> The know-nothing reactionary right is getting worse.
So you're saying there's still room to move. The know-nothing reactionary left seems to have pegged the needle a decade ago or so.
Same with me at a previous employer in a large facility. We had our own fire department, too. No need to wait around hoping that the city's emergency system could even find me (after they got through security). What a pathetic hit piece. Or at least the summary thereof. I'd read it, but no need to send traffic HuffPo's way.
Slashdot is so weird. Big companies are, for the most part, evil [unless they're run by young, hip, smart guys who promise that they won't be evil]. We must uplift the little guy. And yet when a big company is becoming smaller, we must ridicule them for moving toward our ideals.
I'm not picking on you specifically at all nor ridiculing your particular comment. Honestly, I laughed when I read it. It's a funny slogan and clever. Your comment just made me think of the weird culture here.
He ran by Lowe's to get some pots and they weren't going to have any in stock for another 800 sols. He was going to check out Home Depot but then Happy Days was on and, you know... too much effort.
As a 1%-er (it only takes a dual engineering income) there's not a chance in hell this would be affordable. Can we stop with this stupid label? I expect it from the OWS crowd and others lacking in critical thinking skills. I don't expect it at a site that claims to be for nerds.
Well, that bites. I wish I had some suggestion for you. Mine is working just fine after the update. Like I said, it was an existing connection - not one I tried to add after the update - but it would seem that it shouldn't work at all given your description.
My only connection at home is a hidden SSID network and it's working fine. Are you saying you can't connect to unknown hiddens? If so, sounds like the XP version of WiFi. That would bite.
Killing WwF, opening each game, not touching any tiles, going back to the home screen, then reopening the game seems to help. But yeah, it locks really easily. I'm surprised they didn't have an update ready. Then again, the app has always been a POS - at least on iOS.
They used to be until MS cut their prices. That is, with the exception of the agreements MS had preventing commodity PC vendors from selling systems without Windows.
So at any point in time, it has the potential to store one point of data from among 68 billion possible points of data. Because. You know. It's 36 bits. To me, that's completely different from being able to store 68 billion data points. I inferred "simultaneously" from that. If it's any consolation, TFA has the same wording as the summary.
Not to mention all of the certifications. The argument forming here against that seems to be along the lines of kit car analogies, but if I wanted to build my own car I already would have. Open source has no impact on that. I'm expecting to buy an open source car from someone already built at a steep discount over that of a manufacturer with all of the same warranties and features. How that magically will occur without incurring liability and regulation is seemingly... well, magic.
See, you're still confused. I don't really have a view. I don't even have a dog in this race. I'm an aerospace engineer. I'm merely pointing out your sweeping generalization and inability to support it. Which, like I said, is no real big deal except you belittled others in advance for doing the same thing. And, frankly, you can't support it because you can't prove poorly defined statements like you made. Now you can try to go all dick-wagging as much as you like with appeals to authority and dismissal of others due to your own pre-defined criteria but it doesn't change the fact that you made a broad statement that's ultimately unsupportable. So go ahead and do another hand-waving dismissal, or post a dozen links in support of what you said (which are only a dozen and you need an extremely large number of all studies ever performed or the vast majority of all literature reviews ever performed to support your statement), or insult me and stalk away claiming that you're "done with me", or whatever other tactic you need to feel like you "won".
Prove that I ever once said that your initial post was off topic. Never did. That's your invention. And you're the one that's obsessed with "Off Topic". A person that's not completely unhinged (you know, some that's mentally balanced) would mark off-topic things as such using their mod privileges (if they even bothered - mod points are better spent promoting good content upward) and move on. A mentally unstable person, on the other hand, would chase someone around a forum responding to every one of their posts with childish name calling about something that no one else knows about nor cares about. Guess which one of these two you are? Yes, I know - false dilemma, but given your failure at rational and logical thinking, it seems like a small logical error to make.
You stated, "Computers rarely help. Ever." In wikipedia jargon, those are weasel words. Not that I would care, but you then dismissed any conflicting statements as being essentially shills. That's all. There's no need to get so uptight about it. Mostly I thought it was amusing that you hold yourself to one standard and those that disagree with you to another standard.
Googling "computers rarely help ever" turned up no relevant hits in support of your statement. Now do you get my point? If not, here is my point: You made a sweeping, generalized statement. You also stated that anyone countering your statement is obviously someone with a vested interest in making money off of lies not backed up by scientific evidence. And yet your statement is not backed up by scientific evidence (basically, because it can't be - it's too general).
Slashdot Mirror
> The know-nothing reactionary right is getting worse. So you're saying there's still room to move. The know-nothing reactionary left seems to have pegged the needle a decade ago or so.
Same with me at a previous employer in a large facility. We had our own fire department, too. No need to wait around hoping that the city's emergency system could even find me (after they got through security). What a pathetic hit piece. Or at least the summary thereof. I'd read it, but no need to send traffic HuffPo's way.
We were both here for the rise of Google and all of the gushing rhetoric. It hasn't been that long ago.
