It is a really simple surgery. I've had both done. However, the important thing to realize is that when you get your new lens (at least at the time I got my implants a couple years back), you can't change the focal length without the help of glasses. Long range I see a lot better, but now I need reading glasses. Also, no self respecting ophthalmologist would remove your natural lens for no reason. When I had my cataract surgery in my left eye, three days later my retina tore and detached. Granted, I'm prone to that sort of thing, and if the cataract wasn't so thick from delaying the surgery it shouldn't have happened, but it's still a possibility.
Yeah, just build a secure OS and browser that doesn't allow people to use cookies as tracking cookies. Oh shit, the only way to do that would be to not support cookies at all. And holy crap, IE allows you to turn cookie support off.
You don't really understand the problem here, do you? It's a potential ethics violation by Google, not a technical violation. It's like if a company published inaccurate ingredients on a can of nuts, and you're bitching about shoddy can manufacturing.
If real world users have a problem when their latency is too high, or too low or too medium, they use the mininet to set up that situation, find the issues, and fix them. They aren't running these tests to get statistics on IE performance in the wild for the average user, they're doing it to get statistics on how it performs in specific situations, and trying to get those stats as good as possible so each user has the best possible experience for their specific circumstances.
Putting the pirate bay founders in jail is not based on locking down/censoring the internet any more than arresting the guy on the street selling bootlegs is. Being anti-piracy does not mean pro-SOPA. Monitoring "every single" thing on every site is impossible, but the Pirate Bay is named the Pirate Bay and there is a lot of evidence besides that indicating they encouraged and new about rampant copyright infringement. Black and white worldview indeed.
Then we better just toss the drug away. Right? What is your point? That it is expensive? Ok. That's great. A lot of stuff is expensive. Are you saying we shouldn't pay for medical research and force people to research for free? I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from or if you're just complaining about progress because it's not yet enough to help everybody who needs it. If we socialize our medicine we still need people to research and we still need to feed those people and it still won't be enough to help everybody who needs it, so we will have to research more and more.... we will always lose the healthcare battle no matter what your economic system is. People get sick and die, and if we spend all day every day trying to avoid it, it will still happen. So again, what is your point?
I'm not saying ban marriage, I'm just saying don't subsidize it in any way. Non-married gays aren't the only ones that subsidize married people. When did I say we should ban marriage? I'm just saying it shouldn't really get you anything from the government. And if that's the case, then have whatever ceremony you want, sign whatever contracts you want, and just go about your business as husband and husband or wife and wife or husband and wife. It's not that hard.
Of course, but if you explain that to people they no longer agree with that view of how government should be run. Of course a strong federal government ruins our electoral system and results in people being upset over the electoral college, leads to an unresponsive federal government and causes general apathy to the whole process because it's "too corrupt". Really, if you don't agree with states' rights you need to reform the congress and how our representatives are elected.
Because we have a strong sense of anti-federalism, it's very hard to get rid of the politicians that do what offends you because they are not in your district and you can not vote them out. Meanwhile everything the government does is at the federal level and applies to everybody.
The whole thing is ridiculous. The only real solution is to make sure people don't want to hurt us, because they can. Blowing up a plane is way less effective than blowing up a security checkpoint, and it is way more difficult. Odd that this hasn't happened, perhaps the threat is more overstated than we suspected. Or better yet, they don't need to terrorize us because they got it all done in one go a decade ago.
I think it'd be better to not have anything binding them to playing nice, it apparently leads to them playing too nice and forming a conglomerate/monopoly and acting the exact same way. If anything, we should have a document making them play dirty with each other.
Sadly, I'm not sure that starting over is a great idea. Have you seen the majority of people in the states? I wouldn't trust them to rebuild after a revolution. I think we should just split up the US in to 2 - 4 sections and let them progress in their own ways.
What definition of modular are you using here? Ok, so the registry dies and you reinstall the OS and you retain all of your data. You have to reinstall some software, but when your engine falls out of the bottom of your car you have to reinstall a bunch of stuff as well to get it to work with the replacement engine.
Really? Computers aren't modular? Really? Computers can't be built from the ground up with just a high school diploma? I"ve been building my own machines with different parts since middle school. When my RAM goes out, I replace it. When I need a new video card, I replace it. Computers are some of the most modular shit out there. You don't want Windows? Install Linux. You want your computer to hook up to a telephone line, you buy a modem. You want a new game, new applications, new web browsers? This post is complete bullshit. Even windows is modular. You can install IIS, or not. You can use Active Directory or not. You don't even have to install all the themes.
Oh grow up. This kind of bullshit philosophy drives me nuts. Just because the idea is stored somewhere in a physical arrangement only makes that specific instance of the idea as pertains to a human being able to recall it real. It does not make the subject of the thought real, which is what we're talking about. Nobody is denying thoughts manifest in physical ways, but just because I can think about a unicorn doesn't make the unicorn itself physically real, just the thought of it is physically real. If you don't understand the difference, you think too highly of your own intelligence.
Well what if the alternative is more complex, requires more talented people to maintain? It's not just a given that more code is harder to maintain than less code.
