See, I know that, but I don't feel that's good enough. Remember my whole "a different world when it was written" bit from a few posts up? Things like the Internet absolutely cannot, nor should be, regulated by individual states, especially with the influence the US has on the Internet in general. But due to the original phrasing of the Constitution, the Feds aren't allowed to say shit about it, technically, unless they try and pull the "crosses state boundaries," which unfortunately opens up all kinds of problems. It's a shit stop-gap measure, and not nearly enough. It's a way to stifle conversation and forward movement, not find a way to improve how the governments act and interact. Hell, I see similar shit in Canada all the time. The provinces tell the Feds to go pound sand, the federal government threatens them, and it's all a big "juris-my-dick-tion"fest, and that's with the powers a fair bit more defined. What it should be is "the powers not delegated by this document will be fairly debated and apportioned, with the ability to revisit as the world changes." Health care? Probably best managed by an entity not concerned with profit, and with funding requirements spread across as wide a pool of people as possible. Thus, it makes the most sense to have a properly constructed health care system overseen by the federal government. But that would never have been foreseen back when that was written. Alternatively, roads are most often used by the people living in an area, and so should be planned and maintained by those with the greatest interest in their use, so that should be a State thing. And tying the whole drinking age to road funds was just dumb. That should have been a state thing too.
Well, I don't want to marginalize what you went through, but I doubt many kids in grade six even know what suicide really is. Saying that from grades two to six that you never considered it is rather disingenuous. Even if you did know all about it, that'd be a severe rarity. And most kids don't get really vicious about the bullying until Junior High. I'd not say you had it easy, since being bullied never is, but I'd also say that you didn't get a true look at how bad it can get. Hell, even I didn't get it as bad as it can be, mostly because I finally took down one of my main aggressors, and they left me alone to my face after that. But I still saw what happened to my friends, so I know that it absolutely can break a person to the point of mental instability.
Your signature explains your viewpoints. You're not an American. We're not the same.
Fair enough, though being in a country right next door, which is heavily influenced by your country's actions, I'm far from ignorant about the topic. But in broad strokes, I have to agree with you. The Constitution of the United States is, in the best terms, the "law of the land." It should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done. However, it should *not* be set in stone. Anything not spelled out in it should be added in, and it should be debated long and thoroughly. And then once passed, you can move forward from there. But topics *should* be spelled out either as allowed or disallowed. I've never been a fan of the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" school of thinking, but for governments, it's rather necessary to say where the limits are, as the situations arise.
And you're right, we're massively off-topic, but I can live with that.;)
Let me say it again: Suicide Is Irrational. Without extreme methods, you simply can't drive a mentally healthy person to suicide.
I ask this honestly, not to flame or troll, but seriously. Were you bullied in school? Like, serious, concerted bullying efforts? Because let me tell you, that qualifies. It's a systematic alienation of a human being, and destruction of their self-image. It's the causing of a mentally healthy person to become unhealthy. When I was in school, I actually saw some of my friends wither and change due to bullying. They were absolutely not the same people they were at the end of the school year as at the start. In fact, one of my friends who ended up dead (not suicide, but a lifestyle next best thing to it) probably could have traced his problems back to bullying. Unfortunately, his biggest bully was his stepfather, making it not a directly analogous case.
The teacher could be openly fondling kids in the hallway, and it would be next to impossible to fire them.
Sadly, that's bullshit. My favourite teacher was fired due to an *accusation* of improper conduct. Not sex, not fondling, not even kissing. Just talking about a slightly sexual topic. Note, this was on a school trip, and they were *in a bar,* legally. And note I said "accusation." He was eventually cleared when she copped to lying. But he was still fired.
Yeah, tell that to the people who cry "If it's not in the constitution, it shouldn't be touched by the government!" Or similar crap to that. I'd like to believe most of those people are trolling, but I've run across too many of them for that to be true.
Before you tout Jefferson as so awesome, how's this?
Jefferson's wife was already a widow at 23 when they hooked up after her previous husband died in an "accident."
She went on to have six of Jefferson's children, which of course provided only a small fraction of the fucking T.J. required. That's where one of Jefferson's slaves, Sally Hemings came in. The affair between the two never even found an official denial despite heavy press coverage, though he never officially admitted to it, either. It is thought that Jefferson's deathbed confessional treatise, "I Like Big Butts; And I Cannot Lie" was burned by those close to him before it could be publicly released. Since then, inconclusive DNA testing has been done and has found links between the Jefferson and Hemings' offspring, though not with ol' Tom-boy himself.
To make things even juicier for Jeff, she was purportedly his wife's half-sister. Did we mention his wife was his distant cousin? Put it all together and you have a recipe which, when left to bake in the heat emitted by Jefferson's nut sack, rises to become an extremely kinky layer cake being eaten in the White House.