Slashdot is so weird. Big companies are, for the most part, evil [unless they're run by young, hip, smart guys who promise that they won't be evil]. We must uplift the little guy. And yet when a big company is becoming smaller, we must ridicule them for moving toward our ideals.
I'm not picking on you specifically at all nor ridiculing your particular comment. Honestly, I laughed when I read it. It's a funny slogan and clever. Your comment just made me think of the weird culture here.
The irony in your post is so painful.
You should look up the phrase non sequitur. You may find it enlightening. Then again, maybe not.
One of the few effective appeals to authority I've run across. Good job! (That was serious - not sarcastic)
He ran by Lowe's to get some pots and they weren't going to have any in stock for another 800 sols. He was going to check out Home Depot but then Happy Days was on and, you know... too much effort.
I just checked and it's $350K, so I'm actually a 1.5%-er. You know, which makes it all better somehow.
As a 1%-er (it only takes a dual engineering income) there's not a chance in hell this would be affordable. Can we stop with this stupid label? I expect it from the OWS crowd and others lacking in critical thinking skills. I don't expect it at a site that claims to be for nerds.
Your eloquent discourse and calm demeanor have swayed me to your side.
Nah. Just kidding. You got your panties all in a wad because you chose to be offended by a factual statement. Now you're just trying to justify it.
You missed the point completely. Alcohol was mentioned because, in addition to the $2 cover charge, they were making money selling drinks.
Well, that bites. I wish I had some suggestion for you. Mine is working just fine after the update. Like I said, it was an existing connection - not one I tried to add after the update - but it would seem that it shouldn't work at all given your description.
My only connection at home is a hidden SSID network and it's working fine. Are you saying you can't connect to unknown hiddens? If so, sounds like the XP version of WiFi. That would bite.
Killing WwF, opening each game, not touching any tiles, going back to the home screen, then reopening the game seems to help. But yeah, it locks really easily. I'm surprised they didn't have an update ready. Then again, the app has always been a POS - at least on iOS.
They used to be until MS cut their prices. That is, with the exception of the agreements MS had preventing commodity PC vendors from selling systems without Windows.
When the journalist started to explain binary, I sort of lost hope of any technical explanation materializing.
Xerox confirms that 2^36 ~= 68G.
So at any point in time, it has the potential to store one point of data from among 68 billion possible points of data. Because. You know. It's 36 bits. To me, that's completely different from being able to store 68 billion data points. I inferred "simultaneously" from that. If it's any consolation, TFA has the same wording as the summary.
Yeah. I've only been doing the 'net thing since the 80's. But thank you, Al Gore. All praise be to ye.
Not to mention all of the certifications. The argument forming here against that seems to be along the lines of kit car analogies, but if I wanted to build my own car I already would have. Open source has no impact on that. I'm expecting to buy an open source car from someone already built at a steep discount over that of a manufacturer with all of the same warranties and features. How that magically will occur without incurring liability and regulation is seemingly... well, magic.
See, you're still confused. I don't really have a view. I don't even have a dog in this race. I'm an aerospace engineer. I'm merely pointing out your sweeping generalization and inability to support it. Which, like I said, is no real big deal except you belittled others in advance for doing the same thing. And, frankly, you can't support it because you can't prove poorly defined statements like you made. Now you can try to go all dick-wagging as much as you like with appeals to authority and dismissal of others due to your own pre-defined criteria but it doesn't change the fact that you made a broad statement that's ultimately unsupportable. So go ahead and do another hand-waving dismissal, or post a dozen links in support of what you said (which are only a dozen and you need an extremely large number of all studies ever performed or the vast majority of all literature reviews ever performed to support your statement), or insult me and stalk away claiming that you're "done with me", or whatever other tactic you need to feel like you "won".
Prove that I ever once said that your initial post was off topic. Never did. That's your invention. And you're the one that's obsessed with "Off Topic". A person that's not completely unhinged (you know, some that's mentally balanced) would mark off-topic things as such using their mod privileges (if they even bothered - mod points are better spent promoting good content upward) and move on. A mentally unstable person, on the other hand, would chase someone around a forum responding to every one of their posts with childish name calling about something that no one else knows about nor cares about. Guess which one of these two you are? Yes, I know - false dilemma, but given your failure at rational and logical thinking, it seems like a small logical error to make.
You stated, "Computers rarely help. Ever." In wikipedia jargon, those are weasel words. Not that I would care, but you then dismissed any conflicting statements as being essentially shills. That's all. There's no need to get so uptight about it. Mostly I thought it was amusing that you hold yourself to one standard and those that disagree with you to another standard.
Do you actually understand sarcasm?
Googling "computers rarely help ever" turned up no relevant hits in support of your statement. Now do you get my point? If not, here is my point: You made a sweeping, generalized statement. You also stated that anyone countering your statement is obviously someone with a vested interest in making money off of lies not backed up by scientific evidence. And yet your statement is not backed up by scientific evidence (basically, because it can't be - it's too general).
Computers rarely help. Ever.
Citation? Or are those only required for
those whose salaries are paid by pushing more computers and testing post[ing] lies that aren't backed by peer reviewed scientific studies
?