And that's why there's opposition from people. Anti-vaxxers are dumb as shit, but they have rights. If they're paying for schools (through taxes) then they get a say in how the schools operate.
No taxation without representation.
If I live in State A and own property in State B, I cannot vote in elections in both states. That is taxation without representation as well - assuming I pay taxes in both states (property or income). How is this any different? Plus they can still run for school board, go to district meetings open to the public, and participate in the PTA.
That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.
School vouchers fixes this problem instantly. Give us that option and you'll have no problems.
Is your school voucher program going to give me back the money I have paid in taxes for things like welfare, unemployment, medicaid, school districts, universities, medical research, and other programs I am not taking advantage of at the present moment? No? Oh, that's right, sometimes we pay taxes for things that don't benefit us directly because it makes society a better place.
That is my guess as to why these emails were not sent out sooner. From pre-orders Apple knows now what are the less popular watch models so this one is probably the bottom of the list (most people from the sound of it like the dark bodies more than the silver). That makes it less likely someone would buy one to re-sell, or just to order to have a watch early instead of actually needing one to to testing with, and thus any developer sales will not really affect shipping dates for anyone who ordered this model since they probably already had enough of them made to ship out some extras.
I also think that as the emails get sent out, Apple waits a day or so to see if the person bites, then they send someone else an email... I have no idea how they choose who to send these to, as I'm an iOS developer working on an Apple Watch compatible app and I didn't get one.
I would have thought the blue band was one of the more popular band colors, but perhaps not. Or perhaps that's to make up for having to get the silver watch...:-)
Every single iOS developer at my company got one of these emails - except me. Apple asked us back in November to create an app for the Apple Watch, so maybe that has something to do with it. I'm also the only person who won the WWDC lottery at my company. So who knows?
car is being repaired. Ridiculous! 20 MPG and every time I step on the brakes or the gas it rocks back and forth like a rocking chair. It seats about as many people as a sedan and can carry only slightly more junk than a sedan. Why do people want to drive these things? They aren't attractive, they don't stop/go fast, they can't carry much stuff. I don't get it.
I don't understand why so many people want to drive pickups either. In a pickup you can only haul stuff you care about in decent weather. I get it if you're a farmer or ranch hand and need to haul messy stuff year round, but why would anyone else want to drive a truck? And why is it that the bigger the pickup, the greater the odds that they will back into parking spaces?
I have a crossover SUV that gets about the same gas mileage as a Nissan Altima (3.6L though, which means a lot more kick). I can fit every single piece of furniture I own in that thing (not all at one time, obviously), except for my bed. It seats 5 people more comfortably than a sedan of that size. I bought it to haul around gear that I was using on a weekly basis - though I no longer need that capability. I ended up getting an inexpensive scooter to save on gas.
Would you feel as coldly towards a person suffering diabetes? A person who needs daily finger-prick blood testing and may even require insulin injections?
We didn't get to choose our brains or our bodies, just like you didn't get to choose yours.
Besides, if I had a choice I'd naturally rather be a unicorn, just like every other sane person out there.
I know someone who has diabetes who does not (and should not drive). They have historically had trouble controlling their blood sugar properly and, as such, have had trouble remaining consciousness from time to time. No one mandated that this person not drive, but they felt like it was in the interest of safety that they not drive.
... and anything from iPhone 4 upwards can use iOS 7. There is practically no reason not to write for IOS 7 exclusively, since nobody with iOS 6 is going to buy any apps anymore.
As of February of this year, all new app releases MUST target iOS 7 or higher as well as support 64 bit
A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.
So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.
Oh I thought he was making the statement that too many tech companies were helping terrorist police states in domestic and foreign spying.
Well, somebody needs to play Devil's Advocate here, so I will. What if onboard vehicle computers truthfully are (or soon will become) so complicated - and so integral to the functioning of the vehicle - that an untrained hobbyist screwing with it could cause injury or death?
Fuck, man, brakes have been like that for a hundred goddamn years!
