I think I also read that the main reason Maurice was kept around at all was because he was Roddenberry's drinking buddy. Later in the show, Rick Berman had much more control and Roddenberry took a back seat (and later died); I wonder if Berman was instrumental in getting rid of Maurice and bringing McFadden back.
Actually, according to this 2012 article, several of those are not in the top-25 list of most-dangerous cities. Flint and Detroit are on there (#1 and #2), Newark NJ is on there (but Camden is not), Philadelphia is on there, DC is on there at #21, but interestingly, Nashville TN beat both DC and Newark and was only barely beaten by Philly. WTF is going on in Nashville? Memphis, Little Rock, and Birmingham AL came in at numbers 5, 6, and 7, surprisingly. You got St. Louis right, though: it's #3. But I don't see LA (CA) on there anywhere, though Oakland and Stockton are on the list (though nowhere near LA). Also interestingly, no cities in Cook County IL are on there, but instead, Springfield and Rockford IL are on the list. New Orleans doesn't seem to be there either, but Baton Rouge is.
It seems like there might be some misconceptions about which cities are the most dangerous in America.
I'm talking about ownership, not carrying. If you own a gun, there isn't much preventing you from carrying it around with malintent, is there? Who's going to stop you? No one, until you pull it out and start shooting and the cops are called, but by then it's too late. But somehow, that's not a big problem over there. No, it's not as easy as the US to get guns, but it's not impossible either; just fill out forms, pay some fees, etc.
Most US states require a license to carry concealed, and in quite a few, it's nearly impossible to get that license. You've been watching too much reactionary media; only a few states (out of 50, remember) have unregulated concealed-carry or open-carry. I can only think of 3 offhand which have one of both of these: Vermont, Arizona, and Texas. I might have missed a couple completely unpopulated western states, perhaps Montana.
If someone can drive by my car, do a scan of it that I don't even notice and doesn't affect me, then generate a perfect copy of it, minus the license plates and registration and also me and my passengers, then drive away in this duplicate of my car, why would I care?
The rest of Europe doesn't have gun control laws that are that strict. Guns are not that hard to get in Sweden, Switzerland, etc. There's lots of arms manufacturers in continental Europe: Glock, SIG, FN, HK, etc.
Yes, there is a.us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use.us or.gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have.com or.org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.
As for multinational stuff, I don't think that should be allowed. There's already too much debate over which country's laws should apply to a given website; for instance, should ebay.com be allowed to list historic Nazi paraphernalia? In the US, yes; in Germany, no. Whose laws apply? Well if Ebay had their US site at ebay.co.us, and maybe a sister site at ebay.co.de, the answer would be easy: their US site would follow US laws, and their German site would follow German laws. It's probably like that already anyway, but having each site explicitly show which nation it's registered in by having it as part of the name would simplify matters immensely. US authorities would have control over everything in the.us domain, and Germany would have control over everything in the.de domain, and neither would have any control over sites on the other domains. Also, domain squatting would be pretty hard because it wouldn't be trans-national: if someone sues in German court over some domain that's registered to someone else, the German court would be able to exercise authority over it if it's a.de domain. If it's a.us domain, then that company would have to file suit in a US court.
As the person you responded to said, the problem is keeping the guns from getting back into the population, especially into the criminal population. Those countries that have strict gun control laws that you speak of are likely UK and Australia, right? Well guess what else is unique about those countries? They're islands. It's relatively easy to prevent arms smuggling into an island, as compared to a large continental country that shares long, poorly-guarded (or unguarded) borders with other countries where the rule of law is weak. The US can't even figure out how to keep massive quantities of drugs from being imported from Mexico; how would it keep Chinese or Russian-made arms from being imported?
What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like.com,.org,.net, and especially.mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk,.us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be.co,.org,.mil,.gov, etc. So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it. Apple Computer would be "apple.co.us". Multinational corporations would get sites in the country where the corporate HQ is located. No multiple domains for the same company; companies only need a commercial address, not a.net or a.org since they aren't non-commercial entities. The Apache Foundation would get "apache.org.us", the US Navy would get "navy.mil.us", the Royal (British) Navy would get "navy.mil.uk", etc.
another nation's government wants to lock him up for what he can do for them
I haven't seen any evidence of that. He's been in Russia for some time now, living a fairly normal life by all accounts. Him just being alive, and free (within Russia's borders; obviously they have no control over how other countries treat him), and popping up in the media now and then serves them quite well since it's a thorn in the side of the US and makes the US government look bad.
