that's fine for individuals. if it was only individuals, most of us wouldnt care. one person makes 20$, lobbies a congressman, another makes 20million and lobbies...a little onesided, but stillan individual. and a million people with 20$ can band together and resist one person with 20mil. and individuals tend to lobby for themselves, and keep a mind open to rights.
but corporations get the same rights. and corporations have billions even trillions to lobby with. and they dont give a damn about individuals or rights or anything else. they (not all, but neough to give all a bad name) lobby for what makes them more money, regardless of who or what it may hurt. "we just killed off right to xxxx...but we got record profits! yay us!"
The pc will not die until you see virtual reality interfaces not only becomes the norm, but realistic.
we're talking Minority Report (movie) style, wearable computers, full voice interaction (that is real, and not silly/embarrassing)so you can dictate rather than type your essays to your computer like you would a stenographer/secratary, etc.
and even then, I doubt it.
I dont believe pc's will get super expensive either. its not likes pc's have to use XX hardware and tablets/phones have to use YY. if that happens and pc's get expensive it wont take long at all until someone breaks the price barrier by making a desktop with YY parts.
and there wont be software lockout cause there are ALWAYS people who will resist being told what they can and cant do on a system/OS, and they will hack it, and you'll have linux or win7, or whatever else you want, running on it in a short time.
where does he imply his advice was ever bad? quite the opposite he says he is using his own advice, and it works.
why is it worrying that his stance didnt change? he didnt even say what specific advice he gave, but you are fronting the assumption that it doesnt matter, he didnt have kids, ergo he must have been wrong and it should have changed when he did have kids...and the fact it didnt is "worrying".... but you know, he couldnt have just been right all along like he asserts.
your statement about correctness is simply illogical and wrong.
"dismiss good advice" comment..."you know Margie, you really should put those plastic covers over the unused outlets"... good advice... no hindsight needed. and people knowingly reject good advice, all the time. part of being human.
raising kids is not the be all end all school of whats right and wrong about raising kids. -believe it or not, rational logic holds true regardless of parental status. -most of us tend to be very like one or both of our parents, and the natural inclination is to raise our kids the same way. but if you are honest with yourself, you can look back at your own arising, and determine what worked on you, and what didnt. what was right, and what didnt really work. and you even need kids to do it.
your assumption is wrong. less respsonsible means exactly what it says: people not capable of keeping their legs closed or using wrappers. is there a correlation there? i dont know, you tell me. you seem to think there is, or that most people think there is.
The "friend" proverb isnt an all or nothing statement. its simply a reminder that when push comes to shove, ie when a hard decision comes up, you have to remember that your responsibilities as a parent come first. a "friend" might look the other way when a kid sneaks something they shouldnt, a parent wont. you can be friends with your kids, just not to the extent that you lose your authority as the parent. that's all it means.
Most engineers already think a total dyson sphere is absurd, at least for a first or even 10th effort. The task of fulling enclosing a star? Instead most likely what you would see would be a network of solar arrays, mssive though they be, but also most likely out of the orbital plane ("polar" caps being the most logical and simplest logitically), so that the majority of the star's light still radiates normally.
Firstly, she's married to Andrew Lloyd Webber, no slouch in the money making process there. Second, she's a world famous singer in her own right. As such she doesnt make money off records, its all from performances, and top form operatic singers get a f-ton of money.
So next time Ken Oberman spouts off one of his equally crazy rants we can go with "left-wing radio and TV liar/clown/sensationalist/etc Ken Oberman" ?
Clown is obviously meant to be a dig, an insult. And much as I may agree with the assessment, allowing it to fly in the summary is akin to when some of Fox news' tv faces while supposedly reporting the news saying something like "And today Liar-In-Chief Obama met with world leaders in the UN General Assembly to..."
Any first year journalism student knows better than to write something like that summary.
And the GOP is unique in this? Did you just mentally tune out when the "fascist liberals hate Bush, so they'll lie like son of a bitches EVERY TIME something happens" during the previous 8 years?
Standard political rules: -When its your guy, he gets all the credit and none of the blame, regardless of how much of each he deserves. -When its not, he gets none of the credit and all the blame, regardless of how much of each he deserves.
I've read the party platform and none of those statements is in there.
In fact, it may astonish you to know, that there are a great many religious people on the left as well, many of whom also believe that stuff.
Only ~15% of the population identifies as not religious. Other than a small sliver of "Other" everyone else, ~79%, claims to be Christian. Christians, their political beliefs, and their beliefs on "bible strictness" shall we say, vary widely. No one side can claim a monopoly on any of it.
So lets get the facts straight: -Not all GOP are Christians -Not all Christians are GOP -Not all atheists or other non-religious are Democrats -Not all Democrats are non-religious -Not all Christians believe what you said -There are plenty of atheist GOP -There are plenty of fundamentalist Christian democrats
It was fishy 11 years ago when it was first created. It's still fishy now. All the entities that were put under its umbrella (ICE, BCP, Coast Guard, etc) can and should go back to being seperate entities.
Be funny as hell...all the pressure of the crust causes a jet of mantle material to gush skyward..... As long as I dont live anywhere near it anyway. Then it wouldnt be so funny.