Stop letting "buh-buh-buh-computers!" be an excuse for corporate sociopaths and nanny-state asswipes to destroy your rights. Seriously.
We have two choices: we can be free, or we can be safe. These are mutually exclusive. And in the United States of America, the only correct choice is to be free. Sniveling infantile cowards who think otherwise can fuck off and die.
Who says you're that much safer when you're not free? There can still be terrorist attacks, manufacturing problems, murder and other problems without freedom. The Soviet Union had serious problems with medications such as antibiotics not being manufactured properly. People died because of it. They weren't very free there. And what about the millions of Soviet citizens that were murdered by the hand of Stalin himself?
The amount of money we waste scuttling U.S. Naval vessels is shocking. We sink multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers as part of "live fire testing." Here's the USS America (CV-66) sunk off the East Coast after only 40 years of service. Why? The Navy chose to install diesel engines on it even after nuclear powered CVs had been launched. So, they decided the cost to replace the USS America's power plant with a nuclear reactor was just too expensive. Should be recycle thousands of tons of steel? Nah. There goes another $4.5 billion in taxpayer money.
Well the point of this particular test was to see how an aircraft carrier could withstand a nuclear bomb detonation, and was not just because we had nothing better to do with the ship.
This guy is showing ignorance of the law. He gave them a reason to believe he did something wrong, and then wants a warrant? First, the warrant will be rubberstamped based upon his comments, but second, they don't need a warrant once that is established.
They need a warrant to search the contents of the computer. They do not need a warrant to confiscate and hold the equipment while they decide what to do.
If the seller is to get the money then the bar code must be unique to that seller, so it's not the general bar code of the magazine that's getting scanned.
The phone then reports this seller's ID to some central server. Does it also report geolocation data? (Is there any non-free-software app nowadays that doesn't?) How many people get this data? Google and the magazine company (and any government agency that asks for it)?
So smartphone users are being used to report homeless people's movements around the city. Or at the very least, it's open to that type of abuse.
Am I wrong?
Or maybe the government is exploiting homeless people to keep track of you??
The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.
Nah. That would be the seventh extinction. We're getting good at causing these mass extinction events. And here we thought he had only laid waste to the earth 5 times.;)
You realize I'm not asking "can Nvidia do those things". Nvidia had "Twinview(tm)" when I last used them which allowed multiple monitors and was compatible with Xinerama on an API level.
That just meant you could extend your desktop across two monitors and when you maximize something it only maximizes in the monitor it is displayed in. It doesn't stretch across the whole virtual desktop splitting itself between the two screens.
However.. since it was only an Nvidia proprietary thing which was emulating Xinerama that meant utilites meant for configuring Xinerama didn't work with Nvidia cards.
Here's why that matters.
If you were using for example KDE (and I am assuming Gnome was similar) you could go into the control panel and change how your multiple monitors are set up. You could switch between desktop stretching vs cloning. You could swap left/right, etc... It was very easy and tidy... very Windows like.
BUT if you had an Nvidia card.. nope! You still have those functions in your control panel... but... THEY DON'T WORK! Instead you had to load this proprietary Nvidia app which then makes edits to your xorg.conf for you. Then.. it would restart X! So... all your applications you had open... now are closed.
I just did a Google search for Nvidia and Xinerama. The first result was an Ubuntu page about using Twinview. I take that to mean that your "years and years" comment is wrong and you are just assuming everything is ok because yes.. you can have two monitors.
Two monitors? Hell, I've run 12 monitors on Linux using the NVidia drivers. You can edit the xorg.conf file yourself, also. You do have to restart X, though.
The point I was trying to make, which you missed, was that gun deaths are not as widespread as the person I responded to claimed. There are far more common causes of death. Would it be nice if those 11,000 firearm deaths did not occur? Yes. But we should not be exaggerating the frequency of these occurrences.
Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms
According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.
I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.
No, the tendency was to not think of one's self as the expert. That didn't make one dumb, that made one ignorant.