For servers or desktops? Linux has long been dominant for things like webservers; that's nothing new. It's seen some use for other server duties too thanks to Samba. But it's not so easy to replace things like Sharepoint or Exchange or AD servers with it. And then desktops are another issue entirely.
That's rather optimistic thinking there. Businesses haven't switched away from MS yet, despite all the dumb stuff they've done, so I'm quite sure they could do all those things you listed there, and businesses would continue to buy their crap.
Dear Microsoft, Dear gods, please catch a ride on the clue train. Businesses don't want Windows 8 - the retraining necessary is just too costly, and all the cool features involving touch are useless for the cube farm drones. So just stop your stupid shit, realize the Windows 7 is your nex XP, make sure that Windows 9 undoes a lot of the silly bullshit, and maybe you won't completely jump the shark.
Dear DigitalSorceress,
Please see our raised middle finger, aimed in your direction. We don't care what businesses (or consumers) want; they'll take what we give them, whether they like it or not. We don't care about their retraining costs, or how much the Windows 8 UI affects productivity. We want to make everyone used to our new UI so that we can sell more Windows Phones and become dominant in that market. If businesses don't like that, too bad. What are they going to do, convert their entire MS-based infrastructure (including Exchange/Outlook, Office, Sharepoint, AD, etc.) to something else? Bwahahahaha! Your naivety is really quite amusing.
Stop complaining and learn to like Windows 8, the Ribbon, and anything else we deign to provide to you. We know you're not going to bother to switch to anything else.
90% of all exploits these days hit third-party applications that also happen to run on Linux and OSX (flash, java, adobe reader). Im sure Stallman would rail against those too, and he would actually be right, but the point is that the vast majority of users need those plugins and he is being deceitful if he is attempting to paint the various Flash player exploits as problems with Windows, or as problems endemic to Closed Source Software.
No one needs Adobe Reader. It's a bloated piece of trash which, as you point out, has lots of security exploits. There's tons of alternative PDF viewers you can use. There's also alternatives for Java I believe (OpenJDK I think). With Flash, you're right; there really aren't any alternative viewers for that (which is odd considering the specs are open), but for the others, especially Adobe Reader, there's little excuse for using it.
So, in keeping with the subject line, I wonder when we'll have our own SS? I guess we're pretty close to it with DHS and militarized police. Maybe the next President will be the one to take power as dictator, though I guess Obama still has time and doesn't seem opposed to trampling our rights.
If you're going to be a software developer or engineer, it helps to have a real engineering degree instead of just a math degree. Yes, you can write code without a CS degree, but it's better to have the CS degree because that shows you were taught about computer science principles like algorithmic complexity, data structures, etc. and didn't just try to pick it up on your own. Yes, it's possible to be an engineer without a degree, but the degree shows you were taught engineering principles. Math is an excellent double-major degree to have in addition to one of those two. CS is basically a branch of math anyway, so it's not that hard to get BS CS and math degrees at the same time since so many of the requirements are the same. Engineering, particularly EE, also has heavy math requirements, so a double-major works well here too. The math degree, in addition to the other one, will give you a leg up over other candidates, for positions where math is more important.
Engineers generally do what their managers tell them to. This whole thing smacks of GM trying to blame some lower-level employees and avoid upper management taking any blame.
Nope, the head is different too. The mouth has lips with lipstick, unlike the male version which is just a thin, black line, and the eyes have eyeliner unlike the plain round male ones.
You could stick the long hair on top of a male head, but it'd just look like a long-haired man.
It's two parts: the head (which is just a painted cylinder), and the hair (which sticks on top of the cylinder). This head assembly can be stuck on top of any generic LEGO body.
Exactly. I think this kind of thing needs to be talked about more when people wonder "why aren't more girls going into STEM majors?", as well as other problems with STEM professions. For instance, if you're really interested in mathematics, what kind of career can you look forward to if you get a degree in that? Basically, you can help the NSA spy on everyone, in violation of the 4th Amendment, or you can work as a waitress. This country and the sociopathic companies in it don't provide good careers for scientists or mathematicians, so we shouldn't be surprised that not that many people want to go into those professions.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I also read that the main reason Maurice was kept around at all was because he was Roddenberry's drinking buddy. Later in the show, Rick Berman had much more control and Roddenberry took a back seat (and later died); I wonder if Berman was instrumental in getting rid of Maurice and bringing McFadden back.
