One should not have to do that in the first place... if I say that I do not want to register, I shouldn't be forced to always mean something like "remind me later".
Oh, and the version of Windows that I found CS2 always crashed on was XP.
I disagree. GIMP is way faster, you can run it from a portable usb drive without even needing to install anything, and requires far less memory resources. Photoshop is bloated with features that are unnecessary for most types of digital image editing, but still take up all of the same space.
The problem with automatic dependency checking is that because the computer is doing that checking for you, you are less likely to personally know what, exactly, what all those dependencies are for packages that you've installed, unless you've installed them very recently... which means that if you want to uninstall a package, and you don't want to keep around any other packages whose only purpose for being installed was to support the package that you no longer want, if you had to manually install those dependencies in the first place, you are in a good position to be able to know which packages you should be removing as well.
CS2 crashes frequently on Windows... takes longer to start up, especially on lower end PCs, and doesn't seem to leave a user with any option to permanently bypass product registration, nagging the user every single time it starts up until they do.
If they tax it, they can at least make some money off of people who continue to make poor health choices... (much like cigarettes, for that matter). Further, if the tax is high enough, it may tend to dissuade people on limited incomes from spending their money on it when healthier alternatives are available for less.
Child Protective Services would have no interest in the matter... this is a rule in a particular school, not something that is actually required by law.
There's no need to tax bitcoin or officially treat it like currency or any of that shit.
Bitcoins have value... if you own some bitcoins, it is reasonable to be taxed on the monetary value of however much the bitcoins you own have appreciated, just as you would be taxed on the value of any private stocks you might hold, which may just as untrackable by the government as bitcoin is.
Honest question... how would it require any more overhead to put a tax on it than to ban it, which is what they are proposing?
I'm only suggesting that if they are wanting to do the latter, they should just do the former. Or would you just rather take people's choice away completely?
It's an overreactionary policy by the school, nothing more.
If my kid were in that school, I'd tell them to ignore the rule, and tell the teacher or principal that reprimands them that their dad told them to ignore it because they thought it was stupid.
Bitcoin isn't real money, but it does have real value... and it's reasonable that changes in that value could be taxed, much like the increase in value of any stock that you may own.
They take those down on a case-by-case basis, by request. They aren't presented with a standing fine that will occur for each and every instance that ever happens in the future
Certainly if he believes it must be technologically possible for Google to do, then he should be able to supply them with an algorithm which accomplishes the desired ends.
Google is the expert here... if they are saying that a problem is not tractable for them to manage, there's a pretty good chance that they are right. It should be up to those who would dispute that position to prove that Google is wrong.
There wasn't a question imposed... it was talking about drivers. If you don't drive, then why in the world would the fact that you don't pay for insurance even be relevant?
The title of the slashdot summary is "Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates". If you're riding in a bus then unless you are employed by the bus company, you generally aren't the driver, and then this wouldn't have applied to you in the first place.
If you're outside of the very demographic that the article is even talking about, as indicated by the second word in the title, what difference does it make to the point of the article whether you pay insurance or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that was my experience using a distro with auto-dependency checking... I gave up on it after a year and went back to slack.
One should not have to do that in the first place... if I say that I do not want to register, I shouldn't be forced to always mean something like "remind me later".
Oh, and the version of Windows that I found CS2 always crashed on was XP.
I disagree. GIMP is way faster, you can run it from a portable usb drive without even needing to install anything, and requires far less memory resources. Photoshop is bloated with features that are unnecessary for most types of digital image editing, but still take up all of the same space.
The problem with automatic dependency checking is that because the computer is doing that checking for you, you are less likely to personally know what, exactly, what all those dependencies are for packages that you've installed, unless you've installed them very recently... which means that if you want to uninstall a package, and you don't want to keep around any other packages whose only purpose for being installed was to support the package that you no longer want, if you had to manually install those dependencies in the first place, you are in a good position to be able to know which packages you should be removing as well.
CS2 crashes frequently on Windows... takes longer to start up, especially on lower end PCs, and doesn't seem to leave a user with any option to permanently bypass product registration, nagging the user every single time it starts up until they do.
It will.... very soon now.
Do they have separate installers for every conceivable operating system or something?
If they ban it, then it's not a choice at all.
If they tax it, they can at least make some money off of people who continue to make poor health choices... (much like cigarettes, for that matter). Further, if the tax is high enough, it may tend to dissuade people on limited incomes from spending their money on it when healthier alternatives are available for less.
It's not punative... nobody's doing anything wrong.
My point was that it would be more productive to tax it than to ban it, because they could at least collect some money for its use.
Actually, this particular school is saying that elementary kids are not allowed to touch eachother.
Child Protective Services would have no interest in the matter... this is a rule in a particular school, not something that is actually required by law.
There's no need to tax bitcoin or officially treat it like currency or any of that shit.
Bitcoins have value... if you own some bitcoins, it is reasonable to be taxed on the monetary value of however much the bitcoins you own have appreciated, just as you would be taxed on the value of any private stocks you might hold, which may just as untrackable by the government as bitcoin is.
Honest question... how would it require any more overhead to put a tax on it than to ban it, which is what they are proposing?
I'm only suggesting that if they are wanting to do the latter, they should just do the former. Or would you just rather take people's choice away completely?
Parents are upset about it.
It's an overreactionary policy by the school, nothing more.
If my kid were in that school, I'd tell them to ignore the rule, and tell the teacher or principal that reprimands them that their dad told them to ignore it because they thought it was stupid.
There's no significant health benefits to smoking tobacco either, but that's still perfectly legal
That way they can't be held responsible for perpetuating libel, should that be his claim.
Bitcoin isn't real money, but it does have real value... and it's reasonable that changes in that value could be taxed, much like the increase in value of any stock that you may own.
They take those down on a case-by-case basis, by request. They aren't presented with a standing fine that will occur for each and every instance that ever happens in the future
It's none of my business either, but do you *seriously* want an answer to that question?
Certainly if he believes it must be technologically possible for Google to do, then he should be able to supply them with an algorithm which accomplishes the desired ends.
Google is the expert here... if they are saying that a problem is not tractable for them to manage, there's a pretty good chance that they are right. It should be up to those who would dispute that position to prove that Google is wrong.
That's still a felony, afaik.
Okay... wow, did I completely misread that. No wonder it didn't make any sense. (and I even reread it several times)
I read that 75% as talking about what the title was saying... that most people would let their car do the driving.
There wasn't a question imposed... it was talking about drivers. If you don't drive, then why in the world would the fact that you don't pay for insurance even be relevant?
[nt]
The title of the slashdot summary is "Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates". If you're riding in a bus then unless you are employed by the bus company, you generally aren't the driver, and then this wouldn't have applied to you in the first place.
If you're outside of the very demographic that the article is even talking about, as indicated by the second word in the title, what difference does it make to the point of the article whether you pay insurance or not?