Lines of code doesn't make sense because it has nothing to do with productivity. Some problems are harder to solve than others, some require more lines of code and are harder that way, some require complex logic. Some problems can leverage existing code, some can not. Some features just require a lot of skillful placement within the existing code. On top of that, I could write something with very few lines of code using a very resource-expensive technique, is that better?
No serious developer thinks measuring lines of code is important. On top of that, it doesn't cost any more for me to write an extra 10,000 lines of code in a week so it isn't more expensive in a "value-spent" kind of way.
Contradicts? What is the contradiction? If I believe in a God that started the big bang then went on vacation, what of that scenario contradicts reality as you've seen it? Just because there is no evidence of such doesn't mean it is a contradiction. Sure, if you take religious teachings as infallible, you could point to contradictions, but that is the belief of a specific description of a specific God.
When you say "There are no fingernail-dwelling invisible unicorns" then yes, that is a positive belief in a lack of of them. It might be default, and it might be common-sense, but it is an explicit statement of belief. If the OP said something along the lines of "I don't think $deity exists" or "There is no evidence for $deity" then I would say that's not a positive belief in the lack of a God, but he didn't. He said explicitly there is no $deity. If I said there is no global warming, would that not be a positive belief that global warming is not happening? I understand it is contrary to evidence and that differentiates it from the original statement, but the statement itself indicates a positive belief in the lack of global warming.
Do you apply the scientific method to everything? That seems to be your whole argument, that everything you think and do rests on the scientific method. When your mother told you she loved you did you say she couldn't prove that so she shouldn't assert it? Tell me, do the ladies just love that about you? Do you ever think about things like morality or justice, things that aren't science based? There are some things the scientific method do not apply to (like religion) and in your mind that means they shouldn't matter and should be discarded. In reality it just means there is more to humanity than science. You should have just said "I don't believe in God" and you would have been as big of a waste of time as the parent, but you at least wouldn't sound like a fool trying to prove science and religion are alternatives when clearly they are not but your own argument. They serve completely different roles and are abused on both sides.
See, that sounds like a belief in a lack of gods, not a lack of belief in gods to me. This whole "lack of belief in a god is not an ideology" would hold up if that was actually the reality of the situation for a person. However, it does not apply to the people like the OP who go on and on about how there is no God definitively, and snidely.
Slashdot Mirror
How would they know how to identify the account to charge? Some kind of identifier, like a 16 digit number?
It is a really simple surgery. I've had both done. However, the important thing to realize is that when you get your new lens (at least at the time I got my implants a couple years back), you can't change the focal length without the help of glasses. Long range I see a lot better, but now I need reading glasses. Also, no self respecting ophthalmologist would remove your natural lens for no reason. When I had my cataract surgery in my left eye, three days later my retina tore and detached. Granted, I'm prone to that sort of thing, and if the cataract wasn't so thick from delaying the surgery it shouldn't have happened, but it's still a possibility.
Yeah, just build a secure OS and browser that doesn't allow people to use cookies as tracking cookies. Oh shit, the only way to do that would be to not support cookies at all. And holy crap, IE allows you to turn cookie support off.
You don't really understand the problem here, do you? It's a potential ethics violation by Google, not a technical violation. It's like if a company published inaccurate ingredients on a can of nuts, and you're bitching about shoddy can manufacturing.
If real world users have a problem when their latency is too high, or too low or too medium, they use the mininet to set up that situation, find the issues, and fix them. They aren't running these tests to get statistics on IE performance in the wild for the average user, they're doing it to get statistics on how it performs in specific situations, and trying to get those stats as good as possible so each user has the best possible experience for their specific circumstances.
Putting the pirate bay founders in jail is not based on locking down/censoring the internet any more than arresting the guy on the street selling bootlegs is. Being anti-piracy does not mean pro-SOPA. Monitoring "every single" thing on every site is impossible, but the Pirate Bay is named the Pirate Bay and there is a lot of evidence besides that indicating they encouraged and new about rampant copyright infringement. Black and white worldview indeed.
Then we better just toss the drug away. Right? What is your point? That it is expensive? Ok. That's great. A lot of stuff is expensive. Are you saying we shouldn't pay for medical research and force people to research for free? I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from or if you're just complaining about progress because it's not yet enough to help everybody who needs it. If we socialize our medicine we still need people to research and we still need to feed those people and it still won't be enough to help everybody who needs it, so we will have to research more and more.... we will always lose the healthcare battle no matter what your economic system is. People get sick and die, and if we spend all day every day trying to avoid it, it will still happen. So again, what is your point?
I'm not saying ban marriage, I'm just saying don't subsidize it in any way. Non-married gays aren't the only ones that subsidize married people. When did I say we should ban marriage? I'm just saying it shouldn't really get you anything from the government. And if that's the case, then have whatever ceremony you want, sign whatever contracts you want, and just go about your business as husband and husband or wife and wife or husband and wife. It's not that hard.
Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?
