Making sure women don't date? Where is this country where only gay men can date?:D
No, it is a country where a woman is expected to simply marry who her father says to marry, no dating necessary, and isn't considered part of their culture. Dating is an evil "western" concept. And being gay gets you the death penalty, every time. Keep in mind that it is illegal for a woman to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia, or be out in public without a male member of the family present. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. Even American women visiting are warned to not be alone and keep their hair covered, to keep from being accosted by the (minority) extremist, vigilante types.
They are basically 1/2 notch less evil than the Taliban, but fund 1/2 the terrorism that happens in the world. (Remember how most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia?). But, they have the oil so we play ball. Personally, I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than support their corrupt, inbred government.
By this time next year, he can exercise his control freakery at KFC protecting the Colonel's secret recipe.
Oh great, then I will have to stand in line for 10 days just to get freaking chicken because he won't let the cooks know which 11 herbs and spices to use in the crust, or worse, he will lie about the herbs and it will taste just like Bojangles chicken instead.
We will see what comes out in court, although I'm holding back judgement until I see the evidence. If they are doing what the complaint alleges, then yes, fine them enough to discourage them (and others) in the future, ie: heavily. Personally I'm glad to see a bit of consumer protection going on for a change. The FTC has become pretty much useless over the last few decades.
Thank you for explaining that properly. Non-military people have a difficult enough time understanding military life without all the FUD about policies. As you states, it isn't a new policy, it is a clarification of a policy that existed for decades.
I don't think most people see everyone in the former USSR's military as evil, but their methods were much less concerned with PR, since the government controlled all media outlets. It isn't that they tried to kill every woman and child, but they were more accepting of collateral damage simply because they didn't give a damn what anyone thought about it outside of the USSR and they could control what was said about it domestically. This made them more effective and breaking stuff (which is what armys are for) but less effective and getting civilian support from the locals (which is what armys need to win).
Besides...is a target where the home owner is present one of 'opportunity'?
All it usually takes is instilling "doubt" in a criminal's mind. (ie: FUD) If there is a home neighborhood full of homes, then a criminal is more likely to move on "just in case they are home". Most burglaries just happen that way, even if they have the intention of stealing some stuff, they don't preplan other than picking an area, and hitting what looks easy. If they plan at all. Criminals are lazy. Most don't travel very far, as the majority of burglaries happen within a few miles of the perp's house. The reality is, a barking dog does more to scare off a burglar more than anything else. A potential "nutty gun toting" homeowner is almost as good.
Keep in mind, we are talking about BURGLARY, not robbery. Burglars are cowards, non-confrontational thieves. Like shoplifting taken to the next level, and almost always unarmed (excepting maybe a blade). Robbery is a completely different crime, by completely different criminal types, confrontational and aggressive. Burglars will run away, robbers are more likely to shoot you, even if only out of fear.
That doesn't even make sense. I have several guns, and they are all traceable because I bought them legally. Most people who have multiple guns bought them legally. This means a background check via paperwork filed by the seller, with an FFL license, and in the case of hand guns, via a hand gun permit issued locally, all of which have the serial numbers. Large gangs breaking into a home to get guns is almost unheard of. They might hit a pawnshop or gun store, but not an individual's house. The majority of the 300 million guns in the US can be accounted for by paperwork filed with the Fed ATF, including the guns I have owned for over 20 years. Are there guns out there not listed? Sure, but they are the exception not the rule (or same owner for several decades). Even before the Brady Bill, you still had to fill out a yellow sheet for hand guns.
Of course, this is based on my limited experience owning and managing pawn shops, being a licensed gun dealer AND being a former defense private investigator....
1. The purpose of a gun is to hopefully never have to use it. 2. If the burglar thinks you are a crazy gun totin' NRA type, they will pick an easier target.
Most burglaries are crimes of opportunity, not heavy planned. The best defense is simply giving them a reason to pick a different target, and you might be shocked at how easy and effective a sign of a gun can be.
