The floor for the presidential/VP debates is 15% in a few national polls, if you can't reach that threshold by the time the debates roll around you have a 0% chance of winning a national election
Similarly, if you're excluded from debates and denied any TV coverage you have 0% of being recognized in national polls.
With a 0% chance of winning, basically you would be wasting people's time. Similarly, Jill Stein isn't a part of the presidential debate.
I don't know what the official term is for that logical fallacy you just demonstrated, but the major reason that people like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have effectively no chance of winning is because they aren't included in the debates. Many people have no clue that there are even more than 2 candidates running, because those 2 are the only ones who get coverage. They aren't excluded from the debates because they probably won't win, they are excluded because the Ds and Rs don't like competition and, because of that exclusion, they probably won't win. I still see people saying "well, I really don't like this guy, so I'm going to vote for the other guy that I dislike slightly less". There are other people running, people who deserve your votes more than either major party. Go to isidewith.com and figure out who fits your ideas the best.
Remember guys, a patent is not a law that things must be done this way!
Right. The patent is the first step, the law requiring that everyone implement this feature is the second step. Find a DVD player for sale for me that doesn't have any regional blocking and will let you fast-forward or skip anything you want to.
That sounds like a great idea, but the lack of DVD players that don't support the various copy protection, regional restrictions, and fast-forward-blocking flags on DVDs isn't exactly encouraging. It's almost as if there is a law requiring that all DVD players support those features. And that's just to support the entertainment industry alone, much less the entire collective manufacturing industry.
Because i have the same thin client while at the office, on the road or at home.
I don't understand the benefit of that either, the point of a thin client is basically to connect you to something else and then get out of the way. It shouldn't matter which one you're using. I understand the benefit of having a mobile thin client, but it does seem awkward to carry around a large monitor, keyboard, and mouse with you when you travel instead of a laptop. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I legitimately don't see the point of using a phone that you need to plug and unplug versus a traditional thin client that you can leave on your desk, either at work or at home.
It's not an argument, it's a legitimate question. I didn't understand why he would choose to use a phone that he needs to plug in and unplug whenever he goes somewhere instead of a thin client that he can leave on his desk.
You can't use a touch interface by itself for that stuff, you need at least an external keyboard and mouse. You can't double-click or drag and drop with a touch interface, for example (at least not without using a context menu or something to tell it that you are now dragging something).
What's the point of the phone in that setup? A thin client that you can leave on your desk seems like a better deal if you're talking about just connecting to another computer that runs the actual applications.
Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices to choose from. If you believe that your choices are 2 instead of 6 then you're taking the bait. Take that quiz and figure out who best represents you, and sack up and vote for that person even if you don't think they'll win. If Romney represents you the best, so be it. But don't vote for him just because you don't think you have another choice, that's a stupid reason to vote for something.
To continue on-topic, Mitt also reversed his stance on the 47% issue. Immediately after he made those comments he admitted that they weren't "elegantly" stated, but that he stood behind the message and would continue to carry it. Now he's saying that those comments were "completely wrong".
Bacteria that are better at eating whale will tend to out compete the ones that are not, so the population of bacteria as a whole will tend to shift in that direction.
That's basically true, but that depends on what "better" means. First you said "more efficiently", which I disagree with. They aren't going to necessarily evolve in a direction that prolongs the food source. It could also be the case that the organisms that succeed are the wasteful ones, the ones who eat twice as much as the normal ones and in turn reproduce 1.5 times as much. The ones who eat.5 what the normal ones do and who reproduce.75 as often (more efficient) are going to be crowded out.
I think you have a typo there, they would not specifically mutate to eat the whale. That's what I was responding to, the thought that if you present an organism with a challenge that they will naturally evolve to meet the challenge. They'll evolve anyway, with whatever mutations happen, and those that happen to survive and pass it on will propagate their new traits (even if the traits don't help them, or even harm them).
those that mutated to be more efficient consumers ouwld survive better, and so - evolution.
That's not necessarily true - they might survive better, but it could also be the case that the wasteful gluttons exhaust the food source before they have a chance.
That's not how evolution works. Evolution is not a response to environmental stimuli. It happens all the time, randomly, and sometimes it benefits the lifeform and other times it doesn't.
You were right, version numbers really are like body language: whatever you "read" from them is your imagination, projection, or wishful thinking.