Actually, according to this 2012 article, several of those are not in the top-25 list of most-dangerous cities. Flint and Detroit are on there (#1 and #2), Newark NJ is on there (but Camden is not), Philadelphia is on there, DC is on there at #21, but interestingly, Nashville TN beat both DC and Newark and was only barely beaten by Philly. WTF is going on in Nashville? Memphis, Little Rock, and Birmingham AL came in at numbers 5, 6, and 7, surprisingly. You got St. Louis right, though: it's #3. But I don't see LA (CA) on there anywhere, though Oakland and Stockton are on the list (though nowhere near LA). Also interestingly, no cities in Cook County IL are on there, but instead, Springfield and Rockford IL are on the list. New Orleans doesn't seem to be there either, but Baton Rouge is.
It seems like there might be some misconceptions about which cities are the most dangerous in America.
I'm talking about ownership, not carrying. If you own a gun, there isn't much preventing you from carrying it around with malintent, is there? Who's going to stop you? No one, until you pull it out and start shooting and the cops are called, but by then it's too late. But somehow, that's not a big problem over there. No, it's not as easy as the US to get guns, but it's not impossible either; just fill out forms, pay some fees, etc.
Most US states require a license to carry concealed, and in quite a few, it's nearly impossible to get that license. You've been watching too much reactionary media; only a few states (out of 50, remember) have unregulated concealed-carry or open-carry. I can only think of 3 offhand which have one of both of these: Vermont, Arizona, and Texas. I might have missed a couple completely unpopulated western states, perhaps Montana.
If someone can drive by my car, do a scan of it that I don't even notice and doesn't affect me, then generate a perfect copy of it, minus the license plates and registration and also me and my passengers, then drive away in this duplicate of my car, why would I care?
GoDaddy failing would not be evidence of a tech bubble, only a horribly-run company.
There's plenty of other inexpensive web hosts out there that are doing just fine.
The rest of Europe doesn't have gun control laws that are that strict. Guns are not that hard to get in Sweden, Switzerland, etc. There's lots of arms manufacturers in continental Europe: Glock, SIG, FN, HK, etc.
Yes, there is a .us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use .us or .gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have .com or .org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.
As for multinational stuff, I don't think that should be allowed. There's already too much debate over which country's laws should apply to a given website; for instance, should ebay.com be allowed to list historic Nazi paraphernalia? In the US, yes; in Germany, no. Whose laws apply? Well if Ebay had their US site at ebay.co.us, and maybe a sister site at ebay.co.de, the answer would be easy: their US site would follow US laws, and their German site would follow German laws. It's probably like that already anyway, but having each site explicitly show which nation it's registered in by having it as part of the name would simplify matters immensely. US authorities would have control over everything in the .us domain, and Germany would have control over everything in the .de domain, and neither would have any control over sites on the other domains. Also, domain squatting would be pretty hard because it wouldn't be trans-national: if someone sues in German court over some domain that's registered to someone else, the German court would be able to exercise authority over it if it's a .de domain. If it's a .us domain, then that company would have to file suit in a US court.
As the person you responded to said, the problem is keeping the guns from getting back into the population, especially into the criminal population. Those countries that have strict gun control laws that you speak of are likely UK and Australia, right? Well guess what else is unique about those countries? They're islands. It's relatively easy to prevent arms smuggling into an island, as compared to a large continental country that shares long, poorly-guarded (or unguarded) borders with other countries where the rule of law is weak. The US can't even figure out how to keep massive quantities of drugs from being imported from Mexico; how would it keep Chinese or Russian-made arms from being imported?
Considering the fact that the USA's major source of violent crime comes from fewer than fifteen counties (that's right,counties...not states),
Do you have a source for that? I'd like to know which counties I need to avoid.
What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like .com, .org, .net, and especially .mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk, .us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be .co, .org, .mil, .gov, etc. So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it. Apple Computer would be "apple.co.us". Multinational corporations would get sites in the country where the corporate HQ is located. No multiple domains for the same company; companies only need a commercial address, not a .net or a .org since they aren't non-commercial entities. The Apache Foundation would get "apache.org.us", the US Navy would get "navy.mil.us", the Royal (British) Navy would get "navy.mil.uk", etc.
What they've done now is just a total mess.
another nation's government wants to lock him up for what he can do for them
I haven't seen any evidence of that. He's been in Russia for some time now, living a fairly normal life by all accounts. Him just being alive, and free (within Russia's borders; obviously they have no control over how other countries treat him), and popping up in the media now and then serves them quite well since it's a thorn in the side of the US and makes the US government look bad.
