Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children.
Wrong again. Family has value even if you don't do that.
There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.
Maybe (and maybe not) but it's irrelevant to the value of family.
When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.
Everything in the world has, by definition, exactly the value paid for it. It's a circular argument but it goes right to the definition of "value".
I thought he looked up actual real women in a database to gather information about them which would assist him in carrying out his fantasies. Isn't that a fact of the case? isn't that "taking practical steps"?
It's a hard question. Do we actually have to wait for a monster to murder and eat a woman, or can we arrest him the day before he does it, at which point he has only established a clear motive, capability, willingness, and preparation? I don't know. I don't think the answer is obviously yes or no.
I will support getting rid of the caps when business costs don't vary with bandwidth usage. Until then, like with electricity or gasoline or water or any other utility, cost should scale with use. I don't have any problem with that. My problem is with the secret no-warning charges.
Maybe but my guess is that the people who run that project disagree with the idea that "0.0" should be the version assigned to the first line of code and "1.0" should be the first version deemed stable and ready for general use.
I agree with that kind of numbering so I agree with the GP in this case. I think software statuses are easier to understand when people conform to the 0.0/1.0 convention.
Everyone gets to number their software any way they want, and everyone else gets to gripe about it if they don't like it.
It is just my preferences as an interested citizen. Because we decided to let NASA focus on all the other aspects of outer space, such as telescopes or rovers, they have completely ignored the one thing that I consider to be the only good reason for it to exist: human exploration of space. I also support big-government spending on science and the environment but to allow NASA to do those things is distracting. This is a conclusion based on my total disappointment in NASA's work during my lifetime (since the end of the 1970s).
You hinged your response on NASA's official mission. So, since Earth is no longer part of NASA's mission, does that mean you are convinced by my argument? If not, then the official mission must not be your real objection, in which case what is?
The National Science Foundation, various branches of the military, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency... gosh there are lots of departments that have missions overlapping a satellite like this.
Exactly right. The entire point of a corporation is that it is not the owner. If a corporation can shield its business dealings from the personal assets of its owners, then it can shield its business dealings from the religious beliefs of its owners.
I'm curious about the issue and I want the USA to look into it. But NASA? No. NASA's job is to put human beings on other worlds. NASA's job isn't to sniff CO2 in the air. We have other agencies to do that. If NASA can't do its actual job then it should cease to exist.
I'm glad the US government is doing something like this, but not with NASA. Our space agency needs to get this message: "Put humans on other worlds, or go home. If we want robots or science or satellites or anything else, we'll do that with another agency. For you, concentrate on putting living humans on other chunks of rock, and if you can't manage to do that once per decade then just pack up and save us the money."
The last time NASA did that was fifty years ago. In my space-exploration-loving opinion, NASA should have been disbanded in the late 1970s. Everything since then has been stupid.
"Hey, look, NASA built a space plane call the 'shuttle'! Wow! And they used it to go.... nowhere!"
"Hey, look, NASA built a little remote-controlled car and put it on Mars. Then after that they... well... they built two more and did the same thing... then after that they... uh.... well they built another one and did the same thing..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a satellite and pointed it at... earth..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a telescope and... took pictures of stars... again..."
None of that was worth it. Pack your bags, NASA, because you aren't hitting your numbers. You've been a failure since the Apollo days. Put humans on other worlds. Make it happen or go home, which to me means you need to go home.
He'll lose this suit and in the end some of his money will transfer to lawyers. That's not ideal but it's better than this douchebag from keeping it. The lawyers have a small chance of being good people.
They are equal in the essential dimension: both of them increase the likelihood that disaster will occur during a time when you aren't paying attention.
If you drive twice as fast, or if you pay half the attention, then your disaster-per-attention ratio doubles in both cases.
How about freedom of speech? Isn't he allowed to broadcast anything he wants, any time he wants? All he did was transmit a signal. He didn't physically damage any property or physically harm anybody.
Oh, his signal overlapped with another signal? Okay. So two signals interfere with each other. That makes them equal. Free speech allows you to shout in public to drown out another person shouting in public.
I don't actually believe that is a compelling legal argument, but I also don't think bribing politicians should be protected free speech, yet that is the law today, and I think jamming cell signals is more similar to free speech than is bribing politicians.
So, there is a six-minute video of a guy talking about 3D printing. Am I out of line for expecting a video that shows the 3D printing? I'm not even interested in the first word the guy spoke much less six minutes of him talking. If you promise me "3D Printing with Molten Steel (Video)" is it unreasonable to assume that the Video is of 3D Printing with Molten Steel?
I feel you, but the people with the important opinion are in Congress. If Congress is dissatisfied with rules made under delegated authority, then they haul directors in to answer questions. It happens all the time, every month or two a new commission is asking new questions of somebody. So if Congress thinks the IRS is coloring outside the lines, Congress would tell them to knock it off. If they don't do that, it's reasonable to conclude that the rules accord with the law well enough to satisfy Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Hard work isn't a value in itself.
Of course it is. You just don't have that value.
Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children.
