Users are mental cases with deleting and trash. Our general policy is generosity and tolerance for user storage needs (I'm making quotey signs with my fingers). When mail client performance is slow or the mail store backup gets too porky, trash folders are a good place to start looking to slim down a bit.
Once I'd right-clicked on a trash folder and glanced at the user for an 'okay, go ahead' look before clicking 'empty trash' when he jumped up and shrieked "no! I keep stuff in there!" - when I opened the folder I found a detailed hierarchy of subfolders full of messages, most of which were ones he'd sent to himself with files attached and with a description of the file as the subject.
I've had a few other users with somewhat-less-so-but-still-kooky trash behavior - deleting everything to satisfy an obsessive need for an empty inbox, then referring to the Trash as the de facto mailstore. But the needed stuff gets mixed in with the trash, as do thousands of spam messages when *that* folder is emptied. Or a more general fear of ever deleting anything, though we keep years of mailstore data for any-point-in-time restores, archive all incoming and outgoing mail, and put everything on tape. Ensuring that we have backups five ways to Sunday of anything they could ever possibly need doesn't ameliorate the need for the hoarding.
"It's about people who accept one god already but not many"
Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that's what it's about. It's still a far larger leap of faith to believe in a being with magical, supernatural qualities than, once that leap has been made, to believe in another one. Or two. Or ten.
The one unicorn vs many unicorns comparison summed it up much better than I did.
First of all, regarding the difference between having one dollar in your pocket and "unlimited" dollars - what's silly and unreasonable is only in the latter scenario. There's nothing interesting about having a dollar, nothing to be skeptical about. In contrast, there existing one all-powerful, all-knowing, boundless magic friend is already beyond explanation or rational belief. Having more of them isn't only barely less credible, it's probably already part of the fairy tail definition of the former. (Holy Trinity, anyone?)
And, in the least significant, but still mortal, blow to your analogy, I don't believe that Mormons believe in an "unlimited" number of gods. But I'm not an expert in that particular flavor of self-delusion, so I could be wrong.
"Why does one journalist's accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?" "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son," she stated. "Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only two of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism?"
Possibly more stupid is her belief that she cured her child's 'autism' with diet modification.
My post was *funny*. If it "got to you" then you're a very fragile, thin-skinned person. If you think I'd have *genuinely* wasted a mod point on a religious discussion (instead of ignoring or participating) you're very wrong.
He expressed a belief in God. My post mostly was for fun, but for the sake of argument, yes, it professed a *lack* of belief in a God. What's the difference? You read all manner of shit into mine - that I consider myself "superior", that I generalize all believers into a "nutcase" basket, that everyone who thinks otherwise is an "idiot" and not "logical". Oh, and that I'm "close[sic]-minded". That's an awful lot to read into my joke. While I doubt the chemist is an "idiot", to use your word, I'm certain that you are. And I find it pretty funny that you went over-the-top knee-jerk assuming my motives while trying to accuse me of doing the same.
Let's leave lack of humor to that same bigoted crowd to which you refer.
besides the obvious (correlation != causation), many or most of the "facts" they claim that Fox viewers are on the wrong side of aren't "facts" that can be proven.
* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
It's not a fact that it had a net gain in jobs, especially over time. There are those who argue that government spending takes away from (in taxes) and crowds out (in spending) private-sector spending , and less efficiently.
*** As with each example, I am not arguing that this is necessarily the case.
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
Why does believing that a new and expensive government program will increase the deficit mean that someone is "less informed"? The last OMB estimates, in fact, said that it would cost $1T over the next ten (IIRC) years. And that's during a period when there will be several years of payments in before the services (costs) begin.
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
By some measures, it has. Practically every month you can point to numbers that point in either direction.
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
One of the questions to the guy from the East Anglia Climate Research Center was (I don't have it in front of me) was whether the climate had warmed since 1995, and his answer was that statistically, it had not.
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
Okay, now that's a fact for which there is an undisputable answer. People who believe that are less-informed than people who do not.