I am not a programmer, just someone who has to program to get the job done, and I find I use Perl as my universal hammer as well. I'm learning PHP simply because I need to, to remain relevant. It also handles pure html a bit easier in my experience. But all my scripts, maintenance routines, etc. are all in Perl and I don't see that ever changing, no matter what other languages I learn. Hard to beat Perl, even with all the new languages over the last decade, when it comes to simply "getting the job done" in a fast and dirty way.
I love my job, but most people don't. If no one would do a job that is boring, then who would wash the dishes? Dig the ditches? Grade the tests? Build the computers? And do just about any manufacturing, or produce the food we eat? Not every job is glorious fun all day long, and many people are fine with that, they are most concerned with their home or social life, and their job is just how they afford it. Even a job you love has it's boring moments or days.
As another side: The most "fun" jobs tend to pay the least, as there are plenty of people who want to do it.
Or more importantly, whoever is adding the exploit to begin with obviously knows about the redundancy in hardware, which would be bypassed, in the same hardware if you are exploiting. It would add a false sense of security. This is like having TWO latches on your screen door.
I like open source software just fine, but not preachy about it. However, when we are talking about critical infrastructure, this is a good argument for having the systems much, much more open and in plain view of many, many more eyes.
I get the point, but if you have one billion dollars to spend to go into space, how do you spend it? THAT is the question. I am all for humans in space, just as we climb the mountain "because it is there", and I am simply arguing that sending robots to do the dirty work, the first work is still progress. We are still sending humans into lower orbit now, although I don't see that much utility to it, other than fixing Hubble from time to time. If not for the rovers and robots, we would know much, much less about Mars. Keep in mind, we know more about the Moon than we do the depths of our own ocean, so perhaps a little exploration at home is overdue as well.
You compare colonialism to space exploration, ok then. Now, in Christopher Columbus's time, when everyone though the earth was flat, I'm pretty sure that if they HAD robots, they would have sent the robots instead of the humans to find out what happens at the edge of the Earth. And frankly, the whole French and British colonization didn't quite work out like they planned anyway.
If we had infinite resources, then sure, we would do more human exploration just for the hell of it. There are plenty of people willing to go. For now, I personally think that what we are learning with rovers is amazing and is hopefully setting the stage for humans to finally visit Mars. It is a more long term approach, and doesn't depend on the US or others being a "great country". It is science for the sake of science. If that isn't progress, then I don't know what is.
Work is supposed to be boring. If if was that much fun, they wouldn't pay you and there would be a cover charge to show up.
And we do explore with robots. They are just an extension of ourselves, our eyes, our hands. We still decide what they do, where they do it, and see through their eyes. You lose some of the human experience with it, granted, but the robots can work as long as they have sun/power so they end up getting more tasks done. Would you rather have only one trip with a human in one location, for a limited amount of time, or dozens and dozens of trips with robots for the same money? At this stage of the game, we are getting much more bang for our buck with the robots. Eventually, humans will get there, but for how, I salute our robots, and their human overlords.
Speaking as someone who might be called a Classical Liberal (aka: laissez-faire republican libertarianism), I think every Republican® owes Ronald Reagan an apology. I voted for him in the first election I was old enough to vote in, but what they are preaching at the GOP isn't what Reagan was about: No new taxes but spend more money than you have because you can just print more. The morph of DemoPublican is pretty much complete.
I think you have to consider the whole picture here: How many people in high school go to college vs. how many make a good living 10 years later? A pretty good percentage. Now, how many people in high school decide they want to be a basketball playing millionaire, and what percentage make it? Inversely, what percentage of each of those groups are now living below the poverty level?
I would venture a guess that there are more millionaires that went to business school than who played professional sports of any kind, so while your comparison is interesting, it isn't really a good analog.
The point you miss is that the rebates are not for the end customer, they are for the producer. Yes, the end user gets the money, but the purpose is to artificially drive up demand, so more people buy them, helping add volume to the technology, which makes it more affordable and drives down prices faster than if you didn't subsidize them. The whole market place benefits. Even with double rebates, poor people would not have been able to buy a $40k car. Poor people can't afford a $20k car. If you want to push the technology into the middle class price range, you have to get the volumes up. Subsidizing the cost just does so faster, and has the benefit of producing less pollution NOW, creating less demand for middle east oil NOW, as well as getting some old fashioned experience with what lasts and what doesn't and working bugs out.
