It's called LibreOffice (also OpenOffice, based upon the same code, might be substituted too.) While not perfect, that is a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. It's also installed by default on almost all desktop GNU/Linux distributions, which makes me wonder whether you've even bothered to try using any real distributions, despite the implication of your first sentence.
The problem with your logic is that you don't see people violating our laws and the government not enforcing the laws as a problem. We are going on 20 years of presidents picking and choosing which laws they like/dislike (Obama failing to enforce and vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Bush deciding that pesky things like the Fourth Amendment were more advisory in nature, and others). In fact it is the only thing the current generation has even seen presidents do.
The problem with your logic is that you think this is about illegal immigrants. Your entire rest of your post rests on the presumption that this is all Trump cares about. If that were the case, Slashdotters wouldn't be so excited by the notion he's going to "do something" about H1-Bs. Do you think H1-Bs are illegal? For the matter, look at what Trump is actually doing, to thunderous applause from his supporters: Do you think being a refugee and turning up at an American airport is illegal? Do you think that having a visa issued by an American embassy in a country that's suffering war or terrorism is illega?
Look again at the words Trump uses. He's not talking about how Mexicans are here without valid visas and making some nuanced point about the consequences of immigration outside of the legal immigration framework that applies to everyone else.
No, he's flat out stating that Mexicans who come to America are rapists, murderers, and drug pushers.
You're another variant of the kind of person I'm criticizing, because you've decided to not to care about what Trumps actual reasons are, instead just hoping the fact he's "anti-immigration" means he'll fix an immigration-related issue you care about. He doesn't care about your reasons. He's not doing it for you. He's doing it because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat. His goal is to get you to blame America's problems on immigrants, because it's a hell of a lot easier to ban people from entering America than it is to fix America's problems for real.
Because the reforms the Trump administration are doing to immigration are not about, and never have been about, jobs. That's something Slashdotters have read into it because Slashdotters are convinced rightly or wrongly (actually the issue has a hell of a lot of nuance, so it's both) that H1-Bs negatively impact all of them, and H1-Bs are a type of visa, and the Trump admin has promised to reduce the number of immigrants, and so they read it as "Hey, Trump may be a {insert the long list of many legitimate reasons to worry about Trump here}, but at least he'll do something about H1-Bs because he's anti-immigration!"
It's not about protecting jobs. It's about keeping out foreigners.
Trump began his campaign by a ride down an escalator, followed by a speech about a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country. Literally. Are Mexicans who come into this country without visas doing jobs that Americans are clamoring to do? When Trump explained, in that same speech, why he wanted that wall, he didn't talk about jobs. This was his argument:
When Mexico sends its people, theyâ(TM)re not sending their best. Theyâ(TM)re not sending you. Theyâ(TM)re not sending you. Theyâ(TM)re sending people that have lots of problems and theyâ(TM)re bringing those problems with us. Theyâ(TM)re bringing drugs, theyâ(TM)re bringing crime, theyâ(TM)re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people
This is not about jobs. This is about scapegoating immigrants for America's problems, and then "dealing" with immigrants as a substitute for dealing with the actual problems America has.
Kicking out potential entrepreneurs doesn't contradict that. Hell, it's a logical step: if immigrants are truly evil people responsible for America's problems, then surely encouraging them to take positions of power within the US is the last thing you want to happen.
If that's the way they think, and they do, don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many jobs an immigrant can create. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many lives an immigrant doctor could save. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many scientific breakthroughs an immigrant scientist could make. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many bridges an immigrant engineer could make.
If you address it in terms of a logic that does not start, at its base, with an inherent mistrust of immigrants, you're never going to understand it.
Oh I agree, that said, 20 hours is enough to be uneconomic - for a trip of that length, passengers are going to want better amenities (somewhere to sleep) and fewer would be interested.
This is why corridor services (regular, hourly, services with a total trip of four hours or less) tends to work better as a sustainable (ie self funding) service. You can provide a great deal more comfort than a plane, passengers can work or relax, total trip time is within an order of magnitude (in some cases better than) an equivalent flight, and a full train at airplane ticket prices is virtually always profitable.
