I'm sorry. That response is only appropriate in cases in which someone is falsely accused. Blaming the victim when it's actually his fault is a radical new twist on that argument.
Aww and now the money-hating populists with mod points have buried me in their rash haste to silence opposition that proves they are far from objectively correct.
You poor idealists must hate the real world.
So you are fleeing to moral relativism to justify leaching off of people who perform a legitimate services and add value to society? What you do is no different from taxing individual investments and using the earnings to provide welfare for well-to-do bankers. It's no surprise that people don't like the practice.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers at these drug companies were concerned that they would somehow be violating the medical privacy laws by allowing visibility of (potential) users of their product by other FB users. If you were to post on their wall that you had adverse side effects, and your boss saw that comment and took action because of concern for a medical condition the company had previously not known about, I'm sure some plaintiff's lawyer would try to hold the drug company liable for exposing that fact (even while the boss/employer was also clearly in the wrong).
Simply liking the page so that you can see their updates may be a problem.
Unfortunately, this technology probably won't get to far after people read the word 'radioactive', even though I'd hazard to guess that 8g of Thorium probably has less environmental and health impact than 7,500 gallons of gasoline. Otherwise it sounds awesome. Is there another word for 'radioactive' we can use to get rid of the negative connotation?
And that's why you fucked up our credit rating.The S&P does not buy into your bullshit yogurt analogy and neither the GOP nor the tea party had any interest in responsible deficit control. It was all about keeping taxes low, telling the Dems to go fuck themselves, and finding spending cuts. The reason you could not come up with a responsible deficit plan is because it was not your top priority.
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Of course the majority of people are non-nerds and love talking to other people.
So, in the future engineering will be handled by MBAs?
Excuse me, but your reading comprehension is terrible. Either that, or you have no idea what the tea parties stand for. I can tell you that they're definitely for Medicare reform and reducing the deficit, both of which were concerns of S&P.
But the tea party went in with an ideology that trumped everything else. They accomplished nothing because keeping taxes low was more important than the deficit, the S&P rating, medicare or anything else. My reading comprehension is just fine. It's your priorities that need to be questioned.
They offered 4 trillion in cuts, and were willing to work with the other party. The tea party and GOP were not. Had the GOP been willing to accept the 4 trillion this would not have happened. Period.
For this survey, every question was a right-wing talking point and they only counted it wrong if you "strongly disagreed" with the GOP position. Mildly disagreeing with Republicans on whether third world workers are being exploited does not brand you "dumber than a fifth grader", but strongly disagreeing does.
Now, the bias in this is transparent, and you could create the opposite result by coming up with a survey consisting of 8 liberal talking points, however.
How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?
As for the downgrade, you should read or skim over the S&P report (warning: pdf). Here are a couple of excerpts:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
and
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
So, I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but they seem more worried about our inability to address medicare, the deficit in general, and the fact that we just finished a national argument about whether or not to default. Thanks, Tea party, your unwillingness to compromise is one of the reasons for the downgrade.
If you set your cell phone at a desk, plug in an HDMI interface (or some newer alternative), and start working via a real monitor, bluetooth keyboard and mouse, what do you call that*?
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Why not ask the people you are considering donating the pc to? Ask them what they currently use, what they might use it for, and what the current skill set will be for the people working with it (both the teachers/helpers and the children). It is possible that they would love to have an edubuntu box, because that gives them access to software they didn't have on the existing windows box. Or it is possible that they will turn their nose up at it, and relegate it to the "if nothing else is available, there's always the weird Linux computer" status.
You'll never know until you talk to the people who will be using it.
Thank you, both for knowing what the hell TFA is talking about, and breaking it down in a way that the rest of us can understand. Why don't the people who make APIs hire people like you, to sell dimwits like me, on why libraries like this are useful?
In other news, shitwater brand bottled water will be changing their names...The CEO attributed the decision to a recent study showing that people care about the quality of products.
For folks who've never heard of Zediva, they apparently let customers stream newly released movies. Their business model was that the customers rent the DVD and DVD player which are both located at their facility, and the customers access them over the Internet. Clever approach, but this shutdown should be of no surprise.
