I don't suspect that anyone ever thought that they did. Hey, my wired keyboard can be snooped on from up to a million feet above, with nothing more than a child's telescope. Good thing I'm not a target, because there's also a window nearby. Can you imagine typing on a laptop on a park bench? Martians with telescopes could see my slashdot password!
Great. The bed isn't there when I'm not sleeping in it. Novel. What about the other person sleeping in it? Shared resources are just great, when you're sharing them with yourself. Take the same 200 squeet, and get triple-usage of bed and office and living room, sounds wonderful. Now what about the triple storage of my linens, my equipment, and my glassware?
It's like someone thinks the planet is full. Let me introduce you to my little friends: saskatchewan, vermont, manitoba, montana. You aren't being forced to live stacked 100 apartments high. Try exploring the horizontal, and spread the fk out.
That drones would be cheaper than cars for deliveries at least make sense. Not anymore. Cars have always won based on their independence -- aside from roads, they require very little infrastructure, and that infrastructure requires very little maintenance, and it's all mobile and weather-proof. But these lamppost upgrades are hugely expensive to install, maintain, co-ordinate. Elevators, perches, chargers, ground-level co-ordination, weather-specific calibration. So if it rains for three days, that's the end of everything. Can't wait for water-proofing.
47 is less than 51. You didn't adjust your numbers for part-time vs full time. You might want to do that.
And, once again, you've chosen to argue my argument, instead of my point. My point was that "mirroring the population" is a meaningless sentence without first defining the population. There's nothing sexist about that. You're just throwing flames. I was quite clear when I said that the workforce females are closer to 30% than the 51%. I was very clear when I said that I was making up the numbers. I was only presenting the directions.
So, using your very simple single-source, six-year-old resource, I'm right. The percentage of women in the workforce is lower than the percentage of women in the population. Done. You've supported my point.
Now, go find out what percentage of women in the workforce are in the IT industry, and you can win that point for me too.
Which population are we mirroring here? What percentage of the population is female? Every human being in the city -- I believe that 51% are female. How about the workforce population -- I'd bet that fewer than 50% of the workforce is female, probably closer to 30% actually. What about the population who work in office jobs amongst adults -- if we remove day-care, health care, teachers, children services, and government jobs, I'll bet it goes even lower.
Let,s see. The cell tower is expensive, so it's not worth building more for the occasional event. The drone costs $2K, so it's cheaper. I get that. And we don't want it to fly away, so we'll tie it to the ground. So much for ease, convenience, and on-the-fly deployment. And, of course, we get the buzzing sound over music concerts, that'll go over great.
Here's a better idea. Build the drone for $2K, tie a helium baloon to it, and tie the baloon to the venue.
Here's a simpler idea. Build the drone for $2K, and just glue it to the ceiling. The 10 million dollar stadium can have a $2K cell booster as the budget overage.
It doesn't matter if it's safer to have than to not have. It's a question of accountability. The fact that many drivers are terrible, and hence are unsafe, and this makes them better is uninteresting. When a car crashes into me, the only question is why. The answer of "bad driver" is acceptable. The answer of "bad weather" is occasionally acceptable. The answer of "suddenly broken car" is usually acceptable. The answer of "the car did it by itself" is totally and completely unacceptable.
I type fast, didn't waste any real time. Learn to type better. I didn't type it only for you. This is available to others. Learn your surroundings. "Every animal" doesn't mean every individual. I meant every species. Learn the language. "Prove" isn't something you can do from a google search. Learn to do your own research. Google doesn't do any more than list what others have said. In a week, it'll list this post of mine. So by your logic, google says I'm right when it cites me.
Once again, "confinement" is not "captivity". Captivity can be done well, or poorly. I'm not saying that every elephant in a cage is better off. I'm saying that elephants cared for properly are better off than wild elephants. Welcome to team work.
Once again, no name to your arguments, hence a zero value to them.
And, once again, I'm using other animals to describe humans in captivity. The debate is about humans. You're trying to discredit my point by discrediting the analogy. That's just idiotic on your part. You don't destroy a house by pointing out some weeds in the lawn.
Actually, that's a better point. We're moving up in access to territory. Dogs stay close to home. Cats a few quare kilometres. Humans about 100. Elephants roam for thousands. Orcas roam across half the globe. Captivity has within it a necessity for containment. The larger the territory, the larger the struggle to manage and finance such containment.