Dude was fucking *rich,* and spent it on a house that bankrupted him, and featured several ways to get by without having to look at his slaves.
So, an adulterer, poor financial planner, and couldn't be assed to even have his slaves bring him a fucking bottle of wine in person. Yeah, great guy there.
How's that a strawman? The GGP said "The exact same views." The GP pointed out a view that the founding fathers had, and pointed out how that exact view is no longer universally acceptable. That immediately destroys credibility, since you can't hold *all* the *exact* same views, unless you're down with slavery.
Further, anyone who thinks the constitution is a dead document, never to be altered or changed is a fucking moron, in my books. The founding fathers never could have conceived of the world we live in today, nor of what would become hotly contested issues, and so never addressed it in the document. To hold today's world to a piece of paper that was never meant to address the state of current society is narrow-minded and specious at best.
No, you're just a piss-poor communicator. And while I know that reading ain't cool on slashdot, seriously, read the fucking names of the people you're replying to. You look like a god-damned moron otherwise. Sheesh.
That's pure speculation, and not the case anywhere in the world, certainly not when radio was first starting.
Right, you know, back when transmitters were lucky to cover 50 miles. Don't pretend that what was true then would hold true now. It would be trivial for a mega-corp to build a few dozen high-powered transmitters to jam the spectrum in key areas, and only allow their own stuff through. And after they've done that, they don't even need to *own* the spectrum. Why doesn't it happen? It's not some gentleman's agreement, that's for damn sure. It's because any company who did that would be blasted to oblivion by the government. So if the government gave up apportioning spectrum, but kept the regulations, you'd certainly see a monopoly situation arise. Companies will take the *easiest* route to killing competition, which is obviously not allowing any by buying up the spectrum from others. You start with the small ones, then when it's down to a few big players, they all merge, and the consumer's fucked, and the government would need to do anti-trust regulations. Oh wait, that's what spectrum allocation is NOW. Anti-trust.
This isn't even news. They're using a piss-poor solution for a problem that they created. That's not news, that's what 90% of the world does. What's the news part? That they're using perfume guns? Those aren't news-worthy. The basic tech is known as a fire hose. That Beijing has a trash problem? So do a lot of other places.
Seriously, who cares how someone thinks they MIGHT or COULD do it? Unless someone has some info as to how they're LIKELY, or PROBABLY doing it (as good as it gets before actual announcements), it's just spitballing and time wasting. Come back when there's at least some evidence of how they'll go.
Finally got to read BB's response, and it sounds like a cover. They were full of shit, got called on it, and then decided to go whole-hog and cover their asses. I don't buy it. They already said "We'll set it up and make sure everything works," so they didn't need to mention "syncing" 3D glasses, and the differing responses from employees tells me they didn't fucking bother with any sort of training, or even an explanation.
Syncronization doesn't simply mean making things have the same time. It also means to make things *happen* at the same time. In this case, I'd assumed their "syncing" service to be making sure your glasses are properly shuttering in "sync" with how the player is broadcasting. Something that should happen automatically, and apparently does. And since the glasses are tied to the TV, they're paired automatically as well. It's not a case of "incorrect verb," it's a case of "falsely reporting what the service offers."
They don't need to pair the glasses, they don't need to make sure the glasses are operating at the correct timings. It's a rip off.
WSUS is what server admins use to push patches to machines connected to a particular server.
Most machines that are part of a domain or network that utilizes WSUS has Windows Update disabled.
Ah, okay. I get it. I knew at work we were pointed to an internal update server so that we'd only get patches after they were approved as stable, but I never knew the name of the tool, or the process behind it. thank you muchly!
Is this going to push updates via Windows Update to Windows 7 and other home versions as well, or just Win Server? Or is it even using Windows Update? Is that different from the "Windows Server Update Service?" I don't have anything to do with servers, so I'm honestly confused.
"It's not evil because they said upfront what the rules are!"
So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise. Do I have to explain what a moronic statement that is? Apple is all about trying to maintain a vertical monopoly, which is still a type of monopoly, and just as bad as a horizontal one, even if slightly less common.
