... and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person in the USA since Adolf Hitler.
FTFY.
Here's another opinion (and nothing more, I don't pretend it's a fact): the various USA presidents, especially from the Bush family, are more hated in the world than Bin Laden was. For various reasons, including invading countries and starving hundreds thousands of children to death, among others.
You're right, my formulation is incorrect. What I meant is that any religion is acceptable because none is official, therefore not "public" in the meaning "of or provided by the government".
France is not an "atheist" country, it just implements the separation of church and state (despite the efforts of the previous president). Everyone can believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it private. It's also a way to ensure a certain freedom of religion, since no religion is superior to the others (at least in theory; again, despite the efforts of the previous president). If you really want to put a label on it, "agnostic" is probably more accurate than "atheist".
Still, GP is trolling and will hopefully burn in Hell for that:)
Could it be that it's exactly what they're after? I mean, are customers with unlimited data plans really profitable? I'd guess they are, but maybe someone who actually has a clue can answer?
Yeah I was wondering, what makes it different from alcohol or tobacco? Because warning against these doesn't seem to be such a problem. Not living in the US so correct me if I'm wrong about alcohol; it still holds for tobacco in any case.
IMHO the post-revolutionary France is more characterised by "anticléricalisme", which is a hostility towards the clergy and its members, but not towards religious faith. Just my personal opinion and impression on it, having grown up in France and all but not being a historian. By the way hostility towards the clergy is easily understandable in that context: it's the catholic clergy, historically rich, powerful and oppressive. On top of that, the French monarch had absolute power and was officially supported by this clergy and by the catholic religion until the revolution, that was the so-called "monarchie absolue de droit divin". Going against the king (i.e. by beheading him) meant going against the catholic religion, with its well-organised hierarchy.
In the mean time, closures have been implemented since at least 1975 in Scheme. Funny how at first functional languages were seen as "too abstract" and "for researchers only" but with time people slowly realise that they have in fact useful features that other more mainstream languages lack. FFS even C++ has closures now. The fact that they are still not present in Java says a lot about the skills of the average Java programmer, who clearly doesn't have a use for such obscure and abstract stuff.
(disclaimer: I am language agnostic and sometimes use Java)
That's why you have to click on "preview" before you can submit. Apparently it's still not enough. Or did the preview show you something else than what we are now seeing?
I understand why you would ask this, it's very annoying when people answer with ideology instead of ideas and thinking, and it usually is a sign that the discussion will lead nowhere. The thing is, your answer basically is "the invisible hand will take care of everything". May I suggest you to stop responding to him with ideology?
And... how many people, need that? To store 12 TB nightly? Few thousand businesses, perhaps?
I'd guess universities and research institutes around the world also have a need for "that". I would also be happy if some public administrations did reasonable backups too. Doesn't change the order of magnitude you mention though.
Thanks for the insult - I'll answer nonetheless (also, you forgot to add a trailing "~" to your lines).
I agree with the general idea that one should not consider that "less important" issues are not important: this is just an easy pretext to discard everything because there's always something more important. What I think is that if people have to spend money to save lives they should rather do it in efficient ways. My impression here is that this is not an efficient way, and that the same money could be spent to save more lives; additionally, I'm wondering whether the same effect could be achieved by spending less money (radar vs camera). Of course my opinion can change, but it is rarely achieved by insulting me.
I mentioned that if you look at the big picture then it makes more sense to spend the same money elsewhere first (at least that's what I meant), and you answer with an anecdote. I understand that this kind of accident happens and that it's dramatic every time it happens; it still holds that in comparison to other causes of child deaths it's very minor.
In other words, all I'm saying is "ok it happens but other things happen much more and things should be done against these in priority" and you answer me "no, it happened to my colleague". So I'm not sure what we're having here qualifies as dialog. Maybe I wasn't clear in my first comment; if so, I hope this is clearer: I think there are other ways to spend the same amount of money that will get us closer to the same objective of reducing child deaths.
I also feel we have a misunderstanding on the whole taxes thing, so to make it clear: I'm all for high taxes as long as they are well spent by the government. Of course "well spent" is highly subjective and also depends on the society in which you're living. In that precise case and from my point of view there are obvious answers like research, prevention and free and easy access to care for the main medical causes of child deaths. Plus the 100% free no brainer of restricting access to guns, since we're talking about the USA. Of course safety sometimes comes at the expense of freedom.