5,000 with a perfectly straight 250mph track is, well, expensive enough by itself, but the fact it would be a 20 hour trip means that while it'll be attractive to some, it'll just not attract enough customers and high enough fares to pay for itself.
If it's easier for you to ignore what's you're being told, and invent some other narrative that's easier for you to knock down, then go ahead.
But, to be honest, from where I'm standing, it looks like it makes you a big ol' pussy.
Because, let's be clear here, you're not man enough to click on a link. A link. A single link that would have put the entire thing in context and made it easier for you to understand what you were responding to. You're not man enough because you're such a wuss you're afraid of little words. You hear "Toxic masculinity", and rather than think "What does that mean? I'm strong enough to find out, and damn the consequences", you go "Ooo scary! Please don't hurt me! I'm just a little girl! I'm just going to wish you would go away!"
That makes you weaker even than a woman who says a man is pathetic for crying. So here's a tissue, you wuss. Really, I should take you outside, and beat the shit of you right now. Pull your panties up and get the fuck out of here.
The problem is a combination of certain trips being unrealistic by train (even if a train were capable of consistently traveling at 250mph, and were given a straight piece of track, neither of which are practical, it'd take over 20 hours to cross the continental USA) and a lack of investment in rail. Amtrak is always short of funds, it does what it can with what it has, and is at least slowly working on the corridor strategy (the only sane way to do sustainable mid-distance train travel), but it's not exactly in a position to build a 5000 mile NYC to LA high speed track.
Yeah, some traits commonly associated with males are toxic, that's well understood.
I would reword that because as it stands its compatible with the Internet-Anti-Feminist "definition" of toxic masculinity ("They're saying we're toxic! TOXIC! Let's flood Anita Sarkeesian's Twitter feed with death threats until they stop!")
I would use "Some traits that society encourages men to exhibit are toxic."
That's compatible with the actual definition of the term, and but rejects, more or less, the paranoid-Gamergater definition.
Amazon does free shipping too. Prime is for unlimited two day shipping (plus no minimums, a Netflix style video service, a cut down Rhapsody type music service, and quite a few other benefits.)
Amazon just bought Whole Foods, making it a direct competitor to Walmart
While both sell food, I wouldn't call them competitors.
Amazon is a competitor to Walmart because of what they already sell, they both are one stop "shops" for "everything". Amazon has a better selection, Walmart is within 15 minutes drive. It has nothing to do with Walmart worrying that people will go to Amazon to buy organic whole earth GMO-free quinoa - just read the outright snobbery in one of the other threads about Whole Foods, those are not people who'll be caught dead in Walmart.
They've actually been predicting it since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and been more or less right - you don't work as hard as a serf did in the 1600s, or a factory worker did in the 19th Century.
This just in: Tesla is actually run by your mom's friend. "I hear you work for Apple making something called "compilers"? Anyway, could you come over and help me with my PC some time as its running slow. Also I might have a job for you building autonomous vehicle control systems!"
No, he's right, "toxic masculinity" is the phrase that actually describes this. The fact that TM is also a demonstration of contradictory, hypocritical, social standards is one of the signs TM is a bad thing.
The women aren't simply expressing their own opinions, those opinions were not formed in a vacuum. They're repeating what they've been brought up to believe, that men need to bottle their emotions, and that expressing emotions is a feminine, anti-masculine, quality. They've been brought up to believe that's an acceptable and reasonable thing to assert because that's what society pushes, it's a common theme to the movies and television we watch, the stories we tell one another, and the language we use. People - men and women - tell other people upset about things to "Be a man" by which they mean shut the fuck up and stop showing how upset you are.
If it wasn't a common social meme (if that's the right word), then there's a strong chance the women involved wouldn't have had that reaction, and if they were, wouldn't have felt it worth sharing with one another, any more than an observation than shivering on a cold day is unmasculine.
Every year or two there's a story that comes out about some Christian group - admittedly usually more wacky than the Catholic Church - calling for a ban on the grounds its a rival religion, but it's pretty much always a bunch of nutcases, rather than mainstream Christian. That said, once in a while it's more mainstream.
