*sigh* I agree. It's a shame, but I'm pretty sure if most people knew how much more useful their computers could be to them their heads might explode. I'm constantly telling my wife is she picked up a little programming, even if she just learned some regex, she could do sooooooo much more then she does. Unfortunately, she takes the majorities outlook and just wants to be able to click an icon and leave the "complex" operations to people such as us developers. I guess it's not so bad, I'd be out of work if everyone knew how to write their own applications.
I think that's probably one of the biggest problems. A lot of people a use to doing what they're told, not what they want. When confronted with too much choice a lot of people just curl up into little balls and cry. Figuratively speaking of course.
I live in Nova Scotia, Canada. I'd trust the car over a human anyday. I've seen to many accidents where someone made a slight miscalculation that shouldn't have been a big deal. Then they end up over compensating and taking out someone in an on coming lane instead of vearing off into a parking lot, just ending up on the side of the road or even just staying on course and having nothing come of a small skid, swerve or bump.
The only issue I see with and autonomous car is there are times here where a person has to guess where the road is. I'd like to know how the car would track the road when it's more or less just a blanket of white.
I have a pretty small anecdotal sample group, four sets of sisters, but my experience is sisters of similar age tend to get , or try to get, pregnant around the same time. From what I've observed it's like it's a competition to see who can pop out the first grandchild.
I think it boils down to younger siblings hate seeing the older ones get everything first. Maybe marketing has picked up on a similar trend.
That's how I've seen it spelled. According to others, on/. and in my office, it's incorrect, and I'm probably wrong.
But also according to others, Quebec French, which I speak very little of, is not "proper" french. Just like Canadian and American English are not "proper" forms of English.
It can also be spelled 'toqué', 'tuque', or 'tuqué' depending on which part of the country you're from and which keys are on your keyboard or whether you know the character codes.
In Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland I primary see it spelled 'tuke'.
The spellings 'toqué', or 'tuqué' are the french spellings, which I know are used in Quebec and New Brunswick.
The rest of the country it's one of the three, but without the acute e -> é
Actually Jean Chrétien told the Bush to go to hell when he tried to get us activaly involved in the middle east back in 2003. We already had peace keepers there anyway. Then we had Paul Martin that took the fall for Chrétien and the liberals spending scandal. Then Harpper was elected 2006 and put Canada into an offiensive position to kiss up to Bush.
I apologize, I misread your comment the first time and interrupted it as saying an individual should be free to enter any community they're interested in and force it to conform to their preferences. I re-read your post and realize you are entirely correct and I probably need to see the doctor before I have a stroke.
Although I don't agree with the GP, I really disagree with that statement. Change can be good, but change for the sake of change isn't always. When you have a minority, or individual, enter a group that has a specific structure that works and that minority decides things should work their way instead, is that really going to make things better!
It doesn't, what happens is the minority, or individual, is rejected from the group. That being said, in today's society if the minority is rejected by the group then it's often considered some form of discrimination. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's because the minority is trying to force the group to work by their rules and they're uncompromising about it. The group breaks down and the cause of the issues is ejected.
I believe the best way to create change for a minority to enact change is to integrate with the group, sometimes this means "putting up with them". Then enact change where it works for the group, opposed to for the minority. The issue with this method is it's slow. Minority are just like the majority in a lot of respects, they want things and they want things now. So instead of enacting change over time they have rules and laws made to force change and speed things up. What we're witnessing with the "hissy-fit" of the GP is push back because he's being forced to cope with a minority being valued over what he believes is against the common belief of the majority. Which is most likely making something in his life more difficult then he believes it needs to be, and is lashing out at what was a reasonable opinion in the GGP.
I tend to agree with this. I'm a Canada software developer and work in a pretty evenly split gender environment. We all work well together and love to make fun of the yearly mandatory employment equity and respecting differences training. The training seems to be more targeted at causing issues than resolving them, but that's another story. I respect the women I work with and they are by far some of the most talented programmers I've ever met. I'm never afraid to ask them questions when I'm unsure of something.
I do think when things get out of balance, gender wise, the worst of each sex comes out.
My older Sister is a police officer and I hear horror stories how she's treated by the males she works with, but she puts up with it because she's afraid reporting the issues will only make things worse for her and the other female officers she works with.