But if they really want to reduce child deaths they should maybe look at other causes first, since this cause seems to be relatively insignificant compared to other causes. Of course it's easier to raise a "hidden" tax than to use actual tax money to invest in health care instead of say military. Or maybe some camera manufacturer has connections with some politician. Or maybe both. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
On a related topic, many cars have a kind of radar which beeps when the back of the car is getting too close to an object (like a wall or a pole). Do these work with kids too? I would assume they are cheaper than cameras. Plus, they have the considerable advantage that they do not require visual attention, unlike the camera feedback.
Another way to look at it: people go on strike in France because that's their only option and that's the only way they know for negotiation. The way it usually goes: (i) politicians following some lobby's agenda or looking for funds propose a new law, (ii) people go on strike and (iii) based on people's mobilisation a political decision is taken. Since all politicians want to be re-elected, they'll drop it if the mobilisation is too high.
It allows the politicians to measure the impact of a law on their electorate, and it allows said electorate to show how big of an issue it is to them. No real discussion or negotiation occurs before the strike, so if the people don't go on strike then their only other option (at least in that culture) is to blindly accept every new law.
Disclaimer: I'm French, living abroad for a few years now.
Well interestingly enough, according to the article it works the other way around:
When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically.
I would expect that SSH is forbidden and that everything has to go through the university's web proxy. That is the situation I was facing a few years ago when I lived on a college campus. The solution I found was called desproxy and apparently it still exists. Worked wonders with me.
I agree with you and think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, the way I see it, the "blaming on Apple" part is not really the important one. What matters here is that we have hardware and software that can perform a task, and that Amazon prevents this from happening so that they can sell more of their own hardware (or so they think). Whoever they blame this on is secondary, and focusing on this secondary aspect would make you miss the important bit here: Amazon is evil for blocking its streaming service.
I honestly and in all subjectivity doubt it. Here in Australia where the Galaxy tablet was banned I see iPads every day out in the street, in the bus, etc. I saw only one Galaxy tab in 8 months however.
I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
... and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person in the USA since Adolf Hitler.
FTFY.
Here's another opinion (and nothing more, I don't pretend it's a fact): the various USA presidents, especially from the Bush family, are more hated in the world than Bin Laden was. For various reasons, including invading countries and starving hundreds thousands of children to death, among others.
You're right, my formulation is incorrect. What I meant is that any religion is acceptable because none is official, therefore not "public" in the meaning "of or provided by the government".
France is not an "atheist" country, it just implements the separation of church and state (despite the efforts of the previous president). Everyone can believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it private. It's also a way to ensure a certain freedom of religion, since no religion is superior to the others (at least in theory; again, despite the efforts of the previous president). If you really want to put a label on it, "agnostic" is probably more accurate than "atheist".
Still, GP is trolling and will hopefully burn in Hell for that :)
Could it be that it's exactly what they're after? I mean, are customers with unlimited data plans really profitable? I'd guess they are, but maybe someone who actually has a clue can answer?
And by "our politicians" you mean?
Making people of the internet realise that they are wrong, obviously :)
Everyone here that posts has an agenda to put forward.
So, what is your agenda?
Yeah I was wondering, what makes it different from alcohol or tobacco? Because warning against these doesn't seem to be such a problem. Not living in the US so correct me if I'm wrong about alcohol; it still holds for tobacco in any case.
IMHO the post-revolutionary France is more characterised by "anticléricalisme", which is a hostility towards the clergy and its members, but not towards religious faith. Just my personal opinion and impression on it, having grown up in France and all but not being a historian. By the way hostility towards the clergy is easily understandable in that context: it's the catholic clergy, historically rich, powerful and oppressive. On top of that, the French monarch had absolute power and was officially supported by this clergy and by the catholic religion until the revolution, that was the so-called "monarchie absolue de droit divin". Going against the king (i.e. by beheading him) meant going against the catholic religion, with its well-organised hierarchy.
In the mean time, closures have been implemented since at least 1975 in Scheme. Funny how at first functional languages were seen as "too abstract" and "for researchers only" but with time people slowly realise that they have in fact useful features that other more mainstream languages lack.
FFS even C++ has closures now. The fact that they are still not present in Java says a lot about the skills of the average Java programmer, who clearly doesn't have a use for such obscure and abstract stuff.
(disclaimer: I am language agnostic and sometimes use Java)
This would actually be a great slashdot poll!
Who is the most evil?
Apple
Microsoft
Google
Oracle
AT&T
RMS (there is always a nonsense option)
Yeah I'm wondering, why don't they just keep supporting it and make money out of it?