I'm not saying that these kinds of rebates are always a good thing, but there is some logic to it if you have a long term outlook.
Good point. VCRs and internet access used to only be for those with too much money (my first ISP cost me 80 per month for 80 hours, way back when), but that is what drives the costs down, as you state. Considering the end goal is lower dependence on our "friends" in the middle east, plus a somewhat cleaner environment, seems like a balanced approach to me as well.
why it is okay for Verizon to enter a privately-owned router?
Here in the US, 99.9% of home routers are not privately owned, they belong to the ISP. In this case, the ISP gained access to their own equipment, using a different protocol, for the security of their network and the benefit of the customer. It might be strong handed, but if people haven't changed their passwords, it would be an appropriate response. He might have blocked outside access, but he also should have changed the password as a matter of policy. The access is allowed via their terms of service, on their equipment.
Could they have handled the situation better? Maybe, but they seem to have been 100% within their rights in this case.
Wow, I think you don't quite get it. He can't force his kids to take care of him, but he can lead by example and tell his kids that he wants to stay a family together, and encourage them to do the same. He has a strong desire to help his parents, and instill those values to his kids. Personally, I find this a good thing, not a bad thing. Obviously, his children can always choose to not assist their parents when they are elderly, there is no way to force that issue.
The average drive train only eats up 20-30 HP nowadays. Not like it was in the 70s. And I was of the understanding that SAE net HP numbers are at the wheel, not the flywheel, since the early 1970s.
Slashdot Mirror
Making sure women don't date? Where is this country where only gay men can date? :D
No, it is a country where a woman is expected to simply marry who her father says to marry, no dating necessary, and isn't considered part of their culture. Dating is an evil "western" concept. And being gay gets you the death penalty, every time. Keep in mind that it is illegal for a woman to DRIVE in Saudi Arabia, or be out in public without a male member of the family present. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. Even American women visiting are warned to not be alone and keep their hair covered, to keep from being accosted by the (minority) extremist, vigilante types.
They are basically 1/2 notch less evil than the Taliban, but fund 1/2 the terrorism that happens in the world. (Remember how most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia?). But, they have the oil so we play ball. Personally, I would rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than support their corrupt, inbred government.
Yea, moving from California to some place in Scandinavia, pretty much a lateral move, climate wise....
By this time next year, he can exercise his control freakery at KFC protecting the Colonel's secret recipe.
Oh great, then I will have to stand in line for 10 days just to get freaking chicken because he won't let the cooks know which 11 herbs and spices to use in the crust, or worse, he will lie about the herbs and it will taste just like Bojangles chicken instead.
RTFA, it covers 1996 to 2006, a time when prices were still pretty damn high. I know, I have a $600 20" monitor from that era.
We will see what comes out in court, although I'm holding back judgement until I see the evidence. If they are doing what the complaint alleges, then yes, fine them enough to discourage them (and others) in the future, ie: heavily. Personally I'm glad to see a bit of consumer protection going on for a change. The FTC has become pretty much useless over the last few decades.
Thank you for explaining that properly. Non-military people have a difficult enough time understanding military life without all the FUD about policies. As you states, it isn't a new policy, it is a clarification of a policy that existed for decades.
I don't think most people see everyone in the former USSR's military as evil, but their methods were much less concerned with PR, since the government controlled all media outlets. It isn't that they tried to kill every woman and child, but they were more accepting of collateral damage simply because they didn't give a damn what anyone thought about it outside of the USSR and they could control what was said about it domestically. This made them more effective and breaking stuff (which is what armys are for) but less effective and getting civilian support from the locals (which is what armys need to win).
Besides...is a target where the home owner is present one of 'opportunity'?