My wife works for an insurance company in an office environment that is 90% female. It is exactly as you described. Most of the time the women act nice to each other, but are really just waiting for one of their own to slip up so they can jump on her like a pack of wolves. I can't count the number of times my wife came home crying because she felt she was being lured into some trap so one of her co-workers would have an excuse to gossip about her and have her excluded from group interactions. I hate going there for her work functions, thankfully we just had a baby and my wife is on maternity leave. While she's out she's looking for a new job and, although I'm not religious, I'm praying she finds something. I don't know if I could force myself to encourage her to go back. Her job is the most stressful part of my life and she seems so happy right now at home.
Neither my wife or I like sports so no problem there for us, but I can see your point and how it might affect others. Surly there must be a live internet stream from a sport channel website or pay-per-view or some other alternative. I suppose if you really wanted sports that much you'd just have to suck it up and pay the cable company what they want.
Where I'm at that would be $25 for the digital PVR, since all sports channels are HD and the basic $10 digital cable decoder I have doesn't work with HD channels, $160 for the basic cable (100 channels of crap most of the time), then another $25 for each of three or four different sport channel packages. That doesn't include pay-per-view for any special events that aren't shown on the regular channels. So I'd be looking at around $260 + pay-per-view a month if I was into sports.
Yes, I love my smart TV. It has a built in media server to play shows I download on my laptop, There's Netflix app that came with the TV, and it still functions as a regular TV. I think getting Ubuntu TV would be great if my cable provider would support it. Of course when the cable company starts losing $10-$25/month because people don't need to rent the stupid boxes from them, they'll most likely block the competing service. My cable co. Charges $10/month for the basic digital cable decoder box and $25/month for the digital cable decoder with PVR. That's on top of the $160/month for cable not including the HD channels. One more excuse to pirate shows.
I'm slowly convincing my wife that, yes cable is convenient if you like to channel surf and don't know what you want to watch, but you can download anything you want, only get what you want instead of the 100 extra channels of crap, you don't have to watch the stupid commercials, and with the money we'd save by getting rid of cable we could buy a new computer/TV/whatever else she wanted every year.
Yes and no. I agree that we shouldn't push everyone into the same mold and when an accident occurs the person that was at fault should dealt with accordingly, epically if they were being reckless. That beings said, the mentality of "If no accident takes place, good for everyone." would be akin to playing Russian roulette. Someone who drinking a 24 of beer in two hours then drives might get away with it once or twice, but eventually they will kill someone. In that case I have a better safe than sorry attitude, but MADD wants to punish everyone, which is too much of an extreme and unfair to those that do drink responsibly.
That's not what I said at all. I think someone can have a drink and still be able to safely drive. That being said, I am against people drinking excessively and then getting behind the wheel.
I was pointing out the fact that you claimed smoking affects the people around the person poising themselves, where as drinking generally doesn't. Anyone who has ever had a friend or family member killed by a drunk driver would clearly disagree with you.
You seem to be using a black and white defense. Either it's bad and shouldn't be done period or it should be ok to do everything.
I.E. Smoking's bad, but because it's allowed we should be able to kill people to.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with you, I understand there is a range of harm that's being done. There is a very drastic difference between stabbing someone causing immediate harm and possibly death and smoking a cigarette in an open area where those around you have a choice to move away.
Where I'm from we have very strict regulations on smoking. Such as, No smoking in public areas (parks, hospital including their parking lots, bars, etc...), within 5 metres of an entrance to any commercial building or place of business or in a private car where a minor is present. I'm old enough to remember what it use to be like to go to a restaurant where they had smoking and second hand smoking (a.k.a non-smoking). For nonsmokers, like myself, the new regulations are great, but there are consequences. Basically if you can treat smokers that way, what's to stop regulators from going even further and apply those rules to other bad habits that don't lead to immediate death. Eating junk food for example leads to obesity, which has a huge impact on our health care system and consumes resources that could be used elsewhere for possibly more serious issues. Someone taking up a hospital bed because of issues caused by self-inflicted obesity, is someone taking up a hospital bed that could be used to treat someone that was stabbed in the eye with a cigarette.
however, biggest difference is maybe that alcohol users don't generally force others to suffer from the poison as well.
Drinking and Driving?