Now people think that they're experts even when they cannot demonstrate mastery of the subject without having access to resources. It's the difference between an open-book test and a more traditional testing technique.
I can't deny a certain amount of perverse pleasure from watching people with poor cell phone signal squirm because they are attempting to consult the Internet for an answer to something that's part of their responsibiltiy that clearly they cannot do on their own and aren't able to do so.
I have about 50 computer books at home that I haven't opened in 10 years. Prior to the excellent resources we have online I depended upon those reference books for many coding functions that are under my responsibility. I can't possibly memorize every single thing that I need to know for work. Depending on what you're asking me to do, I may squirm without Google too. I know what I need to look up. I could write you psuedocode that approximates what I want to google, but I can't remember every single nuance of every little API I use. I doubt anyone can.
I disagree. I think that some rational persons, in particular many religious persons, consider themselves accountable to God for all symbolic activity in which they engage.
This view is supported in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 5:20, which calls Christians to be ambassadors for Christ. Engaging in a form of symbolism is an act of speech.
The Old Testament / Hebrew bible is full of strictures against engaging in symbolic support of claims that the Lord is not in charge of everything and worthy of exclusive worship.
Thought experiments involving role-reversal are useful for everyone in this kind of discussion. Would you consider it okay for the law to compel a Muslim-owned advertising company to write "Islam is wrong. Mohamed was a militant con artist" all over a city's billboards? If not, why not?
Or would be okay, on your view, to force a Jewish-owned movie-making company to produce and promote a movie claiming that the Jews had it coming in the Holocaust, if it could somehow be shown in court that the submitted script was a guaranteed money-maker for them?
My contention is that some Christians consider writing messages counter to their theology to be objectionable in the same way. And that the very debate about whether or not it's sufficiently a matter of compelled religious speech is itself a question whose answer depends on one's religious viewpoint.
I don't think any rational person assumes...
I disagree. I think that some rational persons, in particular many religious persons, consider themselves accountable to God for all symbolic activity in which they engage.
This view is supported in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 5:20, which calls Christians to be ambassadors for Christ. Engaging in a form of symbolism is an act of speech.
The Old Testament / Hebrew bible is full of strictures against engaging in symbolic support of claims that the Lord is not in charge of everything and worthy of exclusive worship.
Thought experiments involving role-reversal are useful for everyone in this kind of discussion. Would you consider it okay for the law to compel a Muslim-owned advertising company to write "Islam is wrong. Mohamed was a militant con artist" all over a city's billboards? If not, why not?
Or would be okay, on your view, to force a Jewish-owned movie-making company to produce and promote a movie claiming that the Jews had it coming in the Holocaust, if it could somehow be shown in court that the submitted script was a guaranteed money-maker for them?
My contention is that some Christians consider writing messages counter to their theology to be objectionable in the same way. And that the very debate about whether or not it's sufficiently a matter of compelled religious speech is itself a question whose answer depends on one's religious viewpoint.
Oh I see. So creating a wedding cake that has two men on the top instead of a man and a woman is the same as plastering billboards all over town that degrade a religion? Or the same as making a movie in favor of the holocaust? You're just showing the fact that you're not being rational about the situation.
2 Corinthians 5:19 says that you should not be holding peoples sins against them. The next verse does not say that you are allowed to treat sinners as second class citizens. In fact, the message of Jesus Chris says the exact opposite. So how do you construe that verse into allowing discrimination? Some people believe that black people are sinners - that their skin is the curse and taint of Cain. Does that mean that I can use 2 Corinthians 5:20 to avoid doing business with them because they're black? No. The verse says that you should be an ambassador of Christ. The same Christ who went to lepers, to prostitutes, and other second class citizens of the bible and healed them. Did all of those people become his followers? No. But he di
Encouraging them in their sinful behavior. A gay wedding is a celebration, which I take as an affirmation that the thing being celebrated is good and worth of encouragement.
On some Christians' view, that's like having a celebration of giving a 6 year old a loaded gun. It puts them and those around them at heightened risk of death.