You're both essentially wrong, the GP is technically correct (the best kind! Hahahahaohgod) in the sense that yes, some Christians do it. But he's misleading in the sense that he suggests this is mainstream, which it isn't.
Well, nothing except for all the Alderaanians on the corvette in the beginning of the movie that, I'm sure, were subsequently marched off to a day at a very nice spa. Hell, within the first five minutes of the movie Vader choked one guy to death himself.
Had died. Not are going to die. The person I was responding to believed that ANH implied that the people who got the Death Star plans had already been killed before the movie started.
You're talking about different people, and you're talking about them dying, not already being dead.
Talk for your own country where corporate interest trumps private property. In mine, anyone who wants to put anything on my property without my consent has to show that the public interest (public interest. Not corporate. Good luck trying that with anything but gas, power and water) outweighs mine AND that he has no other chance to meet this public interest AND that he tried to offer me a reasonable compensation for disadvantaging me.
Yes, my country has the same thing. As I just tried to explain to you, but you apparently didn't bother to read, the land the cables are being laid upon is almost certainly not private property.
If you were making a case that the HOA shouldn't force you to maintain the right of way/easement, then that'd be an reasonable response (and I'd agree with you!) But that land is no more the homeowners than the thick strip of tarmac next to it.
Meh, I'm OK with Comcast. They haven't f---ed me over. Maybe when I eventually move they will, but they haven't yet. Their service is reliable, it's fast, and other than port 25 and a very high data cap, it's unrestricted. I can RDP into work and get better latency than if I RDP over Wifi from my laptop to my desktop. I can stream pretty much anything in 1080P.
Now, if Comcast were also my TV provider, I'd probably have a different view, as their TV service is notorious for hidden fees and shitty service, but the ISP side is actually pretty decent.
Despite the fact the HOA will fine you for not maintaining it, it's probably not the homeowner's property, but part of the right-of-way that includes easements for cables, electricity, water, etc and theoretically can be used to expand the road if need be.
So yeah, it's legal, and if you deliberately cut the cables, you're probably committing criminal property damage.
That said, as someone who hates HOAs way more than Comcast, the idea they're unable to do anything about a third party's doing something unsightly warms the cockles of my heart. It's just a shame that Comcast's subscribers have to put up with shittier, less reliable, service for the same reason.
I thought TFA was an awesome movie, and I'm tired of the whining about it. It was easily one of the top three - it was definitely better than the Ewoks movie. Yes, it had traits in common with the other OT movies - and thank goodness it did, because that's what makes it a Star Wars movie, and not Star Trek with Wookies.
There was nothing about ANH that declared or implied those who got the Death Star plans had died. Perhaps you're confusing ANH with RoTJ ("many Bothans died to...")? The second half of Rogue One was something I've not seen from Hollywood in a long, long, time, it took risks and the result was an emotional punch in the gut that was also exciting to watch.
I doubt R1's quality has much bearing on the Han Solo movie, simply because it's largely different people, but thus far I think Disney's done a surprisingly great job with the franchise. I hope they continue.
It did act upon it. Seven times, according to the headline. What it wasn't able to do, because it's not advanced enough, was do more than it did. For a group of computer nerds, we have a lot of people within our midst who are apparently unaware that the fact a computer does one or two advanced things doesn't make it electronic Superman. We usually laugh at movie directors who think that ("Ooo, a computer, it can do spreadsheets, that also must mean it can become self aware and hack into the Pentagon!"), so why are we doing it here?
Is the Tesla autopilot technology so powerful that it can actually determine what constitutes a safe spot to pull over and do so? My understanding is that right now it's essentially adaptive cruise control with lane assist. It's a superb implementation, but it's not exactly a replacement for a driver quite yet.
Being forced to subscribe to every service you use to create a per-customer-cost-for-life revenue stream is the definition of capitalism in the 21st century.
I wouldn't say you're forced to do anything. You still have the same options you did before Amazon launched this service.
A membership fee means a guaranteed source of revenue, in turn making it easier to try out new ideas and products knowing that there's a financial buffer mitigating some of the risk associated with it, so you'd expect services like this to be tied to Prime.