Not that I'm advocating a ban on alcohol. I'm In Canada, Beer and Hockey is who we are... Literally
Seriously though, We have an organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) as in loonie. MADD Canada wants breath analyzer ignition test in every car so even if you had one beer or a glass of wine with supper you wouldn't be able to start your car. Right now they're trying to get it for just people convicted of drunk driving, but they've said in the past their end goal is to have it mandatory for all vehicles sold in Canada.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the idiots that trusted Sony with the Other OS on the PS3 when it first came out. I resisted updating the firmware because I use my PS3 as an alternate testing platform, which became more important to me than playing games. My cousin came over with a rented movie one night, I didn't realize he rented the bluRay version, and while I was upstairs making snacks my wife decided to start the movie. As soon as she put the disk in she was asked to update to the latest firmware, TO PLAY A F*#$ING MOVIE. Of course we had all been drinking so she didn't think about what the system was asking her and just clicked through everything. An hour later after the updates had finally finished we decided we were all too tired to even watch the movie.
I won't be buying any BluRay movies or players in the near future. I knew that was a possibility with the PS3, but seriously, what do they do with BluRay players that aren't connected to the internet?
The problem is when "the casual user" buys something with a DRM that prevents them from using the product, maliciously disables their machine and they can't get any help from customer support.
That's when "The casual" user learns to circumvent DRM by pirating everything before wasting their money to get the shaft after the fact. At least that was my story.
Not really. I'd rather see them do the right thing in the first place. Instead of them being ass hats and only after they've pissed on enough customers make a superficial about face. Just so they can survive just long enough for most people to forget what they did and preform another ass hat move.
One drink for reading a post from an Apple/Microsoft/Sony fanboy or anti-fanboy
One drink for grammer and speeling natzis
Two drinks for "First" in first post
Three drinks for reading a post responding to an AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Try playing Minecraft with out being able to alt-tab out.
*sigh* I agree. It's a shame, but I'm pretty sure if most people knew how much more useful their computers could be to them their heads might explode. I'm constantly telling my wife is she picked up a little programming, even if she just learned some regex, she could do sooooooo much more then she does. Unfortunately, she takes the majorities outlook and just wants to be able to click an icon and leave the "complex" operations to people such as us developers. I guess it's not so bad, I'd be out of work if everyone knew how to write their own applications.
I think that's probably one of the biggest problems. A lot of people a use to doing what they're told, not what they want. When confronted with too much choice a lot of people just curl up into little balls and cry. Figuratively speaking of course.
I live in Nova Scotia, Canada. I'd trust the car over a human anyday. I've seen to many accidents where someone made a slight miscalculation that shouldn't have been a big deal. Then they end up over compensating and taking out someone in an on coming lane instead of vearing off into a parking lot, just ending up on the side of the road or even just staying on course and having nothing come of a small skid, swerve or bump.
The only issue I see with and autonomous car is there are times here where a person has to guess where the road is. I'd like to know how the car would track the road when it's more or less just a blanket of white.
I agree with you. In all cases the situation hasn't gone well.
I have a pretty small anecdotal sample group, four sets of sisters, but my experience is sisters of similar age tend to get , or try to get, pregnant around the same time. From what I've observed it's like it's a competition to see who can pop out the first grandchild.
I think it boils down to younger siblings hate seeing the older ones get everything first. Maybe marketing has picked up on a similar trend.
That's how I've seen it spelled. According to others, on /. and in my office, it's incorrect, and I'm probably wrong.
But also according to others, Quebec French, which I speak very little of, is not "proper" french. Just like Canadian and American English are not "proper" forms of English.
It can also be spelled 'toqué', 'tuque', or 'tuqué' depending on which part of the country you're from and which keys are on your keyboard or whether you know the character codes.
In Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland I primary see it spelled 'tuke'.
The spellings 'toqué', or 'tuqué' are the french spellings, which I know are used in Quebec and New Brunswick.
The rest of the country it's one of the three, but without the acute e -> é
I can't understand why Canada would do that! Damn beer drinking, hockey rioting, tuke heads.
Actually Jean Chrétien told the Bush to go to hell when he tried to get us activaly involved in the middle east back in 2003. We already had peace keepers there anyway. Then we had Paul Martin that took the fall for Chrétien and the liberals spending scandal. Then Harpper was elected 2006 and put Canada into an offiensive position to kiss up to Bush.