Last time I went to a wedding the photographers, caterers and other workers were not celebrating anything. They were in no way supporting or encouraging the people in their activities. The workers have absolutely no control over the celebrators actions. You're not actively making them gay or less gay. You're just pointing a camera. I don't think any rational person assumes that a person passing out cake at a wedding is in open support of the married couple. In fact, one would assume that if they knew the married couple, they would be celebrating the wedding, and not working it. That's just absurd.
There is absolutely no reason to treat these law abiding citizens as second class citizens in places of business.
I think you're perhaps missing part of my point.
I agree entirely that there are downsides to allowing business owners to make such distinctions. The point about black Americans is very valid.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
You're correctly arguing that gay people suffer a certain kind of harm by a business refusing to do a certain kind of business on their behalf. I'm saying that you're dismissing the harm done to religious persons by demanding them to violate their consciences and/or their obedience to God (on their view).
Hmmm. Which part of the bible would serving a gay person violate? The part that says love your neighbor as yourself, love the sinner but hate the sin, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or the judge not lest you be judged part?
I think something irreligious non-libertarians miss in these discussions is the notion of harm.
I'm guessing that they see clear harm to a gay person in having a business refuse to perform a particular service for them.
But they see no harm in forcing a religious person to choose between being faithful to God and making their living.
In reality, gay people can usually find another place to get a cake decorated, and religious people can actually write the requested message on a cake. But irreligious people are making the value judgment that the former is less tolerable than the latter.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Now replace every instance of "gay person" with "black person" or "religious person" and ask people how they would feel on the subject. There is absolutely no reason to treat these law abiding citizens as second class citizens in places of business.
It's also only for the initial few weeks after launch. This is aimed at getting rid of those queues of people that just *have* to have the latest Apple iThing on launch day from cluttering up the streets around the store, which I'm sure goes over well with the city administration that needs to police the queue and deal with the aftermath - at least some of which I suspect have probably had words with Apple store managers or VPs about it. Unless it's a complete debacle I suspect we'll be seeing similar management of iPad, iPhone and other major product launches.
My local Apple store was actually closed down by the fire marshal a few months ago. Now they force everyone to line up outside the store and count the number of people allowed in. On many Friday afternoons the Apple Store looks like a club, with people lined up just to get in the door. Even with an appointment, they force you to wait outside until there is space in the store. It's kind of comical because the inside of the store looks relatively empty compared to the crowd outside.
That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare.
Socialized medicine doesn't mean you can just walk in and get free medical care anytime you want.
Of course not - people have to schedule non-emergent procedures everywhere in the world. But my point is that the treatment was available. So why is there an uptick in treatment? It's possible there are more treatment resources, or a variety of factors. But my point still stands that a higher rate of treatment (assuming there is no increase in problems, which is what the GP suggested) *should* result in a decrease in suicide attempts.
Have you ever thought about not paying them to not produce energy instead? How do I get in on this, I'd like to be paid to not produce electricity too. I think I'd be quite good at it.
Seriously though, let me guess, public sector contract with penalty clauses? that why? the usual story? Can they really not sell the electricity to anyone instead, like you know, that whopping great City to the South; New York. Or do the Americans not trust immigrant electricity or something?
Our ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents have a hard time screening every single electron that comes across the border. Too few of the electrons are willing to pay for the prescreen pass that allows them to pass freely through border stations with only cursory inspections.
That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare. Why would these people not be seeking care historically? It's not like the availability of health insurance has changed. Unless you're suggesting that people suppressed these feelings and just avoided treatment historically? That still doesn't explain the increase in attempted suicides. If it were just more people seeking treatment then you would think the attempted suicide rate should decrease (assuming the treatment is effective).
Slashdot Mirror
Your choice to not vaccinate, you get to pay.
And that's why there's opposition from people. Anti-vaxxers are dumb as shit, but they have rights. If they're paying for schools (through taxes) then they get a say in how the schools operate.
No taxation without representation.