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
They didn't include any changes in income tax rates, which is what people could have understood that to mean. A lot of them (as I'm looking them up) are refundable tax credits, which are as much a check handed out as they are a tax cut.
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
Okay, again that one's confirmably not true.
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
Republican people? Republican voters? Republican Members of Congress?
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
AGAIN, I'm not arguing that he *wasn't*. But that someone could believe, given the controversy over his birth certificate/certificate of live birth/whatever, that it was "unclear" does not make them uninformed. "unclear" is a very subjective word.
So: Seven of the nine "facts" either aren't facts, or are subjective, or sloppily worded. Two
And did so under Clinton as well, when they were handed some of the same types of no-bid contracts that, when granted under W, are bleated about frequently.
"And guess what, they also don't need to trade every 100ms."
Do you think that repeating that gives more meaning to your post?
No, a single coffee roaster doesn't have to trade every 100ms, but the thousands of people and businesses dependent on some aspect of selling or buying or transporting coffee, or on any number of tangential aspects of it, and count on being able to make trades on it, benefit from the lessened volatility a more liquid market provides. If you don't understand it, go read a book instead of repeating yourself.
It's no less legitimate or fair or good to bet that a company will fail than that it will succeed, either as a standalone speculation or as a hedge against another investment.
Since when should any business whose motive isn't "social benefit" be marked for death?
About 50% of the investments in hedge funds (which includes a lot of those bad "high-frequency" traders) are higher-education endowments and pension funds. So there goes your ignorant statement right out the window.
Good points, though I'm not sure that your perceived differences in oil fields and solar panel fields would come to be true. But, even if they did, two 'but's:
- the person(s) interested in disrupting power to the evil, nonbeliever world aren't likely to be the same people who build/run/benefit from the solar panel fields
and
- the solar panels themselves don't have to be the target; there would be hundreds (thousands?) of miles of transmission cable that would be much harder to protect and whose damage would wreak havoc on those countries served by it.
Nice "Economics for Dummies" justification for confiscating someone's property.
I'd love fair taxation, too. When I fork over a new 911 Turbo to the government to certainly not get five times the services that anyone else gets, or pay five-figure property tax for the school for the kids I don't have to subsidize the kids of my neighbor who makes more than I do, I could really use some fairness.
But stealing more from Google doesn't help me; it feeds government growth and its unchecked addiction to spending.
Got cut off after preview. Most Western countries have 4% taxes on income brought in from foreign subsidiaries. The link (http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om) is to a WSJ article from Wednesday.
Why should Google bend over and pay US taxes on income earned abroad? The Irish have a low business income tax to attract companies (and jobs and the revenue and spending that come with them). Is Google wrong for taking them up on it?
Keep pushing ignorant, anti-employer policy that not only chases jobs out of the country - but prevents outside earnings from being spent and invested here too. Good work.
The US is nearly alone in fully taxing earnings brought in from foreign subsidiaries - at, I might add, one of the highest corporate tax rates. Most western economies charge taxes of http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om
Though you're trying to run away from it, you compared crime rates between a state that allows concealed carry for most people (FL) and another state that doesn't (MA), pointing out that FL's is higher.
The point remains that FL's crime rate was higher *before* it liberalized its carry law, too, so your observation tells us nothing about the effect of CCW on crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Users are mental cases with deleting and trash. Our general policy is generosity and tolerance for user storage needs (I'm making quotey signs with my fingers). When mail client performance is slow or the mail store backup gets too porky, trash folders are a good place to start looking to slim down a bit.
Once I'd right-clicked on a trash folder and glanced at the user for an 'okay, go ahead' look before clicking 'empty trash' when he jumped up and shrieked "no! I keep stuff in there!" - when I opened the folder I found a detailed hierarchy of subfolders full of messages, most of which were ones he'd sent to himself with files attached and with a description of the file as the subject.
