winds up actually being cheaper even with the cost of the "Microsoft tax." That's because larger suppliers can get better deals at every point of the supply chain. The extra money for Windows doesn't necessarily wipe out that advantage.
Okay. So, with iWork and Appleworks together, I get the equivalent of two word processors (counting Pages), two presentation programs (counting Keynote), and apparently a spreadsheet. I've also spent $158 list price, as opposed to $149.95 for Office 2004, Student and Teacher Edition.
I also took a moment to peruse some of the reviews on the site. Most telling: "Compared to a similar version of Microsoft Works this program is lacking."
Have you seen the price of MS Office? What is Apple's office suite? $79?
Okay, wait a minute.
Office is certainly overpriced for non corporate users. But iWork (Apple's "office suite") swings too far in the other direction. In its standard/academic editions, MS Office ships with Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Word.
iWork ships with Pages (a page layout / word processing app) and Keynote (their equivalent to PowerPoint).
It's my opinion that you can't describe something as an office suite without a spreadsheet. But that's just me.
(Warning: IANAL. I'm speaking here specifically on the subject of US law, which obviously isn't the same as UK or Australian law.)
Parody isn't the only "fair use." "Fair Use" is a legal standard established in title 17 of the US code. Basically it says that reproducing a copyrighted work without authorization is permissible if it is considered to be for "fair use." To determine whether a usage is fair or not, there are four tests that can be applied:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
Works of parody are usually given pretty broad latitude as being permissible under the first category.
However, pretty much none of this is applicable to the Australian issue, since, to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have a fair use doctrine. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the only countries that do are the US and the Phillipines. In Australia, I think the legal test would be "fair dealing". If the wiki is correct, parody does not appear to be a provision of that doctrine.
As for preferring a liberal approach to national security, let's just say that after Pearl Harbor was attacked I'm glad we didn't sit around wondering if we would offend the Japanese or Germans by taking up arms or think that, by doing so, we'd raise their ire and surmise that we'd be better off not doing anything so that we would be better liked.
True. On the other hand, we didn't go invading Sweden either. I mean, hey, those guys look like Germans, kinda. Don't they?
They have an immediate major failing which was duly noted by quite a few other SciFi writers. There is at least one missing law: The robot must know that he is a robot.
I think there's an argument to be made that this also is the Linux community's problem and not Dell's, but it's not a very good one. I will say that I think having Dell support Linux would probably be a good thing for Linux generally, though obviously your milage varies.
I also suspect that Dell is being a bit disingenuous with his "oh no, which one do I pick" line. If he decided to support SUSE & Red Hat, he'd have the corporate linux market just about covered.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not now that you've pointed out that reference, you can't!
Your PC is an EFI based system?
Gun interface: OMGWTFBBQ, it's Duck hunt!
Hear hear.
Also: you've given me the idea for a new chain or restaraunts. Because teenagers who can't stop texting gotta eat too.
Maybe we'll need extra moist towelettes, though. No good getting bbq sauce all over your keypad.
I can think of a few reasons:
You're aware that Dell makes some fairly small laptops themselves, right?
I'm not a big fan, but my wife has the 710 and is pretty happy with it.
You're probably getting better service, too. I don't have links handy, but if memory serves Netflix skews their rental policies so that new users have an increased likelihood of getting their picks. They hope it will entice more people to stay.
Ironically, it may instead lead to people doing what you do.
Seriously - screw the game, I could use this at work!
Although I'd probably settle for being able to use a mace on annoying managers - or, as I like to call them, "boss monsters."
"...and ten petabytes of fiber channel disk."
"Fiber Channel, Dino."
"Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them."
"Set fire to them?!?"
"Things burn, Colonel."
Dear Dad,
You're a dick.
Fondly,
Your kids.
Okay. Now this is just getting silly. To begin, the conflation of condom programs as "promoting promiscuity." Would you define seat belts as promoting unsafe driving?
Then, your justification for opposing programs. In your first reply to me: "No, their motive is to try to reduce the larger social problem of out of wedlock births... Do you think they would want to deprive a vaccine from the millions infected with HIV in Africa? Pretty wacky."
In your second: "Devotion to a policy of encouraging promiscuity among a population to whom such behavior is suicide is better? Yikes!"
So, the goal isn't to prevent people from having sex per se, except where it is. And that's only to prevent either births out of wedlock or life-threatening diseases, except when there are proven methods for reducing the incidence of both.
Abstinence-only education has never been shown to work, as my previous link demonstrated. The use of condoms has a measureable and highly successful track record in the prevention of AIDS. And yet it's me and my wacky "ilk" which are "impervious to logic" in suggesting that de-funding programs which supply condoms, and transferring that money to abstinence-only programs, may not be a good idea.
I also notice that you ignore the issue of the HPV vaccine here. So tell me - how is denying women access to a vaccine to HPV (and therefore reducing their risk of cervical cancer later in life) showing concern for their health?