If I live in State A and own property in State B, I cannot vote in elections in both states. That is taxation without representation as well - assuming I pay taxes in both states (property or income). How is this any different? Plus they can still run for school board, go to district meetings open to the public, and participate in the PTA.
That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.
School vouchers fixes this problem instantly. Give us that option and you'll have no problems.
Is your school voucher program going to give me back the money I have paid in taxes for things like welfare, unemployment, medicaid, school districts, universities, medical research, and other programs I am not taking advantage of at the present moment? No? Oh, that's right, sometimes we pay taxes for things that don't benefit us directly because it makes society a better place.
That is my guess as to why these emails were not sent out sooner. From pre-orders Apple knows now what are the less popular watch models so this one is probably the bottom of the list (most people from the sound of it like the dark bodies more than the silver). That makes it less likely someone would buy one to re-sell, or just to order to have a watch early instead of actually needing one to to testing with, and thus any developer sales will not really affect shipping dates for anyone who ordered this model since they probably already had enough of them made to ship out some extras.
I also think that as the emails get sent out, Apple waits a day or so to see if the person bites, then they send someone else an email... I have no idea how they choose who to send these to, as I'm an iOS developer working on an Apple Watch compatible app and I didn't get one.
I would have thought the blue band was one of the more popular band colors, but perhaps not. Or perhaps that's to make up for having to get the silver watch... :-)
Every single iOS developer at my company got one of these emails - except me. Apple asked us back in November to create an app for the Apple Watch, so maybe that has something to do with it. I'm also the only person who won the WWDC lottery at my company. So who knows?
car is being repaired. Ridiculous! 20 MPG and every time I step on the brakes or the gas it rocks back and forth like a rocking chair. It seats about as many people as a sedan and can carry only slightly more junk than a sedan. Why do people want to drive these things? They aren't attractive, they don't stop/go fast, they can't carry much stuff. I don't get it.
I don't understand why so many people want to drive pickups either. In a pickup you can only haul stuff you care about in decent weather. I get it if you're a farmer or ranch hand and need to haul messy stuff year round, but why would anyone else want to drive a truck? And why is it that the bigger the pickup, the greater the odds that they will back into parking spaces?
I have a crossover SUV that gets about the same gas mileage as a Nissan Altima (3.6L though, which means a lot more kick). I can fit every single piece of furniture I own in that thing (not all at one time, obviously), except for my bed. It seats 5 people more comfortably than a sedan of that size. I bought it to haul around gear that I was using on a weekly basis - though I no longer need that capability. I ended up getting an inexpensive scooter to save on gas.
Would you feel as coldly towards a person suffering diabetes? A person who needs daily finger-prick blood testing and may even require insulin injections?
We didn't get to choose our brains or our bodies, just like you didn't get to choose yours.
Besides, if I had a choice I'd naturally rather be a unicorn, just like every other sane person out there.
I know someone who has diabetes who does not (and should not drive). They have historically had trouble controlling their blood sugar properly and, as such, have had trouble remaining consciousness from time to time. No one mandated that this person not drive, but they felt like it was in the interest of safety that they not drive.
... and anything from iPhone 4 upwards can use iOS 7. There is practically no reason not to write for IOS 7 exclusively, since nobody with iOS 6 is going to buy any apps anymore.
As of February of this year, all new app releases MUST target iOS 7 or higher as well as support 64 bit
A police chief that clearly stands for the police state, where public and private partnerships arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not and deny access to those them deem to be what ever they deem them to be for what ever reason they deem ie guilt upon accusation without proof. So how do you keep terrorists from attacking your customers without securing your services. How do you adhere to principles of a countries constitutions when you start ignoring them to convenience the police state.
So Mr Police Chief, why are convicted terrorists allowed full access to the internet because until you prove you case, they are not terrorists they are suspects. So the headline should be "Too many corporations allow secure access to the Internet for potential suspects of crime". As for suspect being less informed about police tactics, hey shit for brains Police chief, all of your tactics are by law required to be subject to public review and be taken into account at the next election as a measure of how well that government is handling the justice system. A citizen has a right to review all the actions of a government and then they get to choose whether they approve and vote for them again or whether they disapprove and vote for someone else.