I apologize, I misread your comment the first time and interrupted it as saying an individual should be free to enter any community they're interested in and force it to conform to their preferences. I re-read your post and realize you are entirely correct and I probably need to see the doctor before I have a stroke.
Looks like they were trying to pull a fast one by claiming the bill was dead, then hoping no one noticed the zombie chewing on their leg.
Although I don't agree with the GP, I really disagree with that statement. Change can be good, but change for the sake of change isn't always. When you have a minority, or individual, enter a group that has a specific structure that works and that minority decides things should work their way instead, is that really going to make things better!
It doesn't, what happens is the minority, or individual, is rejected from the group. That being said, in today's society if the minority is rejected by the group then it's often considered some form of discrimination. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's because the minority is trying to force the group to work by their rules and they're uncompromising about it. The group breaks down and the cause of the issues is ejected.
I believe the best way to create change for a minority to enact change is to integrate with the group, sometimes this means "putting up with them". Then enact change where it works for the group, opposed to for the minority. The issue with this method is it's slow. Minority are just like the majority in a lot of respects, they want things and they want things now. So instead of enacting change over time they have rules and laws made to force change and speed things up. What we're witnessing with the "hissy-fit" of the GP is push back because he's being forced to cope with a minority being valued over what he believes is against the common belief of the majority. Which is most likely making something in his life more difficult then he believes it needs to be, and is lashing out at what was a reasonable opinion in the GGP.
I tend to agree with this. I'm a Canada software developer and work in a pretty evenly split gender environment. We all work well together and love to make fun of the yearly mandatory employment equity and respecting differences training. The training seems to be more targeted at causing issues than resolving them, but that's another story. I respect the women I work with and they are by far some of the most talented programmers I've ever met. I'm never afraid to ask them questions when I'm unsure of something.
I do think when things get out of balance, gender wise, the worst of each sex comes out.
My older Sister is a police officer and I hear horror stories how she's treated by the males she works with, but she puts up with it because she's afraid reporting the issues will only make things worse for her and the other female officers she works with.
My wife works for an insurance company in an office environment that is 90% female. It is exactly as you described. Most of the time the women act nice to each other, but are really just waiting for one of their own to slip up so they can jump on her like a pack of wolves. I can't count the number of times my wife came home crying because she felt she was being lured into some trap so one of her co-workers would have an excuse to gossip about her and have her excluded from group interactions. I hate going there for her work functions, thankfully we just had a baby and my wife is on maternity leave. While she's out she's looking for a new job and, although I'm not religious, I'm praying she finds something. I don't know if I could force myself to encourage her to go back. Her job is the most stressful part of my life and she seems so happy right now at home.
Neither my wife or I like sports so no problem there for us, but I can see your point and how it might affect others. Surly there must be a live internet stream from a sport channel website or pay-per-view or some other alternative. I suppose if you really wanted sports that much you'd just have to suck it up and pay the cable company what they want.
Where I'm at that would be $25 for the digital PVR, since all sports channels are HD and the basic $10 digital cable decoder I have doesn't work with HD channels, $160 for the basic cable (100 channels of crap most of the time), then another $25 for each of three or four different sport channel packages. That doesn't include pay-per-view for any special events that aren't shown on the regular channels. So I'd be looking at around $260 + pay-per-view a month if I was into sports.
Yes, I love my smart TV. It has a built in media server to play shows I download on my laptop, There's Netflix app that came with the TV, and it still functions as a regular TV. I think getting Ubuntu TV would be great if my cable provider would support it. Of course when the cable company starts losing $10-$25/month because people don't need to rent the stupid boxes from them, they'll most likely block the competing service. My cable co. Charges $10/month for the basic digital cable decoder box and $25/month for the digital cable decoder with PVR. That's on top of the $160/month for cable not including the HD channels. One more excuse to pirate shows.
I'm slowly convincing my wife that, yes cable is convenient if you like to channel surf and don't know what you want to watch, but you can download anything you want, only get what you want instead of the 100 extra channels of crap, you don't have to watch the stupid commercials, and with the money we'd save by getting rid of cable we could buy a new computer/TV/whatever else she wanted every year.
