"How insulting can I be to someone in a bar without getting a fist in my face?" "Well, I can offer you advice, but you can't count on it if you make trouble" "Yes, but that's too vague. I want exact rules!" "That's not how it works, and trying to get right up to some limit is just asking for trouble"
It feels very strange to me that someone could be set for life, catapaulted to wealth far beyond what most individuals might accrue, based on a legal judgement like this.
Life expectancy in the US is in fact not falling. You may be right that people are less fit than they were, but modern medicine more than makes up for that. The statistics support this.
I'm amused at the style of "insult people as much as you can" as an argumentative tactic.
They can grumble about whatever they like. Perhaps it's more complicated than you think and something else could give. If it is actually that simple, all that happens is that they grumble about something that can't be fixed given their starting ground. It's hard to tell if something else can give, so the grumbling isn't necessarily pointless.
The best reason to be wary of Austin is traffic. The city has seen tremendous growth over the last decade and their transit system is inadequate and hard to fix.
The second best reason is because the state politics are bonkers (California's politics are crazy in a different way).
Still, Austin's a very nice city in a lot of ways.
First, the government is not "just another actor", and your tit-for-tat ideas are this nonsense, as are the claims of hypocrisy. They're allowed. Second, plenty of us don't really care if we're being recorded but being blocked actually stops us from having communications we want.
Modern technologies, even comm technologies, have made some dangers (like heart attacks) significantly less dangerous. We've built a better world, and just because people survived the old doesn't mean that we should permit people to recreate those older dangers.
That's not a method, it's just an axis. To call it a method and attempting to use that as a way to draw the ties is to overreach; Marx and Engels' writings on these topics does not resemble the crazy shit we see today that some people call "Cultural Marxism".
I don't think any DP1.3 devices are consumer-available yet, and they're already releasing the DP1.4 spec. Not that it's their fault, but I wish we could have faster movement on the hardware side.
You make compromises when you make a device like this. The Pi is great for a lot of projects, but it won't be great for everybody. I might care about networking performance for other devices, but for my Pis (I normally tend to buy about 10-20), I won't care one bit about this unless it can't even effectively do 10 megabit.
I first read about this in another context, which was about making airplanes more comfortable for really fat people. Although I hate the random event of sitting next to a fat person and having them spill over into my space (and trying to force them not to do that), I hate more that my space could simply be reduced because some slider was scooted over for them.
Even if the facts are good and the theory is right, the analysis quoted is broken. A theory doesn't need to be able to explain the entire universe to have *some* predictive power. It's also weird to say that the equations "break down" in such an unqualified sense; what is meant (presumably) is that there are conditions where those equations can't be evaluated and likely don't apply.
Interesting to read your evaluation. I disagree with all your points except the last (and I define gender in terms of genetics), but I'm comfortable with that disagreement.
Unless by chance you're looking to build something that's not Unix-based, there's no strong reason to prefer an x86 board for things the Pi is good at. Once the system is booted and your software is compiled, there's little functional difference between one architecture and another.
We should always reject and ignore demands/requests for consideration or special treatment of some topics in discussions that take in the general public. Maybe in the workplace it'd be good to avoid some topics, likewise at some special events, but otherwise talk and joke about whatever you want, and if someone must be ostracised it should be those trying to fence topics off rather than those who ignore the fences.
Imperfection of a regime doesn't make it crap nor does it stop it from saving lives. Your concern might be reasonable if we can find a nice ideally-mechanical standard to replace it that's compellingly better given all possible concerns. Until then, cope.
Slashdot Mirror
"How insulting can I be to someone in a bar without getting a fist in my face?"
"Well, I can offer you advice, but you can't count on it if you make trouble"
"Yes, but that's too vague. I want exact rules!"
"That's not how it works, and trying to get right up to some limit is just asking for trouble"
That's not an intrinsic property. It depends on people deciding to value them.
It feels very strange to me that someone could be set for life, catapaulted to wealth far beyond what most individuals might accrue, based on a legal judgement like this.