Oh I thought he was making the statement that too many tech companies were helping terrorist police states in domestic and foreign spying.
Fuck, man, brakes have been like that for a hundred goddamn years!
Stop letting "buh-buh-buh-computers!" be an excuse for corporate sociopaths and nanny-state asswipes to destroy your rights. Seriously.
We have two choices: we can be free, or we can be safe. These are mutually exclusive. And in the United States of America, the only correct choice is to be free. Sniveling infantile cowards who think otherwise can fuck off and die.
Who says you're that much safer when you're not free? There can still be terrorist attacks, manufacturing problems, murder and other problems without freedom. The Soviet Union had serious problems with medications such as antibiotics not being manufactured properly. People died because of it. They weren't very free there. And what about the millions of Soviet citizens that were murdered by the hand of Stalin himself?
The amount of money we waste scuttling U.S. Naval vessels is shocking. We sink multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers as part of "live fire testing." Here's the USS America (CV-66) sunk off the East Coast after only 40 years of service. Why? The Navy chose to install diesel engines on it even after nuclear powered CVs had been launched. So, they decided the cost to replace the USS America's power plant with a nuclear reactor was just too expensive. Should be recycle thousands of tons of steel? Nah. There goes another $4.5 billion in taxpayer money.
Well the point of this particular test was to see how an aircraft carrier could withstand a nuclear bomb detonation, and was not just because we had nothing better to do with the ship.
This guy is showing ignorance of the law. He gave them a reason to believe he did something wrong, and then wants a warrant? First, the warrant will be rubberstamped based upon his comments, but second, they don't need a warrant once that is established.
They need a warrant to search the contents of the computer. They do not need a warrant to confiscate and hold the equipment while they decide what to do.
If the seller is to get the money then the bar code must be unique to that seller, so it's not the general bar code of the magazine that's getting scanned.
The phone then reports this seller's ID to some central server. Does it also report geolocation data? (Is there any non-free-software app nowadays that doesn't?) How many people get this data? Google and the magazine company (and any government agency that asks for it)?
So smartphone users are being used to report homeless people's movements around the city. Or at the very least, it's open to that type of abuse.
Am I wrong?
Or maybe the government is exploiting homeless people to keep track of you??
The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.
Nah. That would be the seventh extinction. We're getting good at causing these mass extinction events. And here we thought he had only laid waste to the earth 5 times. ;)
You realize I'm not asking "can Nvidia do those things". Nvidia had "Twinview(tm)" when I last used them which allowed multiple monitors and was compatible with Xinerama on an API level.
That just meant you could extend your desktop across two monitors and when you maximize something it only maximizes in the monitor it is displayed in. It doesn't stretch across the whole virtual desktop splitting itself between the two screens.
However.. since it was only an Nvidia proprietary thing which was emulating Xinerama that meant utilites meant for configuring Xinerama didn't work with Nvidia cards.
Here's why that matters.
If you were using for example KDE (and I am assuming Gnome was similar) you could go into the control panel and change how your multiple monitors are set up. You could switch between desktop stretching vs cloning. You could swap left/right, etc... It was very easy and tidy... very Windows like.
BUT if you had an Nvidia card.. nope! You still have those functions in your control panel... but... THEY DON'T WORK! Instead you had to load this proprietary Nvidia app which then makes edits to your xorg.conf for you. Then.. it would restart X! So... all your applications you had open... now are closed.
I just did a Google search for Nvidia and Xinerama. The first result was an Ubuntu page about using Twinview. I take that to mean that your "years and years" comment is wrong and you are just assuming everything is ok because yes.. you can have two monitors.
Two monitors? Hell, I've run 12 monitors on Linux using the NVidia drivers. You can edit the xorg.conf file yourself, also. You do have to restart X, though.
You could, but the connector is only rated for 60 matings.
60 matings is much better than most of the readers on slashdot will ever hope to achieve!