Yes and no. I agree that we shouldn't push everyone into the same mold and when an accident occurs the person that was at fault should dealt with accordingly, epically if they were being reckless. That beings said, the mentality of "If no accident takes place, good for everyone." would be akin to playing Russian roulette. Someone who drinking a 24 of beer in two hours then drives might get away with it once or twice, but eventually they will kill someone. In that case I have a better safe than sorry attitude, but MADD wants to punish everyone, which is too much of an extreme and unfair to those that do drink responsibly.
Exactly, although I it's 100% bad. At the very least they keep people on their toes.
It would be nice if they scaled back their goals from prohibition to "a drink with supper is ok".
You're against banning drunk driving?
That's not what I said at all. I think someone can have a drink and still be able to safely drive. That being said, I am against people drinking excessively and then getting behind the wheel.
I was pointing out the fact that you claimed smoking affects the people around the person poising themselves, where as drinking generally doesn't. Anyone who has ever had a friend or family member killed by a drunk driver would clearly disagree with you.
You seem to be using a black and white defense. Either it's bad and shouldn't be done period or it should be ok to do everything.
I.E. Smoking's bad, but because it's allowed we should be able to kill people to.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with you, I understand there is a range of harm that's being done. There is a very drastic difference between stabbing someone causing immediate harm and possibly death and smoking a cigarette in an open area where those around you have a choice to move away.
Where I'm from we have very strict regulations on smoking. Such as, No smoking in public areas (parks, hospital including their parking lots, bars, etc...), within 5 metres of an entrance to any commercial building or place of business or in a private car where a minor is present. I'm old enough to remember what it use to be like to go to a restaurant where they had smoking and second hand smoking (a.k.a non-smoking). For nonsmokers, like myself, the new regulations are great, but there are consequences. Basically if you can treat smokers that way, what's to stop regulators from going even further and apply those rules to other bad habits that don't lead to immediate death. Eating junk food for example leads to obesity, which has a huge impact on our health care system and consumes resources that could be used elsewhere for possibly more serious issues. Someone taking up a hospital bed because of issues caused by self-inflicted obesity, is someone taking up a hospital bed that could be used to treat someone that was stabbed in the eye with a cigarette.
however, biggest difference is maybe that alcohol users don't generally force others to suffer from the poison as well.
Drinking and Driving?
Not that I'm advocating a ban on alcohol. I'm In Canada, Beer and Hockey is who we are... Literally
Seriously though, We have an organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) as in loonie. MADD Canada wants breath analyzer ignition test in every car so even if you had one beer or a glass of wine with supper you wouldn't be able to start your car. Right now they're trying to get it for just people convicted of drunk driving, but they've said in the past their end goal is to have it mandatory for all vehicles sold in Canada.
I hear ya.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the idiots that trusted Sony with the Other OS on the PS3 when it first came out. I resisted updating the firmware because I use my PS3 as an alternate testing platform, which became more important to me than playing games. My cousin came over with a rented movie one night, I didn't realize he rented the bluRay version, and while I was upstairs making snacks my wife decided to start the movie. As soon as she put the disk in she was asked to update to the latest firmware, TO PLAY A F*#$ING MOVIE. Of course we had all been drinking so she didn't think about what the system was asking her and just clicked through everything. An hour later after the updates had finally finished we decided we were all too tired to even watch the movie.
I won't be buying any BluRay movies or players in the near future. I knew that was a possibility with the PS3, but seriously, what do they do with BluRay players that aren't connected to the internet?
The problem is when "the casual user" buys something with a DRM that prevents them from using the product, maliciously disables their machine and they can't get any help from customer support.
That's when "The casual" user learns to circumvent DRM by pirating everything before wasting their money to get the shaft after the fact. At least that was my story.
The US probably has a hand in this. Just like the article yesterday dealing with Spain.
Not really. I'd rather see them do the right thing in the first place. Instead of them being ass hats and only after they've pissed on enough customers make a superficial about face. Just so they can survive just long enough for most people to forget what they did and preform another ass hat move.
I think that should be a drinking game.
One drink for reading a post from an Apple/Microsoft/Sony fanboy or anti-fanboy
One drink for grammer and speeling natzis
Two drinks for "First" in first post
Three drinks for reading a post responding to an AC.