It's quite possible to lose money if you can't provide a service. The idea of an SLA is this alien to you that you can't imagine how to lose money when NOT providing a service?
There's a couple of problems associated with this.
First of all, it was initially considered a "gay pest". So a lot of people had zero problem with the problem just spreading, hoping that it would only kill the fags. Yes, including the dimwit politicians in power back then. Only very, very slowly it dawned on them that the scientists examining the virus ain't all liberal gay lovers but do actually warn of a real threat for everyone around (why, you thought people were smarter in the 80s?). So if you want to find someone to blame, how about the bigoted dimwits that did what they could to halt research and warnings back when they could have done some good?
Second, HIV has an insanely long latency period between infection and the first signs of AIDS. We're talking years here. Decades sometimes. So giving everyone showing symptoms of AIDS some sort of marker is ludicrous. Even the distance between infection and the first signs of antibodies is long enough that a lot of people can get infected. Not to mention that your idea would make people additionally reluctant to get tested in the first place.
IE can easily be replaced for most applications. It's not that easy for Win7. Basically, what MS tells us it's less than a year now that we have to finally make the move over to Linux unless we want to deal with Win10.
Oh please, could you at least not shill in ONE thread?
Not that this thread was in any way important (wtf does this have to do with news for nerds?) but still, could you shill on Twitter like all the other assholes? Thanks.
A belief can not be founded on facts. It's still merely a belief without proof.
What you believe can of course be true. What you believe can of course be itself something that can be shown to be true by facts. But whether these facts exist does not matter if you merely believe the underlying claim.
There are of course things you can believe without demanding proof. You can claim that you had fries for lunch and I'll most likely readily believe you. Why? Because it doesn't really matter. Especially to me. What you had for lunch is of no consequence to me, unless I invite you for dinner and wonder why you don't eat. But even in this case I will not demand that you have your stomach pumped to prove your claim.
Any claim with consequences demands proof, though. The bigger the consequences, the more it requires proof. You are, of course, still allowed to simply believe a claim, but don't expect others to.
Yes, even if the claim can be verified and shown to be true. Unless done so, it's something you can believe but not know.
So please elaborate on the difference between a delusion, a cult and a religion, aside of the number of afflicted.
Imagine there was no Judaism (or Christianity for that matter), what would you say to someone who tells you that he believes that there is an invisible being that watches every step he does, has some rather bizarre rules to judge you by and will torture you for eternity after you die if you, say, eat shellfish, wear two different fabrics at the same time or eat a cheeseburger?
When trying to show that certain things are and certain things are not, there are only two possible starting points: Either assuming that nothing is until you show its existence, or assuming that everything is possible until shown to be impossible.
I would suggest the former starting point. Especially if religious, and twice so if monotheistic. Else you're facing the problem of disproving the existence of Ra, Thor, Allah, Krishna, Jehova, Hanuman, Baal Hammon, Toutatis, Xipe Totec, Ashur, Sol Invictus,...
Of course you may leave out whatever deity you happen to worship.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess Fluffy now needs a new name...
I was honestly surprised that Apple banned this before Google did.
Else one could think this might be illegal.
That's HIS behind?
OMG, poor Mr Coward.
Maybe he's the guy that creates those stub articles that are waiting for someone who can provide some actual content.
Yup, I am. Looking back in history, it's usually been a better life for morons before compared to after any revolution.
That sounds interesting, where is it permitted to assault someone wearing a red hat with the intent to murder?
If you can hate the sin and love the sinner, why don't you think I can hate the religion and love the religious?
It's quite possible to lose money if you can't provide a service. The idea of an SLA is this alien to you that you can't imagine how to lose money when NOT providing a service?
I used to enjoy political caricatures. But since they more and more resemble reality, it's become kinda hard to enjoy them.
There's a couple of problems associated with this.
First of all, it was initially considered a "gay pest". So a lot of people had zero problem with the problem just spreading, hoping that it would only kill the fags. Yes, including the dimwit politicians in power back then. Only very, very slowly it dawned on them that the scientists examining the virus ain't all liberal gay lovers but do actually warn of a real threat for everyone around (why, you thought people were smarter in the 80s?). So if you want to find someone to blame, how about the bigoted dimwits that did what they could to halt research and warnings back when they could have done some good?
Second, HIV has an insanely long latency period between infection and the first signs of AIDS. We're talking years here. Decades sometimes. So giving everyone showing symptoms of AIDS some sort of marker is ludicrous. Even the distance between infection and the first signs of antibodies is long enough that a lot of people can get infected. Not to mention that your idea would make people additionally reluctant to get tested in the first place.
You don't say, gee, why didn't I think of this when making this comment?
IE can easily be replaced for most applications. It's not that easy for Win7. Basically, what MS tells us it's less than a year now that we have to finally make the move over to Linux unless we want to deal with Win10.
Odd. I managed to do that just fine. fdisk and parted are your friends here.
Oh please, could you at least not shill in ONE thread?
Not that this thread was in any way important (wtf does this have to do with news for nerds?) but still, could you shill on Twitter like all the other assholes? Thanks.
How about having them wear some mark on their clothing so we can better identify them?
Else they'd have spread!
No. Effin' no. The callback concept of Javascript is alien to pretty much ANY other language on the planet.
Well, it's the best language for learning a few swears you didn't think you had inside you.
A belief can not be founded on facts. It's still merely a belief without proof.
What you believe can of course be true. What you believe can of course be itself something that can be shown to be true by facts. But whether these facts exist does not matter if you merely believe the underlying claim.
There are of course things you can believe without demanding proof. You can claim that you had fries for lunch and I'll most likely readily believe you. Why? Because it doesn't really matter. Especially to me. What you had for lunch is of no consequence to me, unless I invite you for dinner and wonder why you don't eat. But even in this case I will not demand that you have your stomach pumped to prove your claim.
Any claim with consequences demands proof, though. The bigger the consequences, the more it requires proof. You are, of course, still allowed to simply believe a claim, but don't expect others to.
Yes, even if the claim can be verified and shown to be true. Unless done so, it's something you can believe but not know.
Because tourture is torture to the eyes.
So please elaborate on the difference between a delusion, a cult and a religion, aside of the number of afflicted.
Imagine there was no Judaism (or Christianity for that matter), what would you say to someone who tells you that he believes that there is an invisible being that watches every step he does, has some rather bizarre rules to judge you by and will torture you for eternity after you die if you, say, eat shellfish, wear two different fabrics at the same time or eat a cheeseburger?
When trying to show that certain things are and certain things are not, there are only two possible starting points: Either assuming that nothing is until you show its existence, or assuming that everything is possible until shown to be impossible.
I would suggest the former starting point. Especially if religious, and twice so if monotheistic. Else you're facing the problem of disproving the existence of Ra, Thor, Allah, Krishna, Jehova, Hanuman, Baal Hammon, Toutatis, Xipe Totec, Ashur, Sol Invictus, ...
Of course you may leave out whatever deity you happen to worship.
ALL 8 year olds independent of whether it interests them or whether they think a dump is what they do in the toilet?
If they could assemble statements in the proper order they'd still have a job.