Slashdot Mirror
See, I know that, but I don't feel that's good enough. Remember my whole "a different world when it was written" bit from a few posts up? Things like the Internet absolutely cannot, nor should be, regulated by individual states, especially with the influence the US has on the Internet in general. But due to the original phrasing of the Constitution, the Feds aren't allowed to say shit about it, technically, unless they try and pull the "crosses state boundaries," which unfortunately opens up all kinds of problems. It's a shit stop-gap measure, and not nearly enough. It's a way to stifle conversation and forward movement, not find a way to improve how the governments act and interact. Hell, I see similar shit in Canada all the time. The provinces tell the Feds to go pound sand, the federal government threatens them, and it's all a big "juris-my-dick-tion"fest, and that's with the powers a fair bit more defined. What it should be is "the powers not delegated by this document will be fairly debated and apportioned, with the ability to revisit as the world changes." Health care? Probably best managed by an entity not concerned with profit, and with funding requirements spread across as wide a pool of people as possible. Thus, it makes the most sense to have a properly constructed health care system overseen by the federal government. But that would never have been foreseen back when that was written. Alternatively, roads are most often used by the people living in an area, and so should be planned and maintained by those with the greatest interest in their use, so that should be a State thing. And tying the whole drinking age to road funds was just dumb. That should have been a state thing too.
Well, I don't want to marginalize what you went through, but I doubt many kids in grade six even know what suicide really is. Saying that from grades two to six that you never considered it is rather disingenuous. Even if you did know all about it, that'd be a severe rarity. And most kids don't get really vicious about the bullying until Junior High. I'd not say you had it easy, since being bullied never is, but I'd also say that you didn't get a true look at how bad it can get. Hell, even I didn't get it as bad as it can be, mostly because I finally took down one of my main aggressors, and they left me alone to my face after that. But I still saw what happened to my friends, so I know that it absolutely can break a person to the point of mental instability.
Your signature explains your viewpoints. You're not an American. We're not the same.
Fair enough, though being in a country right next door, which is heavily influenced by your country's actions, I'm far from ignorant about the topic. But in broad strokes, I have to agree with you. The Constitution of the United States is, in the best terms, the "law of the land." It should be the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done. However, it should *not* be set in stone. Anything not spelled out in it should be added in, and it should be debated long and thoroughly. And then once passed, you can move forward from there. But topics *should* be spelled out either as allowed or disallowed. I've never been a fan of the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" school of thinking, but for governments, it's rather necessary to say where the limits are, as the situations arise.
And you're right, we're massively off-topic, but I can live with that. ;)
You're also more likely to be a superhero; Peter Parker, Reed Richards, Susan Storm...
Or date a superhero; Lois Lane...
Let me say it again: Suicide Is Irrational. Without extreme methods, you simply can't drive a mentally healthy person to suicide.
I ask this honestly, not to flame or troll, but seriously. Were you bullied in school? Like, serious, concerted bullying efforts? Because let me tell you, that qualifies. It's a systematic alienation of a human being, and destruction of their self-image. It's the causing of a mentally healthy person to become unhealthy. When I was in school, I actually saw some of my friends wither and change due to bullying. They were absolutely not the same people they were at the end of the school year as at the start. In fact, one of my friends who ended up dead (not suicide, but a lifestyle next best thing to it) probably could have traced his problems back to bullying. Unfortunately, his biggest bully was his stepfather, making it not a directly analogous case.
The teacher could be openly fondling kids in the hallway, and it would be next to impossible to fire them.
Sadly, that's bullshit. My favourite teacher was fired due to an *accusation* of improper conduct. Not sex, not fondling, not even kissing. Just talking about a slightly sexual topic. Note, this was on a school trip, and they were *in a bar,* legally. And note I said "accusation." He was eventually cleared when she copped to lying. But he was still fired.
Yeah, tell that to the people who cry "If it's not in the constitution, it shouldn't be touched by the government!" Or similar crap to that. I'd like to believe most of those people are trolling, but I've run across too many of them for that to be true.
Before you tout Jefferson as so awesome, how's this?
Jefferson's wife was already a widow at 23 when they hooked up after her previous husband died in an "accident."
She went on to have six of Jefferson's children, which of course provided only a small fraction of the fucking T.J. required. That's where one of Jefferson's slaves, Sally Hemings came in. The affair between the two never even found an official denial despite heavy press coverage, though he never officially admitted to it, either. It is thought that Jefferson's deathbed confessional treatise, "I Like Big Butts; And I Cannot Lie" was burned by those close to him before it could be publicly released. Since then, inconclusive DNA testing has been done and has found links between the Jefferson and Hemings' offspring, though not with ol' Tom-boy himself.
To make things even juicier for Jeff, she was purportedly his wife's half-sister. Did we mention his wife was his distant cousin? Put it all together and you have a recipe which, when left to bake in the heat emitted by Jefferson's nut sack, rises to become an extremely kinky layer cake being eaten in the White House.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15706_the-5-pimpingest-historical-figures.html
Or how about: http://www.cracked.com/article_16688_historys-6-greatest-examples-financial-fail.html
Dude was fucking *rich,* and spent it on a house that bankrupted him, and featured several ways to get by without having to look at his slaves.
So, an adulterer, poor financial planner, and couldn't be assed to even have his slaves bring him a fucking bottle of wine in person. Yeah, great guy there.