Of course, but if you explain that to people they no longer agree with that view of how government should be run. Of course a strong federal government ruins our electoral system and results in people being upset over the electoral college, leads to an unresponsive federal government and causes general apathy to the whole process because it's "too corrupt". Really, if you don't agree with states' rights you need to reform the congress and how our representatives are elected.
Right, "offends" is a bad choice of words. "Oppresses" might have fit better there.
Because we have a strong sense of anti-federalism, it's very hard to get rid of the politicians that do what offends you because they are not in your district and you can not vote them out. Meanwhile everything the government does is at the federal level and applies to everybody.
That would actually be pretty awesome if they would do it. How do you suggest such a thing to them?
The whole thing is ridiculous. The only real solution is to make sure people don't want to hurt us, because they can. Blowing up a plane is way less effective than blowing up a security checkpoint, and it is way more difficult. Odd that this hasn't happened, perhaps the threat is more overstated than we suspected. Or better yet, they don't need to terrorize us because they got it all done in one go a decade ago.
I think it'd be better to not have anything binding them to playing nice, it apparently leads to them playing too nice and forming a conglomerate/monopoly and acting the exact same way. If anything, we should have a document making them play dirty with each other.
Sadly, I'm not sure that starting over is a great idea. Have you seen the majority of people in the states? I wouldn't trust them to rebuild after a revolution. I think we should just split up the US in to 2 - 4 sections and let them progress in their own ways.
What definition of modular are you using here? Ok, so the registry dies and you reinstall the OS and you retain all of your data. You have to reinstall some software, but when your engine falls out of the bottom of your car you have to reinstall a bunch of stuff as well to get it to work with the replacement engine.
Really? Computers aren't modular? Really? Computers can't be built from the ground up with just a high school diploma? I"ve been building my own machines with different parts since middle school. When my RAM goes out, I replace it. When I need a new video card, I replace it. Computers are some of the most modular shit out there. You don't want Windows? Install Linux. You want your computer to hook up to a telephone line, you buy a modem. You want a new game, new applications, new web browsers? This post is complete bullshit. Even windows is modular. You can install IIS, or not. You can use Active Directory or not. You don't even have to install all the themes.
Oh grow up. This kind of bullshit philosophy drives me nuts. Just because the idea is stored somewhere in a physical arrangement only makes that specific instance of the idea as pertains to a human being able to recall it real. It does not make the subject of the thought real, which is what we're talking about. Nobody is denying thoughts manifest in physical ways, but just because I can think about a unicorn doesn't make the unicorn itself physically real, just the thought of it is physically real. If you don't understand the difference, you think too highly of your own intelligence.
Well what if the alternative is more complex, requires more talented people to maintain? It's not just a given that more code is harder to maintain than less code.
Lines of code doesn't make sense because it has nothing to do with productivity. Some problems are harder to solve than others, some require more lines of code and are harder that way, some require complex logic. Some problems can leverage existing code, some can not. Some features just require a lot of skillful placement within the existing code. On top of that, I could write something with very few lines of code using a very resource-expensive technique, is that better?
No serious developer thinks measuring lines of code is important. On top of that, it doesn't cost any more for me to write an extra 10,000 lines of code in a week so it isn't more expensive in a "value-spent" kind of way.
It is odd how many code-sharing sessions start with "this is all ugly and I haven't had a chance to clean it up yet but...."
Contradicts? What is the contradiction? If I believe in a God that started the big bang then went on vacation, what of that scenario contradicts reality as you've seen it? Just because there is no evidence of such doesn't mean it is a contradiction. Sure, if you take religious teachings as infallible, you could point to contradictions, but that is the belief of a specific description of a specific God.
When you say "There are no fingernail-dwelling invisible unicorns" then yes, that is a positive belief in a lack of of them. It might be default, and it might be common-sense, but it is an explicit statement of belief. If the OP said something along the lines of "I don't think $deity exists" or "There is no evidence for $deity" then I would say that's not a positive belief in the lack of a God, but he didn't. He said explicitly there is no $deity. If I said there is no global warming, would that not be a positive belief that global warming is not happening? I understand it is contrary to evidence and that differentiates it from the original statement, but the statement itself indicates a positive belief in the lack of global warming.
Do you apply the scientific method to everything? That seems to be your whole argument, that everything you think and do rests on the scientific method. When your mother told you she loved you did you say she couldn't prove that so she shouldn't assert it? Tell me, do the ladies just love that about you? Do you ever think about things like morality or justice, things that aren't science based? There are some things the scientific method do not apply to (like religion) and in your mind that means they shouldn't matter and should be discarded. In reality it just means there is more to humanity than science. You should have just said "I don't believe in God" and you would have been as big of a waste of time as the parent, but you at least wouldn't sound like a fool trying to prove science and religion are alternatives when clearly they are not but your own argument. They serve completely different roles and are abused on both sides.
There is no $deity
See, that sounds like a belief in a lack of gods, not a lack of belief in gods to me. This whole "lack of belief in a god is not an ideology" would hold up if that was actually the reality of the situation for a person. However, it does not apply to the people like the OP who go on and on about how there is no God definitively, and snidely.