Really? Body language actually says nothing about what the person is feeling or thinking? That should be news to behavioral scientists around the world, you should spread your knowledge.
I doubt he planned this advance. He probably ordered a part that they ended up not needing, Verizon got billed for it, he ended up with it and sold it. Then he just sort of kept doing that.
After elaborating on the first case, he was not given a chance to continue stating more cases when they moved on to the next person.
Where does the transcript show that? Does the transcript indicate that the judge paused after his answer for only a second, or for 10 minutes? It says neither, because pauses are not part of the transcript. The judge may have paused for an entire minute before moving on, giving him a chance to continue. You can't read the transcript and conclude that the judge moved on without him having a chance to say anything else. Moreover, it is his responsibility to make sure the judge hears the complete answer to her question. He let the judge move on without him having to volunteer the rest of the information that he should have given to her.
The transcripts shows that he started by disclosing one newer lawsuit to the judge and was questioned on that, and then the judge moved on, without giving him the opportunity to mention other lawsuits.
Sorry, but the transcript doesn't show that. The transcript makes no mention of whether the judge paused for 2 seconds, 2 minutes, or 2 hours. You can't conclude that the judge gave no opportunity to mention the lawsuits. In fact, since the judge is actively asking him about lawsuits it is Hogan's responsibility to keep listing them until he's done. Yeah, he can interrupt the judge if she starts moving on. In fact, he should.
After the Billion-Dollar ruling against Samsung last time, good luck finding a jury of 12 people who haven't heard about the case and had a chance to form an opinion about it. Even my grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, asked me about it last time I saw her.
Almost every woman who shows up in my Facebook feed (and several of the men) have no clue about this lawsuit. That's not what they talk about, they talk about how far they ran yesterday, what they're going to eat, and where they're going out drinking. The majority of women I know don't care about either technology or lawsuits, let alone both at the same time.
I am not sure stage names should be considered an alias for legal purposes but my opinion really does not matter.
I'm sure there's some leeway there, but this guy specifically has a pretty solid history of using aliases when he's committing crimes, several of them are listed in the first paragraph here. It sounds like when he was receiving probation that the judge was basically fed up with him using aliases and ordered that as one of the conditions. That's just another privilege that he lost, for most of us it's fine if we want to use an alias but if he's going to abuse that then the judge revoked that privilege for him.
but I do have to wonder if anybody would have cared about his terms of probation/parole if he did not give a sizable chunk of the world a reason to hate him.
Doubtful, other than that it looks like his major crimes are manufacturing meth and stealing money from banks. In other words, a relatively small-time criminal. A mastermind this guy is not.
Who says he used a fake name (which name did he use?)?
He used "Sam Bassiel" in the casting call for the movie. This was posted after he was released, so probation terms were in effect. He has admitted being the producer, the producer is listed as "Sam Bassiel", and his name is not "Sam Bassiel", so therefore he used an alias. He's not the only one with an alias, the character "George" is Muhammad.
Well, the cop sitting across the street waiting for me to back out my driveway so he can use any excuse to stop me and search my car and otherwise harass me might be a problem.
Where do you live that you have problems with cops enforcing Sharia law? Or is this just a hypothetical excuse-to-be-afraid situation that isn't going to happen in the United States?
That's a pretty bleak, pessimistic view of government. While we can both acknowledge that neither of us know what goes on in the White House, I imagine that instead of this:
CIA: A US youtube user posted a video the Muslims consider offensive, they are demanding we do something about it
Obama: I want to know everything I can about this video, who, when, where, why, how... and I want it now!
It would be more like this:
CIA: A US youtube user posted a video the Muslims consider offensive, they are demanding we do something about it
Obama: Not this shit again...
The president is a pretty busy guy, I doubt he's sitting around the office waiting for some new international outrage that he can jump to investigate. The rest of your dialog appears motivated by an assumption that Obama wants to do whatever he can to appease the Muslim world while simultaneously, and surreptitiously, acting against American ideals. I don't have the same beliefs as you do regarding our government.
Slashdot Mirror
The floor for the presidential/VP debates is 15% in a few national polls, if you can't reach that threshold by the time the debates roll around you have a 0% chance of winning a national election
Similarly, if you're excluded from debates and denied any TV coverage you have 0% of being recognized in national polls.