Oh, by the way, for centuries, living in cities was detrimental to human health. Unsanitary waste conditions, communicable diseases, unclean water. My point here has, from the beginning, been that the major turning point in recent decades has been precisely that these detriments have turned into benefits. Water within cities is cleaner. Waste conditions or more sanitary indoors than outdoors. You're less likely to become ill indoors, and more likely to get treated from anything contageous.
The point is that human captivity has reached a level of success where captive humans live longer than wild humans. Your citing unsuccessful forms of captivity is exactly the point. Ours was, and is no longer. First, we mastered dogs. Later, cats. Now, humans. Eventually, we'll get to elephants and orcas. We're working up in mass, volume, and territory.
You haven't "proven" anything until to showcase that every single orca dies sooner in captivity. That's first.
Second, you'll understand the conversational aspect of this. If you'd like me to write-up the legal version, with qualifiers and an index of arguments, you'll need to cover my fee for doing so.
The original point, quite clear actually, is that HUMANS are living longer due to captivity. That's second.
My counter to your "orcas" argument was not that orcas die sooner in captivity. It was that orca captivity is incorrectly handled. As a result, the fitness and social aspects of orca captivity are incomplete. That's the problem. That's why your exception proves the rule: it's captivity done incorrectly. Your housecat won't live long if your house doesn't meet its needs. That's third.
You're incorrect about elephants; that's an even better example. Elephants in proper captivity -- of which there are very few, and they are not within typical zoos -- live full lives. But there are so many problems with elephant captivity -- namely that humans are incapable of caring for elephants. Think about it. The elephant lives longer than any single human can care for it, and there are just so many things that a human cannot do to care for an elephant without danger. So this is more of an example of humans not being capable of providing suitable captivity. With orcas, the case is more of an experience thing too; we're still very new at it, and don't have sufficient access, since we don't have gills. But with elephants, you'll find that in the non-zoo, protected lands, where we allow elephants to roam "wildly" but protect them from everything imaginable, the elephants live longer. That's fourth.
If you intend your arguments to have merit, and therefore value, you'll put your name to them -- at least so that I know with how many participants I'm conversing. If, on the other hand, you intend to shout into the void, and have no respect for your own arguments, then they simply have no value: because you aren't standing behind them. The ability to be incorrect is inherent in valuable arguments. It's called falsifiability. The capability of being held accountable for an incorrect argument is called respect. You're only as good as your name. Right now, you have no worth.
You don't think so? You don't think that there's been more desk-jobs, longer in-school hours, more after-school programs? A greater focus on fitness? On healthy eating?
We've seen organic foods, lower-fat options, vegetarian options, and, I'll point you to a focus on health-care so strong that you now actually have some. "Check-up or check-out."
More grocery stores. Cheaper cars and transportation in general, better air conditioning and climate control in general. Humidifiers, clean-air systems, gas-furnaces instead of wood-burning, cleaner water.
I think you'll find that civilization has engaged you all over. You don't suffer through heat waves anymore. You don't get rained on. You don't get left out in the cold. You don't walk for hours to get home. If you're out in the fields for the day, you're probably riding a tractor.
Do you want me to repeat myself? Animals, living in captivity, tend to live 50% to 200% longer than their life expectancy in the wild.
I'm not sure what you found confusing. Do you know of many animals that tend to live shorter lives in captivity? We're obviously not talking about food-based livestock here.
That's not a bug. It's just a total lack of authentication. No put in the effort, because no one cared. Congrats. This ain't a surprise.
Perhaps a blogging platform needn't the same level of security as a bank or nuclear power centre.
A lesson for young programmers: if you're going to divulge your UIDs (or make them easily guessable, like sequential), be sure to pair them with a random string before you accept them from an outside source -- like user input.
Every animal lives longer in captivity than it does in the wild. From cheetahs to jellyfish. Your house cat live up to 20 years, maybe 5 in the wild. Your jellyfish 10 months in your aquarium, maybe 4 months in the wild.
So, what does a human living in captivity look like? See the city. See the suburbs. See the grocery stores, the health care, the cars.
I have no problem seeing that all-day climate control, motorized vehicles, and unlimited easy-access food means a healthier body that can fight off major diseases for longer.