How's that a strawman? The GGP said "The exact same views." The GP pointed out a view that the founding fathers had, and pointed out how that exact view is no longer universally acceptable. That immediately destroys credibility, since you can't hold *all* the *exact* same views, unless you're down with slavery.
Further, anyone who thinks the constitution is a dead document, never to be altered or changed is a fucking moron, in my books. The founding fathers never could have conceived of the world we live in today, nor of what would become hotly contested issues, and so never addressed it in the document. To hold today's world to a piece of paper that was never meant to address the state of current society is narrow-minded and specious at best.
No, you're just a piss-poor communicator. And while I know that reading ain't cool on slashdot, seriously, read the fucking names of the people you're replying to. You look like a god-damned moron otherwise. Sheesh.
Actually, it was probably a case of "woosh." Hell, I didn't make the connection until you said "Tom Cruise."
Apparently, I should have flagrantly corrected you,
Why would you be correcting me? I'm not the one who misspelled it, neither am I the one incapable of clearly conveying a proper grammar nazi'ing.
Heh, my DVD player did that with Street Fighter this week.
proselyzation - what's that mean, proselytization?
Quick way to explain it is it means "to extoll the virtues of something."
That's pure speculation, and not the case anywhere in the world, certainly not when radio was first starting.
Right, you know, back when transmitters were lucky to cover 50 miles. Don't pretend that what was true then would hold true now. It would be trivial for a mega-corp to build a few dozen high-powered transmitters to jam the spectrum in key areas, and only allow their own stuff through. And after they've done that, they don't even need to *own* the spectrum. Why doesn't it happen? It's not some gentleman's agreement, that's for damn sure. It's because any company who did that would be blasted to oblivion by the government. So if the government gave up apportioning spectrum, but kept the regulations, you'd certainly see a monopoly situation arise. Companies will take the *easiest* route to killing competition, which is obviously not allowing any by buying up the spectrum from others. You start with the small ones, then when it's down to a few big players, they all merge, and the consumer's fucked, and the government would need to do anti-trust regulations. Oh wait, that's what spectrum allocation is NOW. Anti-trust.
This isn't even news. They're using a piss-poor solution for a problem that they created. That's not news, that's what 90% of the world does. What's the news part? That they're using perfume guns? Those aren't news-worthy. The basic tech is known as a fire hose. That Beijing has a trash problem? So do a lot of other places.
This is idle-fodder.
Zug Zug!
Speculation! From a non-source.
Seriously, who cares how someone thinks they MIGHT or COULD do it? Unless someone has some info as to how they're LIKELY, or PROBABLY doing it (as good as it gets before actual announcements), it's just spitballing and time wasting. Come back when there's at least some evidence of how they'll go.
Finally got to read BB's response, and it sounds like a cover. They were full of shit, got called on it, and then decided to go whole-hog and cover their asses. I don't buy it. They already said "We'll set it up and make sure everything works," so they didn't need to mention "syncing" 3D glasses, and the differing responses from employees tells me they didn't fucking bother with any sort of training, or even an explanation.
Syncronization doesn't simply mean making things have the same time. It also means to make things *happen* at the same time. In this case, I'd assumed their "syncing" service to be making sure your glasses are properly shuttering in "sync" with how the player is broadcasting. Something that should happen automatically, and apparently does. And since the glasses are tied to the TV, they're paired automatically as well. It's not a case of "incorrect verb," it's a case of "falsely reporting what the service offers."
They don't need to pair the glasses, they don't need to make sure the glasses are operating at the correct timings. It's a rip off.
Oh, and your favorite band sucks, too.
Everything I like sucks, that's why I like it. And that's why I use Microsoft Office (TM)!
*goes looking for his paycheque*
WSUS is what server admins use to push patches to machines connected to a particular server.
Most machines that are part of a domain or network that utilizes WSUS has Windows Update disabled.
Ah, okay. I get it. I knew at work we were pointed to an internal update server so that we'd only get patches after they were approved as stable, but I never knew the name of the tool, or the process behind it. thank you muchly!
Is this going to push updates via Windows Update to Windows 7 and other home versions as well, or just Win Server? Or is it even using Windows Update? Is that different from the "Windows Server Update Service?" I don't have anything to do with servers, so I'm honestly confused.
You missed the first part:
When possible.
Surgery on yourself is rarely possible :p
Well, unless you're Rambo, then you just need a bullet, some matches, a knife, and some fishing line.
"It's not evil because they said upfront what the rules are!"
So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise. Do I have to explain what a moronic statement that is? Apple is all about trying to maintain a vertical monopoly, which is still a type of monopoly, and just as bad as a horizontal one, even if slightly less common.