With a 0% chance of winning, basically you would be wasting people's time. Similarly, Jill Stein isn't a part of the presidential debate.
I don't know what the official term is for that logical fallacy you just demonstrated, but the major reason that people like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have effectively no chance of winning is because they aren't included in the debates. Many people have no clue that there are even more than 2 candidates running, because those 2 are the only ones who get coverage. They aren't excluded from the debates because they probably won't win, they are excluded because the Ds and Rs don't like competition and, because of that exclusion, they probably won't win. I still see people saying "well, I really don't like this guy, so I'm going to vote for the other guy that I dislike slightly less". There are other people running, people who deserve your votes more than either major party. Go to isidewith.com and figure out who fits your ideas the best.
Remember guys, a patent is not a law that things must be done this way!
Right. The patent is the first step, the law requiring that everyone implement this feature is the second step. Find a DVD player for sale for me that doesn't have any regional blocking and will let you fast-forward or skip anything you want to.
That sounds like a great idea, but the lack of DVD players that don't support the various copy protection, regional restrictions, and fast-forward-blocking flags on DVDs isn't exactly encouraging. It's almost as if there is a law requiring that all DVD players support those features. And that's just to support the entertainment industry alone, much less the entire collective manufacturing industry.
Because i have the same thin client while at the office, on the road or at home.
I don't understand the benefit of that either, the point of a thin client is basically to connect you to something else and then get out of the way. It shouldn't matter which one you're using. I understand the benefit of having a mobile thin client, but it does seem awkward to carry around a large monitor, keyboard, and mouse with you when you travel instead of a laptop. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I legitimately don't see the point of using a phone that you need to plug and unplug versus a traditional thin client that you can leave on your desk, either at work or at home.
It's not an argument, it's a legitimate question. I didn't understand why he would choose to use a phone that he needs to plug in and unplug whenever he goes somewhere instead of a thin client that he can leave on his desk.
You would be crotchety too if every time you met someone they asked you "what would you do differently? Which text editor and desktop do you use?"
You can't use a touch interface by itself for that stuff, you need at least an external keyboard and mouse. You can't double-click or drag and drop with a touch interface, for example (at least not without using a context menu or something to tell it that you are now dragging something).
What's the point of the phone in that setup? A thin client that you can leave on your desk seems like a better deal if you're talking about just connecting to another computer that runs the actual applications.
I used to run a Renegade BBS on my first machine, a 386SX-25MHz. Running a BBS counts as real work, right?
Something something Visual Studio something something.
Now pay me!
Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices to choose from. If you believe that your choices are 2 instead of 6 then you're taking the bait. Take that quiz and figure out who best represents you, and sack up and vote for that person even if you don't think they'll win. If Romney represents you the best, so be it. But don't vote for him just because you don't think you have another choice, that's a stupid reason to vote for something.
To continue on-topic, Mitt also reversed his stance on the 47% issue. Immediately after he made those comments he admitted that they weren't "elegantly" stated, but that he stood behind the message and would continue to carry it. Now he's saying that those comments were "completely wrong".
Bacteria that are better at eating whale will tend to out compete the ones that are not, so the population of bacteria as a whole will tend to shift in that direction.
That's basically true, but that depends on what "better" means. First you said "more efficiently", which I disagree with. They aren't going to necessarily evolve in a direction that prolongs the food source. It could also be the case that the organisms that succeed are the wasteful ones, the ones who eat twice as much as the normal ones and in turn reproduce 1.5 times as much. The ones who eat .5 what the normal ones do and who reproduce .75 as often (more efficient) are going to be crowded out.
I think you have a typo there, they would not specifically mutate to eat the whale. That's what I was responding to, the thought that if you present an organism with a challenge that they will naturally evolve to meet the challenge. They'll evolve anyway, with whatever mutations happen, and those that happen to survive and pass it on will propagate their new traits (even if the traits don't help them, or even harm them).
those that mutated to be more efficient consumers ouwld survive better, and so - evolution.
That's not necessarily true - they might survive better, but it could also be the case that the wasteful gluttons exhaust the food source before they have a chance.
That's not how evolution works. Evolution is not a response to environmental stimuli. It happens all the time, randomly, and sometimes it benefits the lifeform and other times it doesn't.