You get to learn the difference between verbs and adjectives. "Illicit" is was the adjective, it modified the noun "drugs". The "drugs" are "illicit". "Legalized" was the verb, it modified the subject "illicit drugs". "Legalizing illicit drugs" is what is happening with weed right now. It would make no sense to legalize legal drugs, as they are already legal. The lesson to learn here is that of sequential causality. The drugs exist, they are illicit, and they are to be legalized. Once they have been legalized, they will no longer be illicit. "legal illicit drugs" would have "legal" as a second adjective, and would hence be oxymoronic. "Legalized illicit drugs" utilizes "legalized" as a verb of causality.
Go to a pimp, give the pimp your name, your address, your personal preferences, and your money. Then threaten to take your money away, or to stop providing more. Did someone think that this was all an altruistic venture? Wanna tell me how the sex trade is any different no matter where it is? Was someone expecting a pimp to be above-board, honest, ethical?
Welcome to the sex trade. It has always gone hand-in-hand with the drug trade. Are you ready for legalized illicit drugs? Here's the first thing that you get to learn: the first one's free.
facebook isn't deciding anything. there are hundreds of places to post your videos, and it's virtually pennies to spin up your own web-site and host a few videos on your own infrestructure.
second, it's been a long time since we've had public blood sports and hangings and executions. Does anyone want to see crimes live? No news media outlet has shown that kind of stuff in my lifetime. I have no desire to see it either.
It's not censorship just because facebook takes it down. Censorship is about ensuring that a person doesn't see it. Facebook is simply culturing their own environment, saying that such content won't be in this one place. That's not censorship any more than no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service. That's not censoring bare feet; it's just running a restaurant; you can be barefoot elsewhere.
I won't let you have sex in my home, by the way. I'm not censoring sex. I'm controlling my household. You've got your own household.
Slashdot Mirror
not responsible for fraudulent charges. review your monthly statement; contest unknown activity.
Start the timer. Apple becomes a hardware-only company, running mostly microsoft software. One decade or two?
Dude, you majorly misunderstood my comment.
"the wavy blue line under bad grammar"
I don't see any wavy blue line. Network World doesn't use Word, I surmise.
I don't suspect that anyone ever thought that they did. Hey, my wired keyboard can be snooped on from up to a million feet above, with nothing more than a child's telescope. Good thing I'm not a target, because there's also a window nearby. Can you imagine typing on a laptop on a park bench? Martians with telescopes could see my slashdot password!
Or, they could have better things to do.
Great. The bed isn't there when I'm not sleeping in it. Novel. What about the other person sleeping in it? Shared resources are just great, when you're sharing them with yourself. Take the same 200 squeet, and get triple-usage of bed and office and living room, sounds wonderful. Now what about the triple storage of my linens, my equipment, and my glassware?
It's like someone thinks the planet is full. Let me introduce you to my little friends: saskatchewan, vermont, manitoba, montana. You aren't being forced to live stacked 100 apartments high. Try exploring the horizontal, and spread the fk out.
That drones would be cheaper than cars for deliveries at least make sense. Not anymore. Cars have always won based on their independence -- aside from roads, they require very little infrastructure, and that infrastructure requires very little maintenance, and it's all mobile and weather-proof. But these lamppost upgrades are hugely expensive to install, maintain, co-ordinate. Elevators, perches, chargers, ground-level co-ordination, weather-specific calibration. So if it rains for three days, that's the end of everything. Can't wait for water-proofing.
Well, I guess my tv remote always had it. Remember when your laptop did?
47 is less than 51.
You didn't adjust your numbers for part-time vs full time. You might want to do that.
And, once again, you've chosen to argue my argument, instead of my point. My point was that "mirroring the population" is a meaningless sentence without first defining the population. There's nothing sexist about that. You're just throwing flames. I was quite clear when I said that the workforce females are closer to 30% than the 51%. I was very clear when I said that I was making up the numbers. I was only presenting the directions.
So, using your very simple single-source, six-year-old resource, I'm right. The percentage of women in the workforce is lower than the percentage of women in the population. Done. You've supported my point.
Now, go find out what percentage of women in the workforce are in the IT industry, and you can win that point for me too.