Because a volcano isnt a straight shot. Know how water flows through rock via the cracks and fissures? Same thing with a volcano, just molten rock instead of water as the fluid.
We also have seatbelt laws and mandatory super high car safety requirements here. And it's been pointed out before: the more safe you tell people something is, the more likely they are to push that thing and abuse it. IE, but driving faster and more recklessly.
Take away all the seat belts, tell people if they get in accident they'll die, and watch how carefully and politely they start driving.
Kinda like the concept of an armed society: when everyone is packing, and everyone knows it, all of a sudden, everyone is very very polite to each other. (And to forestall the complaints of gun violence) Notice the phrase everyone; when only ~10% are (and thats the true number of people that actually carry in public, total number of private owned guns not withstanding), you got 90% chance of being able to push people around, and that's pretty good odds.
Sorry to say it, but also shouldnt have been riding in the dark, probably without a light too, such that you couldnt see the grating. In daylight that would never have happened, unless you weren't "situationally aware", in which case you dont need to be biking or driving or anything else in the first place.
Too many people want safety nets to take the place of taking their own responsibility for controlling their own risk.
The helmet is very rarely going to save your life if youre hit by a car. Most car initiated (driver at fault) impacts don't involve any head smacking. They do involve broken legs, being smeared into the ground, and being run over. Helmets dont help with that. Nearly all car related biking head injurie are from the bike hitting the car instead (biker at fault). -If the car is going fast enough to kill you, the helmet will not stop you from dying. -If the car is not going fast enough to kill you, again the helmet is going to do nothing. -If you hit the car instead, you aren't paying attention and maybe you shouldn't be biking in the first place.
Obvious safety is obvious: -If you're engaged in high risk biking (mountain, urban messenger, dodging traffic, high speed), you should obviously wear a helmet in case you tumble. -If you're engaged in low-risk biking (leisure, at the park, etc), the helmet does nothing for you except make you uncomfortable and less likely to partake. And I do know people who don't bike for just that reason. -Kids wear helmets because they usually arent fully situationally aware, are less skilled, and dont understand risk control yet. Adults should be able to make the choice for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
that's fine for individuals.
if it was only individuals, most of us wouldnt care. one person makes 20$, lobbies a congressman, another makes 20million and lobbies...a little onesided, but stillan individual. and a million people with 20$ can band together and resist one person with 20mil. and individuals tend to lobby for themselves, and keep a mind open to rights.
but corporations get the same rights. and corporations have billions even trillions to lobby with. and they dont give a damn about individuals or rights or anything else. they (not all, but neough to give all a bad name) lobby for what makes them more money, regardless of who or what it may hurt. "we just killed off right to xxxx...but we got record profits! yay us!"
The pc will not die until you see virtual reality interfaces not only becomes the norm, but realistic.
we're talking Minority Report (movie) style, wearable computers, full voice interaction (that is real, and not silly/embarrassing)so you can dictate rather than type your essays to your computer like you would a stenographer/secratary, etc.
and even then, I doubt it.
I dont believe pc's will get super expensive either. its not likes pc's have to use XX hardware and tablets/phones have to use YY. if that happens and pc's get expensive it wont take long at all until someone breaks the price barrier by making a desktop with YY parts.
and there wont be software lockout cause there are ALWAYS people who will resist being told what they can and cant do on a system/OS, and they will hack it, and you'll have linux or win7, or whatever else you want, running on it in a short time.
You make a lot of assumptions.
reading comprehension. you dont have it.
where does he imply his advice was ever bad? quite the opposite he says he is using his own advice, and it works.
why is it worrying that his stance didnt change? he didnt even say what specific advice he gave, but you are fronting the assumption that it doesnt matter, he didnt have kids, ergo he must have been wrong and it should have changed when he did have kids...and the fact it didnt is "worrying" .... but you know, he couldnt have just been right all along like he asserts.
your statement about correctness is simply illogical and wrong.
"dismiss good advice" comment..."you know Margie, you really should put those plastic covers over the unused outlets" ... good advice... no hindsight needed. and people knowingly reject good advice, all the time. part of being human.
raising kids is not the be all end all school of whats right and wrong about raising kids.
-believe it or not, rational logic holds true regardless of parental status.
-most of us tend to be very like one or both of our parents, and the natural inclination is to raise our kids the same way. but if you are honest with yourself, you can look back at your own arising, and determine what worked on you, and what didnt. what was right, and what didnt really work. and you even need kids to do it.
your assumption is wrong.
less respsonsible means exactly what it says: people not capable of keeping their legs closed or using wrappers.
is there a correlation there? i dont know, you tell me. you seem to think there is, or that most people think there is.
The "friend" proverb isnt an all or nothing statement. its simply a reminder that when push comes to shove, ie when a hard decision comes up, you have to remember that your responsibilities as a parent come first. a "friend" might look the other way when a kid sneaks something they shouldnt, a parent wont. you can be friends with your kids, just not to the extent that you lose your authority as the parent. that's all it means.
idiot
Clueless PE teacher for me.