I skimmed TFA, but does this mean that their business model was nothing more than "standard video rental" on the internet with artificial restrictions in place to prevent one real copy from being distributed to more than one person at a time?
I would have to agree with anrego about the Apple part. Forgive me for not using a car analogy, but if you're getting married, there is a large amount of work to do. You have to buy a cake, pick decorations, write your vows, (find someone to conduct it if you're an atheist), find a place to hold it, throw the biggest formal party of you life, and plan a honeymoon on top of that.
Or you could hire a wedding planner.
Apple is a wedding planner. They take care of all the details and just try to integrate several small things in a way that works. Now, I don't want every company to be like Apple, but I can see the advantage of the business model. (Not a fan of Apple, I just think this is one thing they got right).
The question is this: if everybody is following the Apple model (in some industry), then is this something that should be split up, or is this just a sign that many of the elements have become commoditized to the point where customization is irrelevant?
Thank you. I feel a little dumb now. They don't really have to find more efficient ways to make cars. They just have to wait for people to stop wanting gas guzzlers*, and then stop making them.
* I feel dumb for never considering that the headline might be an accurate description of what would happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Expert Tic-Tac-Toe players are very good at recognizing Xs and Os.
I think it quite reasonable for an employer to know whether a potential employee is a convicted thief or has a record of violence.
I do agree that these offences should become 'spent' after a period of time, for example ater 5 years of keeping out of trouble.
That five year period, isn't that what probation is for?
Don't do anything illegal.
I'm sorry. That response is only appropriate in cases in which someone is falsely accused. Blaming the victim when it's actually his fault is a radical new twist on that argument.
She definitely knows Bill Clinton.
That depends on what your definition of "know" is. Technically, she only gave him a blowjob, which wouldn't qualify for definition #3.
But she did know a cigar that would give him a solid 4.
Aww and now the money-hating populists with mod points have buried me in their rash haste to silence opposition that proves they are far from objectively correct.
You poor idealists must hate the real world.
So you are fleeing to moral relativism to justify leaching off of people who perform a legitimate services and add value to society? What you do is no different from taxing individual investments and using the earnings to provide welfare for well-to-do bankers. It's no surprise that people don't like the practice.
Well, they've already gone apeshit with the version numbers anyway. I favor removing the number before it gets to 100.0.
I say name each version after the first thing you exclaim when something goes wrong.
In other news, Mozilla shitfuckdammit will replace the address bar with an animated monkey who suggests up to three web sites to you.
I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers at these drug companies were concerned that they would somehow be violating the medical privacy laws by allowing visibility of (potential) users of their product by other FB users. If you were to post on their wall that you had adverse side effects, and your boss saw that comment and took action because of concern for a medical condition the company had previously not known about, I'm sure some plaintiff's lawyer would try to hold the drug company liable for exposing that fact (even while the boss/employer was also clearly in the wrong).
Simply liking the page so that you can see their updates may be a problem.
Unfortunately, this technology probably won't get to far after people read the word 'radioactive', even though I'd hazard to guess that 8g of Thorium probably has less environmental and health impact than 7,500 gallons of gasoline. Otherwise it sounds awesome. Is there another word for 'radioactive' we can use to get rid of the negative connotation?
"Job-creating"?
And that's why you fucked up our credit rating.The S&P does not buy into your bullshit yogurt analogy and neither the GOP nor the tea party had any interest in responsible deficit control. It was all about keeping taxes low, telling the Dems to go fuck themselves, and finding spending cuts. The reason you could not come up with a responsible deficit plan is because it was not your top priority.
brausse@auedv23:~$ echo $DEITY
brausse@auedv23:~$
Nietzsche was right :)
brausse@auedv23:~$ sudo echo $DIETY
Trent Reznor
brausse@auedv23:~$
WTF?
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Of course the majority of people are non-nerds and love talking to other people.
So, in the future engineering will be handled by MBAs?