I've had a few other users with somewhat-less-so-but-still-kooky trash behavior - deleting everything to satisfy an obsessive need for an empty inbox, then referring to the Trash as the de facto mailstore. But the needed stuff gets mixed in with the trash, as do thousands of spam messages when *that* folder is emptied. Or a more general fear of ever deleting anything, though we keep years of mailstore data for any-point-in-time restores, archive all incoming and outgoing mail, and put everything on tape. Ensuring that we have backups five ways to Sunday of anything they could ever possibly need doesn't ameliorate the need for the hoarding.
I think it's ludicrous that you believe that (impossible) is half as likely as (2 x impossible).
I'm done - I'll meet you in heaven and we can discuss in person.
"It's about people who accept one god already but not many"
Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that's what it's about. It's still a far larger leap of faith to believe in a being with magical, supernatural qualities than, once that leap has been made, to believe in another one. Or two. Or ten.
The one unicorn vs many unicorns comparison summed it up much better than I did.
That is a really bad analogy.
First of all, regarding the difference between having one dollar in your pocket and "unlimited" dollars - what's silly and unreasonable is only in the latter scenario. There's nothing interesting about having a dollar, nothing to be skeptical about. In contrast, there existing one all-powerful, all-knowing, boundless magic friend is already beyond explanation or rational belief. Having more of them isn't only barely less credible, it's probably already part of the fairy tail definition of the former. (Holy Trinity, anyone?)
And, in the least significant, but still mortal, blow to your analogy, I don't believe that Mormons believe in an "unlimited" number of gods. But I'm not an expert in that particular flavor of self-delusion, so I could be wrong.
Right, because a *single* imaginary omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent friend makes sense - but *several* is just crazy!
"slashdot readers moaning that they must be autistic because nobody likes them and they can't get laid"
Are there many (any?) examples of a /. reader actually saying that?
If McCarthy recanted, then she recently un-recanted:
http://tinyurl.com/4lhzccc (NY Daily News)
"Why does one journalist's accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?"
"I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son," she stated. "Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only two of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism?"
Possibly more stupid is her belief that she cured her child's 'autism' with diet modification.
I don't understand how the tags "humor", [hard]hack", or "story" apply to this.
That's like saying that Bernard Madoff's son's suicide is the fault of the person who uncovered Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
If the Kenya information was false, and he knew it, *and* he knew it would lead to violence, then he'd have blood on his hands.
My post was *funny*. If it "got to you" then you're a very fragile, thin-skinned person. If you think I'd have *genuinely* wasted a mod point on a religious discussion (instead of ignoring or participating) you're very wrong.
He expressed a belief in God. My post mostly was for fun, but for the sake of argument, yes, it professed a *lack* of belief in a God. What's the difference? You read all manner of shit into mine - that I consider myself "superior", that I generalize all believers into a "nutcase" basket, that everyone who thinks otherwise is an "idiot" and not "logical". Oh, and that I'm "close[sic]-minded". That's an awful lot to read into my joke. While I doubt the chemist is an "idiot", to use your word, I'm certain that you are. And I find it pretty funny that you went over-the-top knee-jerk assuming my motives while trying to accuse me of doing the same.
Let's leave lack of humor to that same bigoted crowd to which you refer.
If there *were* a God, He would have given me mod points to mod down your post.
besides the obvious (correlation != causation), many or most of the "facts" they claim that Fox viewers are on the wrong side of aren't "facts" that can be proven.
* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
It's not a fact that it had a net gain in jobs, especially over time. There are those who argue that government spending takes away from (in taxes) and crowds out (in spending) private-sector spending , and less efficiently.
*** As with each example, I am not arguing that this is necessarily the case.
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
Why does believing that a new and expensive government program will increase the deficit mean that someone is "less informed"? The last OMB estimates, in fact, said that it would cost $1T over the next ten (IIRC) years. And that's during a period when there will be several years of payments in before the services (costs) begin.
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
By some measures, it has. Practically every month you can point to numbers that point in either direction.