Which population are we mirroring here? What percentage of the population is female? Every human being in the city -- I believe that 51% are female. How about the workforce population -- I'd bet that fewer than 50% of the workforce is female, probably closer to 30% actually. What about the population who work in office jobs amongst adults -- if we remove day-care, health care, teachers, children services, and government jobs, I'll bet it goes even lower.
Let,s see. The cell tower is expensive, so it's not worth building more for the occasional event. The drone costs $2K, so it's cheaper. I get that. And we don't want it to fly away, so we'll tie it to the ground. So much for ease, convenience, and on-the-fly deployment. And, of course, we get the buzzing sound over music concerts, that'll go over great.
Here's a better idea. Build the drone for $2K, tie a helium baloon to it, and tie the baloon to the venue.
Here's a simpler idea. Build the drone for $2K, and just glue it to the ceiling. The 10 million dollar stadium can have a $2K cell booster as the budget overage.
It doesn't matter if it's safer to have than to not have. It's a question of accountability. The fact that many drivers are terrible, and hence are unsafe, and this makes them better is uninteresting. When a car crashes into me, the only question is why. The answer of "bad driver" is acceptable. The answer of "bad weather" is occasionally acceptable. The answer of "suddenly broken car" is usually acceptable. The answer of "the car did it by itself" is totally and completely unacceptable.
I type fast, didn't waste any real time. Learn to type better.
I didn't type it only for you. This is available to others. Learn your surroundings.
"Every animal" doesn't mean every individual. I meant every species. Learn the language.
"Prove" isn't something you can do from a google search. Learn to do your own research. Google doesn't do any more than list what others have said. In a week, it'll list this post of mine. So by your logic, google says I'm right when it cites me.
Once again, "confinement" is not "captivity". Captivity can be done well, or poorly. I'm not saying that every elephant in a cage is better off. I'm saying that elephants cared for properly are better off than wild elephants. Welcome to team work.
Once again, no name to your arguments, hence a zero value to them.
And, once again, I'm using other animals to describe humans in captivity. The debate is about humans. You're trying to discredit my point by discrediting the analogy. That's just idiotic on your part. You don't destroy a house by pointing out some weeds in the lawn.
Actually, that's a better point. We're moving up in access to territory. Dogs stay close to home. Cats a few quare kilometres. Humans about 100. Elephants roam for thousands. Orcas roam across half the globe. Captivity has within it a necessity for containment. The larger the territory, the larger the struggle to manage and finance such containment.
Oh, by the way, for centuries, living in cities was detrimental to human health. Unsanitary waste conditions, communicable diseases, unclean water. My point here has, from the beginning, been that the major turning point in recent decades has been precisely that these detriments have turned into benefits. Water within cities is cleaner. Waste conditions or more sanitary indoors than outdoors. You're less likely to become ill indoors, and more likely to get treated from anything contageous.
The point is that human captivity has reached a level of success where captive humans live longer than wild humans. Your citing unsuccessful forms of captivity is exactly the point. Ours was, and is no longer. First, we mastered dogs. Later, cats. Now, humans. Eventually, we'll get to elephants and orcas. We're working up in mass, volume, and territory.
Lions are probably borderline today.
You haven't "proven" anything until to showcase that every single orca dies sooner in captivity. That's first.
Second, you'll understand the conversational aspect of this. If you'd like me to write-up the legal version, with qualifiers and an index of arguments, you'll need to cover my fee for doing so.
The original point, quite clear actually, is that HUMANS are living longer due to captivity. That's second.
My counter to your "orcas" argument was not that orcas die sooner in captivity. It was that orca captivity is incorrectly handled. As a result, the fitness and social aspects of orca captivity are incomplete. That's the problem. That's why your exception proves the rule: it's captivity done incorrectly. Your housecat won't live long if your house doesn't meet its needs. That's third.
You're incorrect about elephants; that's an even better example. Elephants in proper captivity -- of which there are very few, and they are not within typical zoos -- live full lives. But there are so many problems with elephant captivity -- namely that humans are incapable of caring for elephants. Think about it. The elephant lives longer than any single human can care for it, and there are just so many things that a human cannot do to care for an elephant without danger. So this is more of an example of humans not being capable of providing suitable captivity. With orcas, the case is more of an experience thing too; we're still very new at it, and don't have sufficient access, since we don't have gills. But with elephants, you'll find that in the non-zoo, protected lands, where we allow elephants to roam "wildly" but protect them from everything imaginable, the elephants live longer. That's fourth.