For servers or desktops? Linux has long been dominant for things like webservers; that's nothing new. It's seen some use for other server duties too thanks to Samba. But it's not so easy to replace things like Sharepoint or Exchange or AD servers with it. And then desktops are another issue entirely.
Yes, they absolutely should be able to sell later generation OSes as "more secure", and totally ignore security exploits on older versions.
If customers are dumb enough to continue to patronize such a vendor, they deserve whatever happens to them.
That's rather optimistic thinking there. Businesses haven't switched away from MS yet, despite all the dumb stuff they've done, so I'm quite sure they could do all those things you listed there, and businesses would continue to buy their crap.
Dear Microsoft,
Dear gods, please catch a ride on the clue train. Businesses don't want Windows 8 - the retraining necessary is just too costly, and all the cool features involving touch are useless for the cube farm drones.
So just stop your stupid shit, realize the Windows 7 is your nex XP, make sure that Windows 9 undoes a lot of the silly bullshit, and maybe you won't completely jump the shark.
Dear DigitalSorceress,
Please see our raised middle finger, aimed in your direction. We don't care what businesses (or consumers) want; they'll take what we give them, whether they like it or not. We don't care about their retraining costs, or how much the Windows 8 UI affects productivity. We want to make everyone used to our new UI so that we can sell more Windows Phones and become dominant in that market. If businesses don't like that, too bad. What are they going to do, convert their entire MS-based infrastructure (including Exchange/Outlook, Office, Sharepoint, AD, etc.) to something else? Bwahahahaha! Your naivety is really quite amusing.
Stop complaining and learn to like Windows 8, the Ribbon, and anything else we deign to provide to you. We know you're not going to bother to switch to anything else.
-- Microsoft
Microsoft is open to lawsuits and contract issues.
No, it's not.
90% of all exploits these days hit third-party applications that also happen to run on Linux and OSX (flash, java, adobe reader). Im sure Stallman would rail against those too, and he would actually be right, but the point is that the vast majority of users need those plugins and he is being deceitful if he is attempting to paint the various Flash player exploits as problems with Windows, or as problems endemic to Closed Source Software.
No one needs Adobe Reader. It's a bloated piece of trash which, as you point out, has lots of security exploits. There's tons of alternative PDF viewers you can use. There's also alternatives for Java I believe (OpenJDK I think). With Flash, you're right; there really aren't any alternative viewers for that (which is odd considering the specs are open), but for the others, especially Adobe Reader, there's little excuse for using it.
So, in keeping with the subject line, I wonder when we'll have our own SS? I guess we're pretty close to it with DHS and militarized police. Maybe the next President will be the one to take power as dictator, though I guess Obama still has time and doesn't seem opposed to trampling our rights.
If you're going to be a software developer or engineer, it helps to have a real engineering degree instead of just a math degree. Yes, you can write code without a CS degree, but it's better to have the CS degree because that shows you were taught about computer science principles like algorithmic complexity, data structures, etc. and didn't just try to pick it up on your own. Yes, it's possible to be an engineer without a degree, but the degree shows you were taught engineering principles. Math is an excellent double-major degree to have in addition to one of those two. CS is basically a branch of math anyway, so it's not that hard to get BS CS and math degrees at the same time since so many of the requirements are the same. Engineering, particularly EE, also has heavy math requirements, so a double-major works well here too. The math degree, in addition to the other one, will give you a leg up over other candidates, for positions where math is more important.
Engineers generally do what their managers tell them to. This whole thing smacks of GM trying to blame some lower-level employees and avoid upper management taking any blame.
Nope, the head is different too. The mouth has lips with lipstick, unlike the male version which is just a thin, black line, and the eyes have eyeliner unlike the plain round male ones.
You could stick the long hair on top of a male head, but it'd just look like a long-haired man.
It's two parts: the head (which is just a painted cylinder), and the hair (which sticks on top of the cylinder). This head assembly can be stuck on top of any generic LEGO body.
Exactly. I think this kind of thing needs to be talked about more when people wonder "why aren't more girls going into STEM majors?", as well as other problems with STEM professions. For instance, if you're really interested in mathematics, what kind of career can you look forward to if you get a degree in that? Basically, you can help the NSA spy on everyone, in violation of the 4th Amendment, or you can work as a waitress. This country and the sociopathic companies in it don't provide good careers for scientists or mathematicians, so we shouldn't be surprised that not that many people want to go into those professions.
You're not that smart, because now the tables have turned: we're getting you Canucks to help fund our F-35 debacle.
In that case, it appears the SS preferred form over function. I guess that's probably because the SS weren't regular military, nor were they police.