All it usually takes is instilling "doubt" in a criminal's mind. (ie: FUD) If there is a home neighborhood full of homes, then a criminal is more likely to move on "just in case they are home". Most burglaries just happen that way, even if they have the intention of stealing some stuff, they don't preplan other than picking an area, and hitting what looks easy. If they plan at all. Criminals are lazy. Most don't travel very far, as the majority of burglaries happen within a few miles of the perp's house. The reality is, a barking dog does more to scare off a burglar more than anything else. A potential "nutty gun toting" homeowner is almost as good.
Keep in mind, we are talking about BURGLARY, not robbery. Burglars are cowards, non-confrontational thieves. Like shoplifting taken to the next level, and almost always unarmed (excepting maybe a blade). Robbery is a completely different crime, by completely different criminal types, confrontational and aggressive. Burglars will run away, robbers are more likely to shoot you, even if only out of fear.
That doesn't even make sense. I have several guns, and they are all traceable because I bought them legally. Most people who have multiple guns bought them legally. This means a background check via paperwork filed by the seller, with an FFL license, and in the case of hand guns, via a hand gun permit issued locally, all of which have the serial numbers. Large gangs breaking into a home to get guns is almost unheard of. They might hit a pawnshop or gun store, but not an individual's house. The majority of the 300 million guns in the US can be accounted for by paperwork filed with the Fed ATF, including the guns I have owned for over 20 years. Are there guns out there not listed? Sure, but they are the exception not the rule (or same owner for several decades). Even before the Brady Bill, you still had to fill out a yellow sheet for hand guns.
Of course, this is based on my limited experience owning and managing pawn shops, being a licensed gun dealer AND being a former defense private investigator....
1. The purpose of a gun is to hopefully never have to use it. 2. If the burglar thinks you are a crazy gun totin' NRA type, they will pick an easier target.
Most burglaries are crimes of opportunity, not heavy planned. The best defense is simply giving them a reason to pick a different target, and you might be shocked at how easy and effective a sign of a gun can be.
I am not a programmer, just someone who has to program to get the job done, and I find I use Perl as my universal hammer as well. I'm learning PHP simply because I need to, to remain relevant. It also handles pure html a bit easier in my experience. But all my scripts, maintenance routines, etc. are all in Perl and I don't see that ever changing, no matter what other languages I learn. Hard to beat Perl, even with all the new languages over the last decade, when it comes to simply "getting the job done" in a fast and dirty way.
I love my job, but most people don't. If no one would do a job that is boring, then who would wash the dishes? Dig the ditches? Grade the tests? Build the computers? And do just about any manufacturing, or produce the food we eat? Not every job is glorious fun all day long, and many people are fine with that, they are most concerned with their home or social life, and their job is just how they afford it. Even a job you love has it's boring moments or days.
As another side: The most "fun" jobs tend to pay the least, as there are plenty of people who want to do it.
I'm just wondering how it could have gotten so bad with a nurse in the house?
Maybe she was trying to let him die to collect the insurance money. Never be worth more dead than you are alive.
Or more importantly, whoever is adding the exploit to begin with obviously knows about the redundancy in hardware, which would be bypassed, in the same hardware if you are exploiting. It would add a false sense of security. This is like having TWO latches on your screen door.
I like open source software just fine, but not preachy about it. However, when we are talking about critical infrastructure, this is a good argument for having the systems much, much more open and in plain view of many, many more eyes.
I get the point, but if you have one billion dollars to spend to go into space, how do you spend it? THAT is the question. I am all for humans in space, just as we climb the mountain "because it is there", and I am simply arguing that sending robots to do the dirty work, the first work is still progress. We are still sending humans into lower orbit now, although I don't see that much utility to it, other than fixing Hubble from time to time. If not for the rovers and robots, we would know much, much less about Mars. Keep in mind, we know more about the Moon than we do the depths of our own ocean, so perhaps a little exploration at home is overdue as well.
You compare colonialism to space exploration, ok then. Now, in Christopher Columbus's time, when everyone though the earth was flat, I'm pretty sure that if they HAD robots, they would have sent the robots instead of the humans to find out what happens at the edge of the Earth. And frankly, the whole French and British colonization didn't quite work out like they planned anyway.