If you intend your arguments to have merit, and therefore value, you'll put your name to them -- at least so that I know with how many participants I'm conversing. If, on the other hand, you intend to shout into the void, and have no respect for your own arguments, then they simply have no value: because you aren't standing behind them. The ability to be incorrect is inherent in valuable arguments. It's called falsifiability. The capability of being held accountable for an incorrect argument is called respect. You're only as good as your name. Right now, you have no worth.
Yup. Take the top of the food chain, and confine them without the ability to migrate. That's a great example. It's the exception that proves the rule.
You don't think so? You don't think that there's been more desk-jobs, longer in-school hours, more after-school programs? A greater focus on fitness? On healthy eating?
We've seen organic foods, lower-fat options, vegetarian options, and, I'll point you to a focus on health-care so strong that you now actually have some. "Check-up or check-out."
More grocery stores. Cheaper cars and transportation in general, better air conditioning and climate control in general. Humidifiers, clean-air systems, gas-furnaces instead of wood-burning, cleaner water.
I think you'll find that civilization has engaged you all over. You don't suffer through heat waves anymore. You don't get rained on. You don't get left out in the cold. You don't walk for hours to get home. If you're out in the fields for the day, you're probably riding a tractor.
Do you want me to repeat myself? Animals, living in captivity, tend to live 50% to 200% longer than their life expectancy in the wild.
I'm not sure what you found confusing. Do you know of many animals that tend to live shorter lives in captivity? We're obviously not talking about food-based livestock here.
That's not a bug. It's just a total lack of authentication. No put in the effort, because no one cared. Congrats. This ain't a surprise.
Perhaps a blogging platform needn't the same level of security as a bank or nuclear power centre.
A lesson for young programmers: if you're going to divulge your UIDs (or make them easily guessable, like sequential), be sure to pair them with a random string before you accept them from an outside source -- like user input.
There was an old woman, who swallowed a fly.
Every animal lives longer in captivity than it does in the wild. From cheetahs to jellyfish. Your house cat live up to 20 years, maybe 5 in the wild. Your jellyfish 10 months in your aquarium, maybe 4 months in the wild.
So, what does a human living in captivity look like? See the city. See the suburbs. See the grocery stores, the health care, the cars.
I have no problem seeing that all-day climate control, motorized vehicles, and unlimited easy-access food means a healthier body that can fight off major diseases for longer.
Ageing has always been biological wear-and-tear.
You get to learn the difference between verbs and adjectives. "Illicit" is was the adjective, it modified the noun "drugs". The "drugs" are "illicit". "Legalized" was the verb, it modified the subject "illicit drugs". "Legalizing illicit drugs" is what is happening with weed right now. It would make no sense to legalize legal drugs, as they are already legal. The lesson to learn here is that of sequential causality. The drugs exist, they are illicit, and they are to be legalized. Once they have been legalized, they will no longer be illicit. "legal illicit drugs" would have "legal" as a second adjective, and would hence be oxymoronic. "Legalized illicit drugs" utilizes "legalized" as a verb of causality.
Go to a pimp, give the pimp your name, your address, your personal preferences, and your money. Then threaten to take your money away, or to stop providing more. Did someone think that this was all an altruistic venture? Wanna tell me how the sex trade is any different no matter where it is? Was someone expecting a pimp to be above-board, honest, ethical?
Welcome to the sex trade. It has always gone hand-in-hand with the drug trade. Are you ready for legalized illicit drugs? Here's the first thing that you get to learn: the first one's free.
facebook isn't deciding anything. there are hundreds of places to post your videos, and it's virtually pennies to spin up your own web-site and host a few videos on your own infrestructure.
second, it's been a long time since we've had public blood sports and hangings and executions. Does anyone want to see crimes live? No news media outlet has shown that kind of stuff in my lifetime. I have no desire to see it either.
It's not censorship just because facebook takes it down. Censorship is about ensuring that a person doesn't see it. Facebook is simply culturing their own environment, saying that such content won't be in this one place. That's not censorship any more than no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service. That's not censoring bare feet; it's just running a restaurant; you can be barefoot elsewhere.
I won't let you have sex in my home, by the way. I'm not censoring sex. I'm controlling my household. You've got your own household.