Or, put differently, you don't fix an injustice with another injustice. You just create more injustice.
That's why you have to click on "preview" before you can submit. Apparently it's still not enough. Or did the preview show you something else than what we are now seeing?
Please stop responding to me with ideology.
I understand why you would ask this, it's very annoying when people answer with ideology instead of ideas and thinking, and it usually is a sign that the discussion will lead nowhere. The thing is, your answer basically is "the invisible hand will take care of everything". May I suggest you to stop responding to him with ideology?
And... how many people, need that? To store 12 TB nightly? Few thousand businesses, perhaps?
I'd guess universities and research institutes around the world also have a need for "that". I would also be happy if some public administrations did reasonable backups too. Doesn't change the order of magnitude you mention though.
Thanks for the insult - I'll answer nonetheless (also, you forgot to add a trailing "~" to your lines).
I agree with the general idea that one should not consider that "less important" issues are not important: this is just an easy pretext to discard everything because there's always something more important.
What I think is that if people have to spend money to save lives they should rather do it in efficient ways. My impression here is that this is not an efficient way, and that the same money could be spent to save more lives; additionally, I'm wondering whether the same effect could be achieved by spending less money (radar vs camera). Of course my opinion can change, but it is rarely achieved by insulting me.
I mentioned that if you look at the big picture then it makes more sense to spend the same money elsewhere first (at least that's what I meant), and you answer with an anecdote.
I understand that this kind of accident happens and that it's dramatic every time it happens; it still holds that in comparison to other causes of child deaths it's very minor.
In other words, all I'm saying is "ok it happens but other things happen much more and things should be done against these in priority" and you answer me "no, it happened to my colleague". So I'm not sure what we're having here qualifies as dialog. Maybe I wasn't clear in my first comment; if so, I hope this is clearer: I think there are other ways to spend the same amount of money that will get us closer to the same objective of reducing child deaths.
I also feel we have a misunderstanding on the whole taxes thing, so to make it clear: I'm all for high taxes as long as they are well spent by the government. Of course "well spent" is highly subjective and also depends on the society in which you're living. In that precise case and from my point of view there are obvious answers like research, prevention and free and easy access to care for the main medical causes of child deaths. Plus the 100% free no brainer of restricting access to guns, since we're talking about the USA. Of course safety sometimes comes at the expense of freedom.
But if they really want to reduce child deaths they should maybe look at other causes first, since this cause seems to be relatively insignificant compared to other causes. Of course it's easier to raise a "hidden" tax than to use actual tax money to invest in health care instead of say military. Or maybe some camera manufacturer has connections with some politician. Or maybe both. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
On a related topic, many cars have a kind of radar which beeps when the back of the car is getting too close to an object (like a wall or a pole). Do these work with kids too? I would assume they are cheaper than cameras. Plus, they have the considerable advantage that they do not require visual attention, unlike the camera feedback.
Another way to look at it: people go on strike in France because that's their only option and that's the only way they know for negotiation. The way it usually goes: (i) politicians following some lobby's agenda or looking for funds propose a new law, (ii) people go on strike and (iii) based on people's mobilisation a political decision is taken. Since all politicians want to be re-elected, they'll drop it if the mobilisation is too high.
It allows the politicians to measure the impact of a law on their electorate, and it allows said electorate to show how big of an issue it is to them. No real discussion or negotiation occurs before the strike, so if the people don't go on strike then their only other option (at least in that culture) is to blindly accept every new law.
Disclaimer: I'm French, living abroad for a few years now.
Well interestingly enough, according to the article it works the other way around:
When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically.
I would expect that SSH is forbidden and that everything has to go through the university's web proxy.
That is the situation I was facing a few years ago when I lived on a college campus. The solution I found was called desproxy and apparently it still exists. Worked wonders with me.
I agree with you and think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, the way I see it, the "blaming on Apple" part is not really the important one. What matters here is that we have hardware and software that can perform a task, and that Amazon prevents this from happening so that they can sell more of their own hardware (or so they think). Whoever they blame this on is secondary, and focusing on this secondary aspect would make you miss the important bit here: Amazon is evil for blocking its streaming service.
I honestly and in all subjectivity doubt it. Here in Australia where the Galaxy tablet was banned I see iPads every day out in the street, in the bus, etc. I saw only one Galaxy tab in 8 months however.
I rather have the impression that everybody loses except for the lawyers. Remove the lawyers and everybody else is happier: no big corporation trolls any other and have to pay/waste time for it, users get their products without the stupid bans, and products are cheaper because companies have less expenses.