I think that's "the same". I've seen how the iPhone does it, and it's functionally similar to tabs, thus can reasonably synecdochally be called "tabs". And I agree with you -- the tabs are implemented that way because it is "better" for the type of device.
Wow. That's a boldly broad statement. Your brain must have gigantic cognitive dissonance for you to come up with something so outlandish, in order to preserve whatever corner of penile ideology you have backed your inner monologue into. I hope you can get over that someday, perhaps by simply listening to people, and accepting what they have to say.
It's fine to have foreskin. It's fine not to circumcise your son. It's fine to wish you had foreskin if you don't. It's fine to be angry at your parents if you are unhappy with their decision to circumcise you. All those things are fine. The opposite of all of those are also fine.
Eh, I dunno man. We're talking about kids here, not adults in a tech training program. If a kid uses Foxit instead of Acrobat, then the kid will still know what a PDF is. And, the kid will still know what Acrobat is -- it's the software whose authors won't let him use it, for whatever reason. Hardly any software is so complicated that it can't be learned quickly on the job. I got all the way through high school, four years of college, and five years of professional programming before I ever had to use Windows -- yes, that is the honest truth. And when I finally received a PC when I started a new job, I figured it out in a couple days, no sweat. The fact that my college CS program used Linux didn't slow me down very much.
I guess I think you are being hyperbolic when you say his life depends on it. The truth underlying that statement is so tiny as to render the statement misleading.
You ask that question as if the metaphor speaks for itself, but it doesn't. I'm not a business mogul, but people who are business moguls are pretty good at doing math and finding the cheapest solutions. It strains credulity to say that all the people hiring Indian developers are making unwise business decisions. The only way that could be true is if you personally have superior knowledge and reasoning to all of those business people. That's possible, but unlikely.
Well, technically (I've heard) some men do try to regrow their foreskin, but let's say that's not the same (because, really, it isn't).
Hey, man, we have a genuine disagreement over what it means to mutilate a body, and I doubt we will find common ground. Let's just disagree. But I am genuinely curious about where you draw the line. Seriously. Do you consider ear piercing to be mutilation? or is it not because, given enough time, the hole will grow together? If science invented a way to grow together larger ear holes, then would ear stretching stop being mutilation? If science invented a way to regrow or replace foreskin, would that stop being mutilation?
What about balding? If a man who is balding cuts his hair, and thus can not regrow it, is that mutilation? what about laser hair removal?
Or what about chemo treatment for cancer -- is that mutilation in cases when the hair will never grow back?
How do you feel about having a cancer removed from the body, with the specific hope that it won't grow back? what about having a mole removed, which isn't cancerous, "just in case" it might someday become cancerous? What about liposuction? What about Lazik eye surgery?
I'm not joking, and I know this is off topic, but I've never met anybody like you personally to be able to talk to in depth about this kind of issue, and I'm piqued. Don't insult me and call me names, engage me and show me where you are coming from.
Well, what I'm saying is that I like my shaft. Thus, it is nonsensical and wrong for you to state that there is no benefit -- I'm telling you that I like it, and that is a benefit.
Of course, the medical establishment also claims there are medical benefits. However, medical benefits are not, in my opinion, a good reason to circumcise -- except maybe for the AIDS thing, but like you said, condoms and education are probably preferable.
But really, I'm telling you two things: I'm glad I never had polio, and I'm glad I never had a foreskin. My parents made lucky guesses in both cases as to my preferences later in life. I am personally attesting that I'm glad the way things turned out.
I feel bad for the men whose parents guessed wrong. Similarly, I feel bad for the (presumably very few) men who wish they could have had polio. That's a shame, really. But I'm not one of them, and many men are not. We like our trim dicks, and I take serious issue with people who tell me that, based on their ideology and cognitive dissonance, my opinion is somehow invalid. Not all men wish they had foreskins, and to say so is flat out false.
You can also never know what it is like to have polio, because your parents vaccinated you. You are so oppressed; in both cases I weep for you. Your parents robbed you of the life you were meant to live.
Oh, okay now I understand, you equate mutilation with any sort of bodily change. You didn't mention ear piercings or whitening teeth, but presumably you'd have similar problems with those. That's fine, but to me "mutilation" carries the meaning of something the owner doesn't want done. We simply disagree on what the word "mutilation" means, so there's no reason to argue about it. I am curious, though, do you refuse to cut your toenails? Are you appalled at people who pluck their eyebrows? If not (those mutilations are fairly mild), where do you draw the line? If it helps to ask a more narrow question, where would you draw the line between piercing ears and elongating earlobes?