If we had infinite resources, then sure, we would do more human exploration just for the hell of it. There are plenty of people willing to go. For now, I personally think that what we are learning with rovers is amazing and is hopefully setting the stage for humans to finally visit Mars. It is a more long term approach, and doesn't depend on the US or others being a "great country". It is science for the sake of science. If that isn't progress, then I don't know what is.
Work is supposed to be boring. If if was that much fun, they wouldn't pay you and there would be a cover charge to show up.
And we do explore with robots. They are just an extension of ourselves, our eyes, our hands. We still decide what they do, where they do it, and see through their eyes. You lose some of the human experience with it, granted, but the robots can work as long as they have sun/power so they end up getting more tasks done. Would you rather have only one trip with a human in one location, for a limited amount of time, or dozens and dozens of trips with robots for the same money? At this stage of the game, we are getting much more bang for our buck with the robots. Eventually, humans will get there, but for how, I salute our robots, and their human overlords.
Speaking as someone who might be called a Classical Liberal (aka: laissez-faire republican libertarianism), I think every Republican® owes Ronald Reagan an apology. I voted for him in the first election I was old enough to vote in, but what they are preaching at the GOP isn't what Reagan was about: No new taxes but spend more money than you have because you can just print more. The morph of DemoPublican is pretty much complete.
Just remember, every time you masturbate, god kills a kitten.
I think you have to consider the whole picture here: How many people in high school go to college vs. how many make a good living 10 years later? A pretty good percentage. Now, how many people in high school decide they want to be a basketball playing millionaire, and what percentage make it? Inversely, what percentage of each of those groups are now living below the poverty level?
I would venture a guess that there are more millionaires that went to business school than who played professional sports of any kind, so while your comparison is interesting, it isn't really a good analog.
The point you miss is that the rebates are not for the end customer, they are for the producer. Yes, the end user gets the money, but the purpose is to artificially drive up demand, so more people buy them, helping add volume to the technology, which makes it more affordable and drives down prices faster than if you didn't subsidize them. The whole market place benefits. Even with double rebates, poor people would not have been able to buy a $40k car. Poor people can't afford a $20k car. If you want to push the technology into the middle class price range, you have to get the volumes up. Subsidizing the cost just does so faster, and has the benefit of producing less pollution NOW, creating less demand for middle east oil NOW, as well as getting some old fashioned experience with what lasts and what doesn't and working bugs out.
I'm not saying that these kinds of rebates are always a good thing, but there is some logic to it if you have a long term outlook.
Most ISPs now give a free wireless router when you get service with them if you just ask.
Good point. VCRs and internet access used to only be for those with too much money (my first ISP cost me 80 per month for 80 hours, way back when), but that is what drives the costs down, as you state. Considering the end goal is lower dependence on our "friends" in the middle east, plus a somewhat cleaner environment, seems like a balanced approach to me as well.
why it is okay for Verizon to enter a privately-owned router?
Here in the US, 99.9% of home routers are not privately owned, they belong to the ISP. In this case, the ISP gained access to their own equipment, using a different protocol, for the security of their network and the benefit of the customer. It might be strong handed, but if people haven't changed their passwords, it would be an appropriate response. He might have blocked outside access, but he also should have changed the password as a matter of policy. The access is allowed via their terms of service, on their equipment.
Could they have handled the situation better? Maybe, but they seem to have been 100% within their rights in this case.
Wow, I think you don't quite get it. He can't force his kids to take care of him, but he can lead by example and tell his kids that he wants to stay a family together, and encourage them to do the same. He has a strong desire to help his parents, and instill those values to his kids. Personally, I find this a good thing, not a bad thing. Obviously, his children can always choose to not assist their parents when they are elderly, there is no way to force that issue.
The average drive train only eats up 20-30 HP nowadays. Not like it was in the 70s. And I was of the understanding that SAE net HP numbers are at the wheel, not the flywheel, since the early 1970s.