The point I was trying to make, which you missed, was that gun deaths are not as widespread as the person I responded to claimed. There are far more common causes of death. Would it be nice if those 11,000 firearm deaths did not occur? Yes. But we should not be exaggerating the frequency of these occurrences.
Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms
According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.
I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.
No, the tendency was to not think of one's self as the expert. That didn't make one dumb, that made one ignorant. Now people think that they're experts even when they cannot demonstrate mastery of the subject without having access to resources. It's the difference between an open-book test and a more traditional testing technique. I can't deny a certain amount of perverse pleasure from watching people with poor cell phone signal squirm because they are attempting to consult the Internet for an answer to something that's part of their responsibiltiy that clearly they cannot do on their own and aren't able to do so.
I have about 50 computer books at home that I haven't opened in 10 years. Prior to the excellent resources we have online I depended upon those reference books for many coding functions that are under my responsibility. I can't possibly memorize every single thing that I need to know for work. Depending on what you're asking me to do, I may squirm without Google too. I know what I need to look up. I could write you psuedocode that approximates what I want to google, but I can't remember every single nuance of every little API I use. I doubt anyone can.
I disagree. I think that some rational persons, in particular many religious persons, consider themselves accountable to God for all symbolic activity in which they engage.
This view is supported in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 5:20, which calls Christians to be ambassadors for Christ. Engaging in a form of symbolism is an act of speech.
The Old Testament / Hebrew bible is full of strictures against engaging in symbolic support of claims that the Lord is not in charge of everything and worthy of exclusive worship.
Thought experiments involving role-reversal are useful for everyone in this kind of discussion. Would you consider it okay for the law to compel a Muslim-owned advertising company to write "Islam is wrong. Mohamed was a militant con artist" all over a city's billboards? If not, why not?
Or would be okay, on your view, to force a Jewish-owned movie-making company to produce and promote a movie claiming that the Jews had it coming in the Holocaust, if it could somehow be shown in court that the submitted script was a guaranteed money-maker for them?
My contention is that some Christians consider writing messages counter to their theology to be objectionable in the same way. And that the very debate about whether or not it's sufficiently a matter of compelled religious speech is itself a question whose answer depends on one's religious viewpoint.
I disagree. I think that some rational persons, in particular many religious persons, consider themselves accountable to God for all symbolic activity in which they engage.
This view is supported in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 5:20, which calls Christians to be ambassadors for Christ. Engaging in a form of symbolism is an act of speech.
The Old Testament / Hebrew bible is full of strictures against engaging in symbolic support of claims that the Lord is not in charge of everything and worthy of exclusive worship.
Thought experiments involving role-reversal are useful for everyone in this kind of discussion. Would you consider it okay for the law to compel a Muslim-owned advertising company to write "Islam is wrong. Mohamed was a militant con artist" all over a city's billboards? If not, why not?
Or would be okay, on your view, to force a Jewish-owned movie-making company to produce and promote a movie claiming that the Jews had it coming in the Holocaust, if it could somehow be shown in court that the submitted script was a guaranteed money-maker for them?
My contention is that some Christians consider writing messages counter to their theology to be objectionable in the same way. And that the very debate about whether or not it's sufficiently a matter of compelled religious speech is itself a question whose answer depends on one's religious viewpoint.
Oh I see. So creating a wedding cake that has two men on the top instead of a man and a woman is the same as plastering billboards all over town that degrade a religion? Or the same as making a movie in favor of the holocaust? You're just showing the fact that you're not being rational about the situation.
2 Corinthians 5:19 says that you should not be holding peoples sins against them. The next verse does not say that you are allowed to treat sinners as second class citizens. In fact, the message of Jesus Chris says the exact opposite. So how do you construe that verse into allowing discrimination? Some people believe that black people are sinners - that their skin is the curse and taint of Cain. Does that mean that I can use 2 Corinthians 5:20 to avoid doing business with them because they're black? No. The verse says that you should be an ambassador of Christ. The same Christ who went to lepers, to prostitutes, and other second class citizens of the bible and healed them. Did all of those people become his followers? No. But he di
Encouraging them in their sinful behavior. A gay wedding is a celebration, which I take as an affirmation that the thing being celebrated is good and worth of encouragement.