Just to be clear, by saying it's "got to fuck you (me) up", you are saying that all circumcised people are 'fucked up' (in whatever way you mean that)? Obviously I disagree in my personal case, but moreover I think it's a rather bold and broad statement to make in a world with hundreds of millions or billions of circumcised people who, from external vantages, appear to get alone in life reasonably well. Was that all hyperbole, or are you prepared to defend the statement?
I am SO GLAD my parents had me clipped. I love my crew-cut dick and I wouldn't want to have to go through the pain during the majority of my life during which I have long-term memory.
Some people equate circumcision with "mutilation", which is absurd and totally wrong. My boner isn't mutilated, it's rather nice.
That's really insightful. If it has value and lasts forever, that makes it "real" in the sense of "real estate". If you want the United States government to have a standing army which protects your physical piece of the ground, then you must pay property tax; if you want the United States government to have a standing judiciary which protects your "intellectual property", then you must pay property tax.
Okay, first of all, I don't believe you that your state doesn't have a rule establishing left lanes for faster traffic. I'm willing to be shown differently (if you are a traffic law judge or something), but my understanding is that is a universal (in every state) law.
Second, to be clear, my accusation isn't that you are breaking the law (but, also to be clear, I believe you are), because when I speed, I am also breaking the law. So that would put us both on the wrong side of the law. What I'm accusing you of is driving like an asshole, a self-righteous jackass who thinks he has the prerogative to back up traffic behind him out of some misplaced sense of smug speed superiority.
It is perfectly fine to drive whatever speed you want. Really. Your absolute speed, or speed relative to the limit, is inconsequential to my argument. The only relevant speed is your speed relative to the OTHER TRAFFIC. If you are faster than the people in the right lanes, you are fine; if you are not faster (same speed or slower) then you are in the wrong lane and should move over. Failure to do so qualifies you as an asshole -- not as a criminal.
If my description doesn't apply to you, because I have made incorrect assumptions, then please know that my argument is directed at others, not at you.
That might or might not be a reasonable standard by which the law could judge obviousness, but -- lest anybody be confused -- it definitely is not the standard used.
Yeah I remember that. Apple was definitely borrowing some ideas. Some ideas, also, it purchased -- such as WindowShade, which was a third-party Control Panel which Apple straight-up bought and dropped wholesale into the OS.
However, when any OS, any piece of software, gets upgraded, the upgrades typically address the weakest parts. That means there is a natural overlap with the third-party add-ons, which also naturally address the weakest parts. Some of the implementations of these fixes are straightforward and obvious.
For example, consider AdBlock Plus. If Firefox were to implement a built-in content filter, the result might resemble AdBlock (or it might not). Would that mean Firefox ripped off AdBlock? Yeah, maybe, nor maybe not so much.
You, sir, have presented an airtight argument of perfect logic. Nobody could possibly offer any counter-argument to your stunning erudition. Clearly, you have settled the issue once and for all. Speaking for all of humanity -- thank you!
The real reason is that the USA was built after the automobile was invented. The small part of the USA which was built before is a tangled mess of tiny roads -- but the other 90% is a vast wonderland of big, wide roads perfect for fast driving and roadtrips.
WTF? Some other guy just wants to drive the safe and reasonable speed of his choice, but you want to force him to drive slower -- are you think HE is the one with the entitlement problem? Where do you get off thinking it's okay to force him to drive at your speed? Just move into the lane where the traffic is flowing at your chosen speed, and everyone can have their way. How hard is that? Is it because you feel a sense of moral superiority that you think only your speed is reasonable, and any other is subject to your intervention? Get off your high horse, dude.
Sounds to me like you are the immature twat -- unwilling to share the road with other people who are just trying to get somewhere. Many of us learned to share common resources in grade school. Look, you can drive whatever speed you want, and so can your countrymen. Just share the road, let them pass you safely in the left lane. Stop with your untenable moralizing about speeds.
This is a total non-sequitur, but I want to point out that the purpose of having a gun, just like the purpose of having a nuclear bomb, is specifically so that you don't have to use it. Sure, some people hunt, but mostly guns are owned so that either other people, or the government, doesn't get too nosy in personal business.
Compare to the cold war: if only the US had nukes, and Russia had none, then it's much more likely that the US would have nuked Russia, or otherwise infringed on their sovereignty. Likewise, if I have a gun, (and if you know it), then you probably won't rob me.
It's sort of a paradox, but its the plain truth.
This analysis only applies to law-abiding people. Obviously, ruffians use guns to ill ends. Luckily, nukes are in far fewer hands, and haven't fallen into the hands of ruffians yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's "the same". I've seen how the iPhone does it, and it's functionally similar to tabs, thus can reasonably synecdochally be called "tabs". And I agree with you -- the tabs are implemented that way because it is "better" for the type of device.