You were right, version numbers really are like body language: whatever you "read" from them is your imagination, projection, or wishful thinking.
Really? Body language actually says nothing about what the person is feeling or thinking? That should be news to behavioral scientists around the world, you should spread your knowledge.
I doubt he planned this advance. He probably ordered a part that they ended up not needing, Verizon got billed for it, he ended up with it and sold it. Then he just sort of kept doing that.
He is a living proof that crime pays.
No, he got caught and lost it all including his freedom. His girlfriend is living proof that crime pays.
After elaborating on the first case, he was not given a chance to continue stating more cases when they moved on to the next person.
Where does the transcript show that? Does the transcript indicate that the judge paused after his answer for only a second, or for 10 minutes? It says neither, because pauses are not part of the transcript. The judge may have paused for an entire minute before moving on, giving him a chance to continue. You can't read the transcript and conclude that the judge moved on without him having a chance to say anything else. Moreover, it is his responsibility to make sure the judge hears the complete answer to her question. He let the judge move on without him having to volunteer the rest of the information that he should have given to her.
The transcripts shows that he started by disclosing one newer lawsuit to the judge and was questioned on that, and then the judge moved on, without giving him the opportunity to mention other lawsuits.
Sorry, but the transcript doesn't show that. The transcript makes no mention of whether the judge paused for 2 seconds, 2 minutes, or 2 hours. You can't conclude that the judge gave no opportunity to mention the lawsuits. In fact, since the judge is actively asking him about lawsuits it is Hogan's responsibility to keep listing them until he's done. Yeah, he can interrupt the judge if she starts moving on. In fact, he should.
After the Billion-Dollar ruling against Samsung last time, good luck finding a jury of 12 people who haven't heard about the case and had a chance to form an opinion about it. Even my grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, asked me about it last time I saw her.
Almost every woman who shows up in my Facebook feed (and several of the men) have no clue about this lawsuit. That's not what they talk about, they talk about how far they ran yesterday, what they're going to eat, and where they're going out drinking. The majority of women I know don't care about either technology or lawsuits, let alone both at the same time.
I am not sure stage names should be considered an alias for legal purposes but my opinion really does not matter.
I'm sure there's some leeway there, but this guy specifically has a pretty solid history of using aliases when he's committing crimes, several of them are listed in the first paragraph here. It sounds like when he was receiving probation that the judge was basically fed up with him using aliases and ordered that as one of the conditions. That's just another privilege that he lost, for most of us it's fine if we want to use an alias but if he's going to abuse that then the judge revoked that privilege for him.
but I do have to wonder if anybody would have cared about his terms of probation/parole if he did not give a sizable chunk of the world a reason to hate him.
Doubtful, other than that it looks like his major crimes are manufacturing meth and stealing money from banks. In other words, a relatively small-time criminal. A mastermind this guy is not.
Who says Nakoula personally posted it on Youtube?
He does, to his probation officer.
Who says he used a fake name (which name did he use?)?
He used "Sam Bassiel" in the casting call for the movie. This was posted after he was released, so probation terms were in effect. He has admitted being the producer, the producer is listed as "Sam Bassiel", and his name is not "Sam Bassiel", so therefore he used an alias. He's not the only one with an alias, the character "George" is Muhammad.
Well, the cop sitting across the street waiting for me to back out my driveway so he can use any excuse to stop me and search my car and otherwise harass me might be a problem.
Where do you live that you have problems with cops enforcing Sharia law? Or is this just a hypothetical excuse-to-be-afraid situation that isn't going to happen in the United States?
That's a pretty bleak, pessimistic view of government. While we can both acknowledge that neither of us know what goes on in the White House, I imagine that instead of this:
CIA: A US youtube user posted a video the Muslims consider offensive, they are demanding we do something about it
Obama: I want to know everything I can about this video, who, when, where, why, how... and I want it now!
It would be more like this:
CIA: A US youtube user posted a video the Muslims consider offensive, they are demanding we do something about it
Obama: Not this shit again...
The president is a pretty busy guy, I doubt he's sitting around the office waiting for some new international outrage that he can jump to investigate. The rest of your dialog appears motivated by an assumption that Obama wants to do whatever he can to appease the Muslim world while simultaneously, and surreptitiously, acting against American ideals. I don't have the same beliefs as you do regarding our government.