"If you install Doom on one of these computers again, I'll have you expelled. You could have infested every computer in here with a virus."
[the computers were not networked]
Most engineers already think a total dyson sphere is absurd, at least for a first or even 10th effort. The task of fulling enclosing a star?
Instead most likely what you would see would be a network of solar arrays, mssive though they be, but also most likely out of the orbital plane ("polar" caps being the most logical and simplest logitically), so that the majority of the star's light still radiates normally.
I refuse to vote for a rogue. Or frost mage.
Implied fallacies in your post:
-There's no Democratis extremists
-All libertarians are republicans
Firstly, she's married to Andrew Lloyd Webber, no slouch in the money making process there.
Second, she's a world famous singer in her own right. As such she doesnt make money off records, its all from performances, and top form operatic singers get a f-ton of money.
So next time Ken Oberman spouts off one of his equally crazy rants we can go with "left-wing radio and TV liar/clown/sensationalist/etc Ken Oberman" ?
Clown is obviously meant to be a dig, an insult. And much as I may agree with the assessment, allowing it to fly in the summary is akin to when some of Fox news' tv faces while supposedly reporting the news saying something like "And today Liar-In-Chief Obama met with world leaders in the UN General Assembly to ..."
Any first year journalism student knows better than to write something like that summary.
And the GOP is unique in this?
Did you just mentally tune out when the "fascist liberals hate Bush, so they'll lie like son of a bitches EVERY TIME something happens" during the previous 8 years?
Standard political rules:
-When its your guy, he gets all the credit and none of the blame, regardless of how much of each he deserves.
-When its not, he gets none of the credit and all the blame, regardless of how much of each he deserves.
I've read the party platform and none of those statements is in there.
In fact, it may astonish you to know, that there are a great many religious people on the left as well, many of whom also believe that stuff.
Only ~15% of the population identifies as not religious. Other than a small sliver of "Other" everyone else, ~79%, claims to be Christian. Christians, their political beliefs, and their beliefs on "bible strictness" shall we say, vary widely. No one side can claim a monopoly on any of it.
So lets get the facts straight:
-Not all GOP are Christians
-Not all Christians are GOP
-Not all atheists or other non-religious are Democrats
-Not all Democrats are non-religious
-Not all Christians believe what you said
-There are plenty of atheist GOP
-There are plenty of fundamentalist Christian democrats
More DHS reports, this one from Wired.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dhs-false-water-pump-hack/
Taco Bell.
Cheap.
Fast.
Edible.
Has real vegetables.
It was fishy 11 years ago when it was first created. It's still fishy now.
All the entities that were put under its umbrella (ICE, BCP, Coast Guard, etc) can and should go back to being seperate entities.
Be funny as hell...all the pressure of the crust causes a jet of mantle material to gush skyward.....
As long as I dont live anywhere near it anyway. Then it wouldnt be so funny.
Because a volcano isnt a straight shot. Know how water flows through rock via the cracks and fissures? Same thing with a volcano, just molten rock instead of water as the fluid.
Exactly what part of the movie was meant to be scientifically accurate?
It was a summer popcorn movie, not a documentary.
Their repossession is probably illegal, or contract breach anyway.
At least done under "false claims / terms."
We also have seatbelt laws and mandatory super high car safety requirements here.
And it's been pointed out before: the more safe you tell people something is, the more likely they are to push that thing and abuse it. IE, but driving faster and more recklessly.
Take away all the seat belts, tell people if they get in accident they'll die, and watch how carefully and politely they start driving.
Kinda like the concept of an armed society: when everyone is packing, and everyone knows it, all of a sudden, everyone is very very polite to each other. (And to forestall the complaints of gun violence) Notice the phrase everyone; when only ~10% are (and thats the true number of people that actually carry in public, total number of private owned guns not withstanding), you got 90% chance of being able to push people around, and that's pretty good odds.
Sorry to say it, but also shouldnt have been riding in the dark, probably without a light too, such that you couldnt see the grating. In daylight that would never have happened, unless you weren't "situationally aware", in which case you dont need to be biking or driving or anything else in the first place.
Too many people want safety nets to take the place of taking their own responsibility for controlling their own risk.
The helmet is very rarely going to save your life if youre hit by a car. Most car initiated (driver at fault) impacts don't involve any head smacking. They do involve broken legs, being smeared into the ground, and being run over. Helmets dont help with that. Nearly all car related biking head injurie are from the bike hitting the car instead (biker at fault).
-If the car is going fast enough to kill you, the helmet will not stop you from dying.
-If the car is not going fast enough to kill you, again the helmet is going to do nothing.
-If you hit the car instead, you aren't paying attention and maybe you shouldn't be biking in the first place.
Obvious safety is obvious:
-If you're engaged in high risk biking (mountain, urban messenger, dodging traffic, high speed), you should obviously wear a helmet in case you tumble.
-If you're engaged in low-risk biking (leisure, at the park, etc), the helmet does nothing for you except make you uncomfortable and less likely to partake. And I do know people who don't bike for just that reason.
-Kids wear helmets because they usually arent fully situationally aware, are less skilled, and dont understand risk control yet. Adults should be able to make the choice for themselves.