On some Christians' view, that's like having a celebration of giving a 6 year old a loaded gun. It puts them and those around them at heightened risk of death.
Last time I went to a wedding the photographers, caterers and other workers were not celebrating anything. They were in no way supporting or encouraging the people in their activities. The workers have absolutely no control over the celebrators actions. You're not actively making them gay or less gay. You're just pointing a camera. I don't think any rational person assumes that a person passing out cake at a wedding is in open support of the married couple. In fact, one would assume that if they knew the married couple, they would be celebrating the wedding, and not working it. That's just absurd.
I think you're perhaps missing part of my point.
I agree entirely that there are downsides to allowing business owners to make such distinctions. The point about black Americans is very valid.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
You're correctly arguing that gay people suffer a certain kind of harm by a business refusing to do a certain kind of business on their behalf. I'm saying that you're dismissing the harm done to religious persons by demanding them to violate their consciences and/or their obedience to God (on their view).
Hmmm. Which part of the bible would serving a gay person violate? The part that says love your neighbor as yourself, love the sinner but hate the sin, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or the judge not lest you be judged part?
I think something irreligious non-libertarians miss in these discussions is the notion of harm.
I'm guessing that they see clear harm to a gay person in having a business refuse to perform a particular service for them.
But they see no harm in forcing a religious person to choose between being faithful to God and making their living.
In reality, gay people can usually find another place to get a cake decorated, and religious people can actually write the requested message on a cake. But irreligious people are making the value judgment that the former is less tolerable than the latter.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Now replace every instance of "gay person" with "black person" or "religious person" and ask people how they would feel on the subject. There is absolutely no reason to treat these law abiding citizens as second class citizens in places of business.
It's also only for the initial few weeks after launch. This is aimed at getting rid of those queues of people that just *have* to have the latest Apple iThing on launch day from cluttering up the streets around the store, which I'm sure goes over well with the city administration that needs to police the queue and deal with the aftermath - at least some of which I suspect have probably had words with Apple store managers or VPs about it. Unless it's a complete debacle I suspect we'll be seeing similar management of iPad, iPhone and other major product launches.
My local Apple store was actually closed down by the fire marshal a few months ago. Now they force everyone to line up outside the store and count the number of people allowed in. On many Friday afternoons the Apple Store looks like a club, with people lined up just to get in the door. Even with an appointment, they force you to wait outside until there is space in the store. It's kind of comical because the inside of the store looks relatively empty compared to the crowd outside.
That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare.
Socialized medicine doesn't mean you can just walk in and get free medical care anytime you want.
Of course not - people have to schedule non-emergent procedures everywhere in the world. But my point is that the treatment was available. So why is there an uptick in treatment? It's possible there are more treatment resources, or a variety of factors. But my point still stands that a higher rate of treatment (assuming there is no increase in problems, which is what the GP suggested) *should* result in a decrease in suicide attempts.
Have you ever thought about not paying them to not produce energy instead? How do I get in on this, I'd like to be paid to not produce electricity too. I think I'd be quite good at it.
Seriously though, let me guess, public sector contract with penalty clauses? that why? the usual story? Can they really not sell the electricity to anyone instead, like you know, that whopping great City to the South; New York. Or do the Americans not trust immigrant electricity or something?
Our ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents have a hard time screening every single electron that comes across the border. Too few of the electrons are willing to pay for the prescreen pass that allows them to pass freely through border stations with only cursory inspections.
That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare. Why would these people not be seeking care historically? It's not like the availability of health insurance has changed. Unless you're suggesting that people suppressed these feelings and just avoided treatment historically? That still doesn't explain the increase in attempted suicides. If it were just more people seeking treatment then you would think the attempted suicide rate should decrease (assuming the treatment is effective).