Wow. That's a boldly broad statement. Your brain must have gigantic cognitive dissonance for you to come up with something so outlandish, in order to preserve whatever corner of penile ideology you have backed your inner monologue into. I hope you can get over that someday, perhaps by simply listening to people, and accepting what they have to say.
It's fine to have foreskin. It's fine not to circumcise your son. It's fine to wish you had foreskin if you don't. It's fine to be angry at your parents if you are unhappy with their decision to circumcise you. All those things are fine. The opposite of all of those are also fine.
Good luck on your journey of self discovery.
Okay. We disrespect eachother, which means we agree on something.
I'm still honestly curious about what you think about all those things, but you don't seem to want to talk about it, which is fine. See ya.
Eh, I dunno man. We're talking about kids here, not adults in a tech training program. If a kid uses Foxit instead of Acrobat, then the kid will still know what a PDF is. And, the kid will still know what Acrobat is -- it's the software whose authors won't let him use it, for whatever reason. Hardly any software is so complicated that it can't be learned quickly on the job. I got all the way through high school, four years of college, and five years of professional programming before I ever had to use Windows -- yes, that is the honest truth. And when I finally received a PC when I started a new job, I figured it out in a couple days, no sweat. The fact that my college CS program used Linux didn't slow me down very much.
I guess I think you are being hyperbolic when you say his life depends on it. The truth underlying that statement is so tiny as to render the statement misleading.
You ask that question as if the metaphor speaks for itself, but it doesn't. I'm not a business mogul, but people who are business moguls are pretty good at doing math and finding the cheapest solutions. It strains credulity to say that all the people hiring Indian developers are making unwise business decisions. The only way that could be true is if you personally have superior knowledge and reasoning to all of those business people. That's possible, but unlikely.
Well, technically (I've heard) some men do try to regrow their foreskin, but let's say that's not the same (because, really, it isn't).
Hey, man, we have a genuine disagreement over what it means to mutilate a body, and I doubt we will find common ground. Let's just disagree. But I am genuinely curious about where you draw the line. Seriously. Do you consider ear piercing to be mutilation? or is it not because, given enough time, the hole will grow together? If science invented a way to grow together larger ear holes, then would ear stretching stop being mutilation? If science invented a way to regrow or replace foreskin, would that stop being mutilation?
What about balding? If a man who is balding cuts his hair, and thus can not regrow it, is that mutilation? what about laser hair removal?
Or what about chemo treatment for cancer -- is that mutilation in cases when the hair will never grow back?
How do you feel about having a cancer removed from the body, with the specific hope that it won't grow back? what about having a mole removed, which isn't cancerous, "just in case" it might someday become cancerous? What about liposuction? What about Lazik eye surgery?
I'm not joking, and I know this is off topic, but I've never met anybody like you personally to be able to talk to in depth about this kind of issue, and I'm piqued. Don't insult me and call me names, engage me and show me where you are coming from.
Well, what I'm saying is that I like my shaft. Thus, it is nonsensical and wrong for you to state that there is no benefit -- I'm telling you that I like it, and that is a benefit.
Of course, the medical establishment also claims there are medical benefits. However, medical benefits are not, in my opinion, a good reason to circumcise -- except maybe for the AIDS thing, but like you said, condoms and education are probably preferable.
But really, I'm telling you two things: I'm glad I never had polio, and I'm glad I never had a foreskin. My parents made lucky guesses in both cases as to my preferences later in life. I am personally attesting that I'm glad the way things turned out.
I feel bad for the men whose parents guessed wrong. Similarly, I feel bad for the (presumably very few) men who wish they could have had polio. That's a shame, really. But I'm not one of them, and many men are not. We like our trim dicks, and I take serious issue with people who tell me that, based on their ideology and cognitive dissonance, my opinion is somehow invalid. Not all men wish they had foreskins, and to say so is flat out false.
You can also never know what it is like to have polio, because your parents vaccinated you. You are so oppressed; in both cases I weep for you. Your parents robbed you of the life you were meant to live.
Oh, okay now I understand, you equate mutilation with any sort of bodily change. You didn't mention ear piercings or whitening teeth, but presumably you'd have similar problems with those. That's fine, but to me "mutilation" carries the meaning of something the owner doesn't want done. We simply disagree on what the word "mutilation" means, so there's no reason to argue about it. I am curious, though, do you refuse to cut your toenails? Are you appalled at people who pluck their eyebrows? If not (those mutilations are fairly mild), where do you draw the line? If it helps to ask a more narrow question, where would you draw the line between piercing ears and elongating earlobes?
My belly button lint is bad enough.
Just to be clear, by saying it's "got to fuck you (me) up", you are saying that all circumcised people are 'fucked up' (in whatever way you mean that)? Obviously I disagree in my personal case, but moreover I think it's a rather bold and broad statement to make in a world with hundreds of millions or billions of circumcised people who, from external vantages, appear to get alone in life reasonably well. Was that all hyperbole, or are you prepared to defend the statement?