There's room for improvement, they just never concentrate on that with the arguable exception of speed and memory (RAM and storage), and on the latter what they add they take away (slightly more storage, but bye bye SD card slot...)
I don't think any devices out there right now are "good enough", I use them because they're better than nothing, but for the most part I won't spend more than $100 on a device right now because slim, 6 hour battery life, keyboardless, unexpandable devices are not worth $600, no matter how many Bitcoins they can farm per century.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called LibreOffice (also OpenOffice, based upon the same code, might be substituted too.) While not perfect, that is a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. It's also installed by default on almost all desktop GNU/Linux distributions, which makes me wonder whether you've even bothered to try using any real distributions, despite the implication of your first sentence.
In other news, Larry Ellison says that money still surprises and motivates him.
I don't read that in the GP's post at all, he's arguing the label on a 2x4 that is 1.5" x 3.5" should be something like "2x4 (1.5"x3.5")"
In other news I'm getting a nervous tick after writing that, like the inches symbol needs to be escaped or something... #programmerproblems
The problem with your logic is that you think this is about illegal immigrants. Your entire rest of your post rests on the presumption that this is all Trump cares about. If that were the case, Slashdotters wouldn't be so excited by the notion he's going to "do something" about H1-Bs. Do you think H1-Bs are illegal? For the matter, look at what Trump is actually doing, to thunderous applause from his supporters: Do you think being a refugee and turning up at an American airport is illegal? Do you think that having a visa issued by an American embassy in a country that's suffering war or terrorism is illega?
Look again at the words Trump uses. He's not talking about how Mexicans are here without valid visas and making some nuanced point about the consequences of immigration outside of the legal immigration framework that applies to everyone else.
No, he's flat out stating that Mexicans who come to America are rapists, murderers, and drug pushers.
You're another variant of the kind of person I'm criticizing, because you've decided to not to care about what Trumps actual reasons are, instead just hoping the fact he's "anti-immigration" means he'll fix an immigration-related issue you care about. He doesn't care about your reasons. He's not doing it for you. He's doing it because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat. His goal is to get you to blame America's problems on immigrants, because it's a hell of a lot easier to ban people from entering America than it is to fix America's problems for real.
Because the reforms the Trump administration are doing to immigration are not about, and never have been about, jobs. That's something Slashdotters have read into it because Slashdotters are convinced rightly or wrongly (actually the issue has a hell of a lot of nuance, so it's both) that H1-Bs negatively impact all of them, and H1-Bs are a type of visa, and the Trump admin has promised to reduce the number of immigrants, and so they read it as "Hey, Trump may be a {insert the long list of many legitimate reasons to worry about Trump here}, but at least he'll do something about H1-Bs because he's anti-immigration!"
It's not about protecting jobs. It's about keeping out foreigners.
Trump began his campaign by a ride down an escalator, followed by a speech about a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country. Literally. Are Mexicans who come into this country without visas doing jobs that Americans are clamoring to do? When Trump explained, in that same speech, why he wanted that wall, he didn't talk about jobs. This was his argument:
This is not about jobs. This is about scapegoating immigrants for America's problems, and then "dealing" with immigrants as a substitute for dealing with the actual problems America has.
Kicking out potential entrepreneurs doesn't contradict that. Hell, it's a logical step: if immigrants are truly evil people responsible for America's problems, then surely encouraging them to take positions of power within the US is the last thing you want to happen.
If that's the way they think, and they do, don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many jobs an immigrant can create. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many lives an immigrant doctor could save. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many scientific breakthroughs an immigrant scientist could make. Don't expect them to make decisions based upon how many bridges an immigrant engineer could make.
If you address it in terms of a logic that does not start, at its base, with an inherent mistrust of immigrants, you're never going to understand it.
Oh I agree, that said, 20 hours is enough to be uneconomic - for a trip of that length, passengers are going to want better amenities (somewhere to sleep) and fewer would be interested.