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
One of the questions to the guy from the East Anglia Climate Research Center was (I don't have it in front of me) was whether the climate had warmed since 1995, and his answer was that statistically, it had not.
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
Okay, now that's a fact for which there is an undisputable answer. People who believe that are less-informed than people who do not.
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
They didn't include any changes in income tax rates, which is what people could have understood that to mean. A lot of them (as I'm looking them up) are refundable tax credits, which are as much a check handed out as they are a tax cut.
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
Okay, again that one's confirmably not true.
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
Republican people? Republican voters? Republican Members of Congress?
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
AGAIN, I'm not arguing that he *wasn't*. But that someone could believe, given the controversy over his birth certificate/certificate of live birth/whatever, that it was "unclear" does not make them uninformed. "unclear" is a very subjective word.
So: Seven of the nine "facts" either aren't facts, or are subjective, or sloppily worded.
Two
And did so under Clinton as well, when they were handed some of the same types of no-bid contracts that, when granted under W, are bleated about frequently.
"And guess what, they also don't need to trade every 100ms." Do you think that repeating that gives more meaning to your post? No, a single coffee roaster doesn't have to trade every 100ms, but the thousands of people and businesses dependent on some aspect of selling or buying or transporting coffee, or on any number of tangential aspects of it, and count on being able to make trades on it, benefit from the lessened volatility a more liquid market provides. If you don't understand it, go read a book instead of repeating yourself.
That's really not what high-frequency trading is about. There may be an exception here or there, but generally, no, that's incorrect.
It's no less legitimate or fair or good to bet that a company will fail than that it will succeed, either as a standalone speculation or as a hedge against another investment.
Since when should any business whose motive isn't "social benefit" be marked for death? About 50% of the investments in hedge funds (which includes a lot of those bad "high-frequency" traders) are higher-education endowments and pension funds. So there goes your ignorant statement right out the window.
Good points, though I'm not sure that your perceived differences in oil fields and solar panel fields would come to be true. But, even if they did, two 'but's: - the person(s) interested in disrupting power to the evil, nonbeliever world aren't likely to be the same people who build/run/benefit from the solar panel fields and - the solar panels themselves don't have to be the target; there would be hundreds (thousands?) of miles of transmission cable that would be much harder to protect and whose damage would wreak havoc on those countries served by it.
We'll be able to move away from energy dependence on an unstable region ruled by religious fanatics. Wait - oh, crap.
That was my first thought. But you beat me to it. "Eeeeeek, a rabbit!!"
Right. And every day that perception is positively reinforced. To perceive it otherwise would be illogical.
Nice "Economics for Dummies" justification for confiscating someone's property. I'd love fair taxation, too. When I fork over a new 911 Turbo to the government to certainly not get five times the services that anyone else gets, or pay five-figure property tax for the school for the kids I don't have to subsidize the kids of my neighbor who makes more than I do, I could really use some fairness. But stealing more from Google doesn't help me; it feeds government growth and its unchecked addiction to spending.
Got cut off after preview. Most Western countries have 4% taxes on income brought in from foreign subsidiaries. The link (http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om) is to a WSJ article from Wednesday.
Why should Google bend over and pay US taxes on income earned abroad? The Irish have a low business income tax to attract companies (and jobs and the revenue and spending that come with them). Is Google wrong for taking them up on it? Keep pushing ignorant, anti-employer policy that not only chases jobs out of the country - but prevents outside earnings from being spent and invested here too. Good work. The US is nearly alone in fully taxing earnings brought in from foreign subsidiaries - at, I might add, one of the highest corporate tax rates. Most western economies charge taxes of http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om
Though you're trying to run away from it, you compared crime rates between a state that allows concealed carry for most people (FL) and another state that doesn't (MA), pointing out that FL's is higher. The point remains that FL's crime rate was higher *before* it liberalized its carry law, too, so your observation tells us nothing about the effect of CCW on crime.