Excuse me, but your reading comprehension is terrible. Either that, or you have no idea what the tea parties stand for. I can tell you that they're definitely for Medicare reform and reducing the deficit, both of which were concerns of S&P.
But the tea party went in with an ideology that trumped everything else. They accomplished nothing because keeping taxes low was more important than the deficit, the S&P rating, medicare or anything else. My reading comprehension is just fine. It's your priorities that need to be questioned.
They offered 4 trillion in cuts, and were willing to work with the other party. The tea party and GOP were not. Had the GOP been willing to accept the 4 trillion this would not have happened. Period.
For this survey, every question was a right-wing talking point and they only counted it wrong if you "strongly disagreed" with the GOP position. Mildly disagreeing with Republicans on whether third world workers are being exploited does not brand you "dumber than a fifth grader", but strongly disagreeing does.
Now, the bias in this is transparent, and you could create the opposite result by coming up with a survey consisting of 8 liberal talking points, however.
How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?
As for the downgrade, you should read or skim over the S&P report (warning: pdf). Here are a couple of excerpts:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
and
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.
So, I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but they seem more worried about our inability to address medicare, the deficit in general, and the fact that we just finished a national argument about whether or not to default. Thanks, Tea party, your unwillingness to compromise is one of the reasons for the downgrade.
If you set your cell phone at a desk, plug in an HDMI interface (or some newer alternative), and start working via a real monitor, bluetooth keyboard and mouse, what do you call that*?
* Also, I refuse to believe that we will ever live in some star trek future where keyboards don't exist because engineers instead choose to "talk to" their computers. If we don't like talking to people, what makes you think we want to talk to computers?
Why not ask the people you are considering donating the pc to? Ask them what they currently use, what they might use it for, and what the current skill set will be for the people working with it (both the teachers/helpers and the children). It is possible that they would love to have an edubuntu box, because that gives them access to software they didn't have on the existing windows box. Or it is possible that they will turn their nose up at it, and relegate it to the "if nothing else is available, there's always the weird Linux computer" status.
You'll never know until you talk to the people who will be using it.
Thank you, both for knowing what the hell TFA is talking about, and breaking it down in a way that the rest of us can understand. Why don't the people who make APIs hire people like you, to sell dimwits like me, on why libraries like this are useful?
I am currently using Gnome 2, test-driving XFCE, and have just tried KDE4 (Didn't like it. System resource use was terrible).
So if I try gnome 3 and don't like it, how difficult is it to revert back to gnome 2?
In other news, shitwater brand bottled water will be changing their names...The CEO attributed the decision to a recent study showing that people care about the quality of products.
So does this mean that slingbox is illegal? Or that it is illegal to watch a movie that you own via slingbox?
For folks who've never heard of Zediva, they apparently let customers stream newly released movies. Their business model was that the customers rent the DVD and DVD player which are both located at their facility, and the customers access them over the Internet. Clever approach, but this shutdown should be of no surprise.
I skimmed TFA, but does this mean that their business model was nothing more than "standard video rental" on the internet with artificial restrictions in place to prevent one real copy from being distributed to more than one person at a time?
I would have to agree with anrego about the Apple part. Forgive me for not using a car analogy, but if you're getting married, there is a large amount of work to do. You have to buy a cake, pick decorations, write your vows, (find someone to conduct it if you're an atheist), find a place to hold it, throw the biggest formal party of you life, and plan a honeymoon on top of that.
Or you could hire a wedding planner.
Apple is a wedding planner. They take care of all the details and just try to integrate several small things in a way that works. Now, I don't want every company to be like Apple, but I can see the advantage of the business model. (Not a fan of Apple, I just think this is one thing they got right).
The question is this: if everybody is following the Apple model (in some industry), then is this something that should be split up, or is this just a sign that many of the elements have become commoditized to the point where customization is irrelevant?
Thank you. I feel a little dumb now. They don't really have to find more efficient ways to make cars. They just have to wait for people to stop wanting gas guzzlers*, and then stop making them.
* I feel dumb for never considering that the headline might be an accurate description of what would happen.
ssh <<license number>>
login: admin
password:
shutdown -h now