There's good reason for that. Last I checked, for example, it's really hard to get HIV by having someone cough on you.
I suppose I should ask for clarification: what do you mean by "Typhoid Mary's?" Are you suggesting that people with HIV should be quarantined? What actions are you referring to, specifically, that can be generalized to the entire HIV+ popluation?
I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that right-wing groups have tried to block the approval of this vaccine, or that they are, but it's because they're anti-children out of wedlock, and not anti-sex.
If it's the former, the facts I've already quoted simply give the lie to your assertion. Did an FRC rep not say that such a vaccine would have the unwanted effect of encouraging premarital sex? The notion that she isn't against such a vaccine goes against the plain language of her statement.
If it's the latter, consider what you're saying: it's acceptable to block access to a treatment which could save millions of lives (an AIDS vaccine), or greatly reduce the incidence of cervical cancer (an HPV vaccine) if it also achieves the goals of making people get married before they have sex.
Actually? I do think that. See, we already have a procedure which can greatly lessen the spread of the HIV virus. The technical term is "wearing a condom."
From The Guardian:
So, if the right wing is so intent on preventing unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, how come they're slashing funding for condom-providing facilities in Africa in favor of "abstinence only" education? I mean, besides this administration's devotion to policies that don't work.
My take is that they seriously want to punish people who are having "unapproved" sex. And no matter how many times conservatives insist that this isn't the case - they may even believe that it isn't the case - once engaged on the subject, their speech consistently comes back to a central theme: "You can't deal with the consequences? Don't have sex."
But then, I can't be trusted. I'm "wacky."
Case in point: the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Now here's the thing with HPV: it's sexually transmitted, condoms don't protect against it, and doctors believe that it's responsible for seven out of ten cases of cervical cancer later in life. So, if we could develop a vaccine against it, that would be a huge strike against cancer, right?
Well... sure. But ultra right groups like the Family Research Council oppose such a vaccine, even though pharmaceutical companies have already conducted successful clinical trials. Why? Because they want to scare people into not having sex.
If this is the reaction an HPV vaccine (or, for that matter, condoms) gets, how do you think they're going to react to a cure to something which disproportionately affects gay men?
Yes, I'm sure you get quite enough of that in real life.
(I apologize. Like I said, couldn't resist.)
Oh, man. I feel your pain.
(I used to work for a state university. Academia can be as bad as working for the state, especially when your university is run by the state. Worst of both worlds.)
If I were you, I'd throw together a couple of mockups and spend the rest of the time interviewing.
Because sometimes, the price to the consumer winds up actually being cheaper even with the cost of the "Microsoft tax." That's because larger suppliers can get better deals at every point of the supply chain. The extra money for Windows doesn't necessarily wipe out that advantage.
Thanks for the heads-up. But I was really hoping that you got the name Conky from Pee Wee's Playhouse, as opposed to Trailer Park Boys.
Somehow, I shall struggle not to hold it against you.
Well... okay, can someone tell me what the point of iWork is?
Okay. So, with iWork and Appleworks together, I get the equivalent of two word processors (counting Pages), two presentation programs (counting Keynote), and apparently a spreadsheet. I've also spent $158 list price, as opposed to $149.95 for Office 2004, Student and Teacher Edition.
I also took a moment to peruse some of the reviews on the site. Most telling: "Compared to a similar version of Microsoft Works this program is lacking."
Now that's just sad.
Okay, wait a minute.
Office is certainly overpriced for non corporate users. But iWork (Apple's "office suite") swings too far in the other direction. In its standard/academic editions, MS Office ships with Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Word.
iWork ships with Pages (a page layout / word processing app) and Keynote (their equivalent to PowerPoint).
It's my opinion that you can't describe something as an office suite without a spreadsheet. But that's just me.
When do they release Thiluth, the Athyrian Thrangler?
Parody isn't the only "fair use." "Fair Use" is a legal standard established in title 17 of the US code. Basically it says that reproducing a copyrighted work without authorization is permissible if it is considered to be for "fair use." To determine whether a usage is fair or not, there are four tests that can be applied:
Works of parody are usually given pretty broad latitude as being permissible under the first category.
However, pretty much none of this is applicable to the Australian issue, since, to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have a fair use doctrine. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the only countries that do are the US and the Phillipines. In Australia, I think the legal test would be "fair dealing". If the wiki is correct, parody does not appear to be a provision of that doctrine.
True. On the other hand, we didn't go invading Sweden either. I mean, hey, those guys look like Germans, kinda. Don't they?
Why?
Whoops! I misunderstood you. My bad.
I think there's an argument to be made that this also is the Linux community's problem and not Dell's, but it's not a very good one. I will say that I think having Dell support Linux would probably be a good thing for Linux generally, though obviously your milage varies.
I also suspect that Dell is being a bit disingenuous with his "oh no, which one do I pick" line. If he decided to support SUSE & Red Hat, he'd have the corporate linux market just about covered.