This is why corridor services (regular, hourly, services with a total trip of four hours or less) tends to work better as a sustainable (ie self funding) service. You can provide a great deal more comfort than a plane, passengers can work or relax, total trip time is within an order of magnitude (in some cases better than) an equivalent flight, and a full train at airplane ticket prices is virtually always profitable.
5,000 with a perfectly straight 250mph track is, well, expensive enough by itself, but the fact it would be a 20 hour trip means that while it'll be attractive to some, it'll just not attract enough customers and high enough fares to pay for itself.
If it's easier for you to ignore what's you're being told, and invent some other narrative that's easier for you to knock down, then go ahead.
But, to be honest, from where I'm standing, it looks like it makes you a big ol' pussy.
Because, let's be clear here, you're not man enough to click on a link. A link. A single link that would have put the entire thing in context and made it easier for you to understand what you were responding to. You're not man enough because you're such a wuss you're afraid of little words. You hear "Toxic masculinity", and rather than think "What does that mean? I'm strong enough to find out, and damn the consequences", you go "Ooo scary! Please don't hurt me! I'm just a little girl! I'm just going to wish you would go away!"
That makes you weaker even than a woman who says a man is pathetic for crying. So here's a tissue, you wuss. Really, I should take you outside, and beat the shit of you right now. Pull your panties up and get the fuck out of here.
The problem is a combination of certain trips being unrealistic by train (even if a train were capable of consistently traveling at 250mph, and were given a straight piece of track, neither of which are practical, it'd take over 20 hours to cross the continental USA) and a lack of investment in rail. Amtrak is always short of funds, it does what it can with what it has, and is at least slowly working on the corridor strategy (the only sane way to do sustainable mid-distance train travel), but it's not exactly in a position to build a 5000 mile NYC to LA high speed track.
I would reword that because as it stands its compatible with the Internet-Anti-Feminist "definition" of toxic masculinity ("They're saying we're toxic! TOXIC! Let's flood Anita Sarkeesian's Twitter feed with death threats until they stop!")
I would use "Some traits that society encourages men to exhibit are toxic."
That's compatible with the actual definition of the term, and but rejects, more or less, the paranoid-Gamergater definition.
Amazon does free shipping too. Prime is for unlimited two day shipping (plus no minimums, a Netflix style video service, a cut down Rhapsody type music service, and quite a few other benefits.)
While both sell food, I wouldn't call them competitors.
Amazon is a competitor to Walmart because of what they already sell, they both are one stop "shops" for "everything". Amazon has a better selection, Walmart is within 15 minutes drive. It has nothing to do with Walmart worrying that people will go to Amazon to buy organic whole earth GMO-free quinoa - just read the outright snobbery in one of the other threads about Whole Foods, those are not people who'll be caught dead in Walmart.
They've actually been predicting it since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and been more or less right - you don't work as hard as a serf did in the 1600s, or a factory worker did in the 19th Century.
This just in: Tesla is actually run by your mom's friend. "I hear you work for Apple making something called "compilers"? Anyway, could you come over and help me with my PC some time as its running slow. Also I might have a job for you building autonomous vehicle control systems!"
No, he's right, "toxic masculinity" is the phrase that actually describes this. The fact that TM is also a demonstration of contradictory, hypocritical, social standards is one of the signs TM is a bad thing.
The women aren't simply expressing their own opinions, those opinions were not formed in a vacuum. They're repeating what they've been brought up to believe, that men need to bottle their emotions, and that expressing emotions is a feminine, anti-masculine, quality. They've been brought up to believe that's an acceptable and reasonable thing to assert because that's what society pushes, it's a common theme to the movies and television we watch, the stories we tell one another, and the language we use. People - men and women - tell other people upset about things to "Be a man" by which they mean shut the fuck up and stop showing how upset you are.
If it wasn't a common social meme (if that's the right word), then there's a strong chance the women involved wouldn't have had that reaction, and if they were, wouldn't have felt it worth sharing with one another, any more than an observation than shivering on a cold day is unmasculine.
Every year or two there's a story that comes out about some Christian group - admittedly usually more wacky than the Catholic Church - calling for a ban on the grounds its a rival religion, but it's pretty much always a bunch of nutcases, rather than mainstream Christian. That said, once in a while it's more mainstream.