I am SO GLAD my parents had me clipped. I love my crew-cut dick and I wouldn't want to have to go through the pain during the majority of my life during which I have long-term memory.
Some people equate circumcision with "mutilation", which is absurd and totally wrong. My boner isn't mutilated, it's rather nice.
You can't possibly think that your reply contained a reasonable interpretation of what that person said.
That's really insightful. If it has value and lasts forever, that makes it "real" in the sense of "real estate". If you want the United States government to have a standing army which protects your physical piece of the ground, then you must pay property tax; if you want the United States government to have a standing judiciary which protects your "intellectual property", then you must pay property tax.
Okay, first of all, I don't believe you that your state doesn't have a rule establishing left lanes for faster traffic. I'm willing to be shown differently (if you are a traffic law judge or something), but my understanding is that is a universal (in every state) law.
Second, to be clear, my accusation isn't that you are breaking the law (but, also to be clear, I believe you are), because when I speed, I am also breaking the law. So that would put us both on the wrong side of the law. What I'm accusing you of is driving like an asshole, a self-righteous jackass who thinks he has the prerogative to back up traffic behind him out of some misplaced sense of smug speed superiority.
It is perfectly fine to drive whatever speed you want. Really. Your absolute speed, or speed relative to the limit, is inconsequential to my argument. The only relevant speed is your speed relative to the OTHER TRAFFIC. If you are faster than the people in the right lanes, you are fine; if you are not faster (same speed or slower) then you are in the wrong lane and should move over. Failure to do so qualifies you as an asshole -- not as a criminal.
If my description doesn't apply to you, because I have made incorrect assumptions, then please know that my argument is directed at others, not at you.
More likely is that he's one of the vast majority of people who realizes that making monetary contributions *is* speech.
(Which also describes me, but I still don't agree with the decision.)
That might or might not be a reasonable standard by which the law could judge obviousness, but -- lest anybody be confused -- it definitely is not the standard used.
Yeah I remember that. Apple was definitely borrowing some ideas. Some ideas, also, it purchased -- such as WindowShade, which was a third-party Control Panel which Apple straight-up bought and dropped wholesale into the OS.
However, when any OS, any piece of software, gets upgraded, the upgrades typically address the weakest parts. That means there is a natural overlap with the third-party add-ons, which also naturally address the weakest parts. Some of the implementations of these fixes are straightforward and obvious.
For example, consider AdBlock Plus. If Firefox were to implement a built-in content filter, the result might resemble AdBlock (or it might not). Would that mean Firefox ripped off AdBlock? Yeah, maybe, nor maybe not so much.
Really, it depends.
You, sir, have presented an airtight argument of perfect logic. Nobody could possibly offer any counter-argument to your stunning erudition. Clearly, you have settled the issue once and for all. Speaking for all of humanity -- thank you!
Jaywalkers do not have the right of way. In fact, that's the definition of jaywalking.
But, I don't know how the law assigns fault when a driver hits a jaywalker.
The real reason is that the USA was built after the automobile was invented. The small part of the USA which was built before is a tangled mess of tiny roads -- but the other 90% is a vast wonderland of big, wide roads perfect for fast driving and roadtrips.
Awesome rip on Michigan. Totally deserved.
WTF? Some other guy just wants to drive the safe and reasonable speed of his choice, but you want to force him to drive slower -- are you think HE is the one with the entitlement problem? Where do you get off thinking it's okay to force him to drive at your speed? Just move into the lane where the traffic is flowing at your chosen speed, and everyone can have their way. How hard is that? Is it because you feel a sense of moral superiority that you think only your speed is reasonable, and any other is subject to your intervention? Get off your high horse, dude.
Sounds to me like you are the immature twat -- unwilling to share the road with other people who are just trying to get somewhere. Many of us learned to share common resources in grade school. Look, you can drive whatever speed you want, and so can your countrymen. Just share the road, let them pass you safely in the left lane. Stop with your untenable moralizing about speeds.
This is a total non-sequitur, but I want to point out that the purpose of having a gun, just like the purpose of having a nuclear bomb, is specifically so that you don't have to use it. Sure, some people hunt, but mostly guns are owned so that either other people, or the government, doesn't get too nosy in personal business.
Compare to the cold war: if only the US had nukes, and Russia had none, then it's much more likely that the US would have nuked Russia, or otherwise infringed on their sovereignty. Likewise, if I have a gun, (and if you know it), then you probably won't rob me.
It's sort of a paradox, but its the plain truth.
This analysis only applies to law-abiding people. Obviously, ruffians use guns to ill ends. Luckily, nukes are in far fewer hands, and haven't fallen into the hands of ruffians yet.