Science is how the universe works. Markets are actually pretty flexible - they've existed in a great variety of legal environments.
Life expectancy in the US is in fact not falling. You may be right that people are less fit than they were, but modern medicine more than makes up for that. The statistics support this.
I'm amused at the style of "insult people as much as you can" as an argumentative tactic.
Nobody cares about city limits these days. We're talking about Greater Austin.
They can grumble about whatever they like. Perhaps it's more complicated than you think and something else could give. If it is actually that simple, all that happens is that they grumble about something that can't be fixed given their starting ground. It's hard to tell if something else can give, so the grumbling isn't necessarily pointless.
Sorry, but how democracy works is people have the ability to decide what their city is like. Democracy is more important than markets.
The best reason to be wary of Austin is traffic. The city has seen tremendous growth over the last decade and their transit system is inadequate and hard to fix.
The second best reason is because the state politics are bonkers (California's politics are crazy in a different way).
Still, Austin's a very nice city in a lot of ways.
First, the government is not "just another actor", and your tit-for-tat ideas are this nonsense, as are the claims of hypocrisy. They're allowed.
Second, plenty of us don't really care if we're being recorded but being blocked actually stops us from having communications we want.
Modern technologies, even comm technologies, have made some dangers (like heart attacks) significantly less dangerous. We've built a better world, and just because people survived the old doesn't mean that we should permit people to recreate those older dangers.
That's not a method, it's just an axis. To call it a method and attempting to use that as a way to draw the ties is to overreach; Marx and Engels' writings on these topics does not resemble the crazy shit we see today that some people call "Cultural Marxism".
This stuff has nothing to do with Marxism; I'm always surprised to hear that "cultural Marxism" term. Who came up with it?!
There's so little time for all the neat-looking hardware that's been coming out recently.
I don't think any DP1.3 devices are consumer-available yet, and they're already releasing the DP1.4 spec. Not that it's their fault, but I wish we could have faster movement on the hardware side.
Then they'll just have to grow up as a field and learn to be sane on this, or get left behind with aging hardware until someone reforms things.
You make compromises when you make a device like this. The Pi is great for a lot of projects, but it won't be great for everybody. I might care about networking performance for other devices, but for my Pis (I normally tend to buy about 10-20), I won't care one bit about this unless it can't even effectively do 10 megabit.
I first read about this in another context, which was about making airplanes more comfortable for really fat people. Although I hate the random event of sitting next to a fat person and having them spill over into my space (and trying to force them not to do that), I hate more that my space could simply be reduced because some slider was scooted over for them.
Even if the facts are good and the theory is right, the analysis quoted is broken. A theory doesn't need to be able to explain the entire universe to have *some* predictive power. It's also weird to say that the equations "break down" in such an unqualified sense; what is meant (presumably) is that there are conditions where those equations can't be evaluated and likely don't apply.
Interesting to read your evaluation. I disagree with all your points except the last (and I define gender in terms of genetics), but I'm comfortable with that disagreement.
They misdefine harassment for starters, considering it not a person-to-person thing. Also allowing anonymous reports of harassment is too abusable.
I suggest people just not go to places that have policies like this.
Consider my contrast:
https://docs.google.com/docume...
Pity to see good intentions paired with such an unbalanced plan to enact those intentions.
Unless by chance you're looking to build something that's not Unix-based, there's no strong reason to prefer an x86 board for things the Pi is good at. Once the system is booted and your software is compiled, there's little functional difference between one architecture and another.
We should always reject and ignore demands/requests for consideration or special treatment of some topics in discussions that take in the general public. Maybe in the workplace it'd be good to avoid some topics, likewise at some special events, but otherwise talk and joke about whatever you want, and if someone must be ostracised it should be those trying to fence topics off rather than those who ignore the fences.
Imperfection of a regime doesn't make it crap nor does it stop it from saving lives. Your concern might be reasonable if we can find a nice ideally-mechanical standard to replace it that's compellingly better given all possible concerns. Until then, cope.