You're both essentially wrong, the GP is technically correct (the best kind! Hahahahaohgod) in the sense that yes, some Christians do it. But he's misleading in the sense that he suggests this is mainstream, which it isn't.
Had died. Not are going to die. The person I was responding to believed that ANH implied that the people who got the Death Star plans had already been killed before the movie started.
You're talking about different people, and you're talking about them dying, not already being dead.
Yes, my country has the same thing. As I just tried to explain to you, but you apparently didn't bother to read, the land the cables are being laid upon is almost certainly not private property.
If you were making a case that the HOA shouldn't force you to maintain the right of way/easement, then that'd be an reasonable response (and I'd agree with you!) But that land is no more the homeowners than the thick strip of tarmac next to it.
Meh, I'm OK with Comcast. They haven't f---ed me over. Maybe when I eventually move they will, but they haven't yet. Their service is reliable, it's fast, and other than port 25 and a very high data cap, it's unrestricted. I can RDP into work and get better latency than if I RDP over Wifi from my laptop to my desktop. I can stream pretty much anything in 1080P.
Now, if Comcast were also my TV provider, I'd probably have a different view, as their TV service is notorious for hidden fees and shitty service, but the ISP side is actually pretty decent.
Despite the fact the HOA will fine you for not maintaining it, it's probably not the homeowner's property, but part of the right-of-way that includes easements for cables, electricity, water, etc and theoretically can be used to expand the road if need be.
So yeah, it's legal, and if you deliberately cut the cables, you're probably committing criminal property damage.
That said, as someone who hates HOAs way more than Comcast, the idea they're unable to do anything about a third party's doing something unsightly warms the cockles of my heart. It's just a shame that Comcast's subscribers have to put up with shittier, less reliable, service for the same reason.
I thought TFA was an awesome movie, and I'm tired of the whining about it. It was easily one of the top three - it was definitely better than the Ewoks movie. Yes, it had traits in common with the other OT movies - and thank goodness it did, because that's what makes it a Star Wars movie, and not Star Trek with Wookies.
There was nothing about ANH that declared or implied those who got the Death Star plans had died. Perhaps you're confusing ANH with RoTJ ("many Bothans died to...")? The second half of Rogue One was something I've not seen from Hollywood in a long, long, time, it took risks and the result was an emotional punch in the gut that was also exciting to watch.
I doubt R1's quality has much bearing on the Han Solo movie, simply because it's largely different people, but thus far I think Disney's done a surprisingly great job with the franchise. I hope they continue.
It did act upon it. Seven times, according to the headline. What it wasn't able to do, because it's not advanced enough, was do more than it did. For a group of computer nerds, we have a lot of people within our midst who are apparently unaware that the fact a computer does one or two advanced things doesn't make it electronic Superman. We usually laugh at movie directors who think that ("Ooo, a computer, it can do spreadsheets, that also must mean it can become self aware and hack into the Pentagon!"), so why are we doing it here?
Is the Tesla autopilot technology so powerful that it can actually determine what constitutes a safe spot to pull over and do so? My understanding is that right now it's essentially adaptive cruise control with lane assist. It's a superb implementation, but it's not exactly a replacement for a driver quite yet.
Sure, because being tired makes you dumb. Which means you might make a dumb decision, like driving a car.
That said, I agree with the general principle here that "autopilot" was not at fault.
I wouldn't say you're forced to do anything. You still have the same options you did before Amazon launched this service.
A membership fee means a guaranteed source of revenue, in turn making it easier to try out new ideas and products knowing that there's a financial buffer mitigating some of the risk associated with it, so you'd expect services like this to be tied to Prime.
There's room for improvement, they just never concentrate on that with the arguable exception of speed and memory (RAM and storage), and on the latter what they add they take away (slightly more storage, but bye bye SD card slot...)
I don't think any devices out there right now are "good enough", I use them because they're better than nothing, but for the most part I won't spend more than $100 on a device right now because slim, 6 hour battery life, keyboardless, unexpandable devices are not worth $600, no matter how many Bitcoins they can farm per century.