Wrong again. Family has value even if you don't do that.
There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.
Maybe (and maybe not) but it's irrelevant to the value of family.
When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.
Everything in the world has, by definition, exactly the value paid for it. It's a circular argument but it goes right to the definition of "value".
I thought he looked up actual real women in a database to gather information about them which would assist him in carrying out his fantasies. Isn't that a fact of the case? isn't that "taking practical steps"?
It's a hard question. Do we actually have to wait for a monster to murder and eat a woman, or can we arrest him the day before he does it, at which point he has only established a clear motive, capability, willingness, and preparation? I don't know. I don't think the answer is obviously yes or no.
"...that will dictate how they rule on the matter"
You make a good argument but the way the US Supreme Court would rule is by whoever is Catholic.
I will support getting rid of the caps when business costs don't vary with bandwidth usage. Until then, like with electricity or gasoline or water or any other utility, cost should scale with use. I don't have any problem with that. My problem is with the secret no-warning charges.
Maybe but my guess is that the people who run that project disagree with the idea that "0.0" should be the version assigned to the first line of code and "1.0" should be the first version deemed stable and ready for general use.
I agree with that kind of numbering so I agree with the GP in this case. I think software statuses are easier to understand when people conform to the 0.0/1.0 convention.
Everyone gets to number their software any way they want, and everyone else gets to gripe about it if they don't like it.
It is just my preferences as an interested citizen. Because we decided to let NASA focus on all the other aspects of outer space, such as telescopes or rovers, they have completely ignored the one thing that I consider to be the only good reason for it to exist: human exploration of space. I also support big-government spending on science and the environment but to allow NASA to do those things is distracting. This is a conclusion based on my total disappointment in NASA's work during my lifetime (since the end of the 1970s).
NASA's mission statement no longer mentions Earth.
You hinged your response on NASA's official mission. So, since Earth is no longer part of NASA's mission, does that mean you are convinced by my argument? If not, then the official mission must not be your real objection, in which case what is?
No it's not. It used to be, but it hasn't been since the Bush days.
So, with that objection neutralized, are you swayed?
I said: "NASA's job is to put human beings on other worlds."
You said: "That is NASA's job moron."
Therefore we are in perfect agreement and if I'm a moron then you agree with a moron.
The National Science Foundation, various branches of the military, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency... gosh there are lots of departments that have missions overlapping a satellite like this.
Exactly right. The entire point of a corporation is that it is not the owner. If a corporation can shield its business dealings from the personal assets of its owners, then it can shield its business dealings from the religious beliefs of its owners.
I'm curious about the issue and I want the USA to look into it. But NASA? No. NASA's job is to put human beings on other worlds. NASA's job isn't to sniff CO2 in the air. We have other agencies to do that. If NASA can't do its actual job then it should cease to exist.
I'm glad the US government is doing something like this, but not with NASA. Our space agency needs to get this message: "Put humans on other worlds, or go home. If we want robots or science or satellites or anything else, we'll do that with another agency. For you, concentrate on putting living humans on other chunks of rock, and if you can't manage to do that once per decade then just pack up and save us the money."
The last time NASA did that was fifty years ago. In my space-exploration-loving opinion, NASA should have been disbanded in the late 1970s. Everything since then has been stupid.
"Hey, look, NASA built a space plane call the 'shuttle'! Wow! And they used it to go.... nowhere!"
"Hey, look, NASA built a little remote-controlled car and put it on Mars. Then after that they... well... they built two more and did the same thing... then after that they... uh.... well they built another one and did the same thing..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a satellite and pointed it at... earth..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a telescope and... took pictures of stars... again..."
None of that was worth it. Pack your bags, NASA, because you aren't hitting your numbers. You've been a failure since the Apollo days. Put humans on other worlds. Make it happen or go home, which to me means you need to go home.
"It's just your fucked up government that sucks "
You have your facts wrong. Our government closely represents the will of the people.
He'll lose this suit and in the end some of his money will transfer to lawyers. That's not ideal but it's better than this douchebag from keeping it. The lawyers have a small chance of being good people.
"Therefore a possible cause is 'climate change'. "
And it remains a possible cause. What's your point and how did you arrive at it?
"Where is this land of the bike lane you speak of?"
In cities, where they are needed. Country roads don't need bike lanes any more than they need sidewalks.
They are equal in the essential dimension: both of them increase the likelihood that disaster will occur during a time when you aren't paying attention.
If you drive twice as fast, or if you pay half the attention, then your disaster-per-attention ratio doubles in both cases.
How about freedom of speech? Isn't he allowed to broadcast anything he wants, any time he wants? All he did was transmit a signal. He didn't physically damage any property or physically harm anybody.
Oh, his signal overlapped with another signal? Okay. So two signals interfere with each other. That makes them equal. Free speech allows you to shout in public to drown out another person shouting in public.
I don't actually believe that is a compelling legal argument, but I also don't think bribing politicians should be protected free speech, yet that is the law today, and I think jamming cell signals is more similar to free speech than is bribing politicians.
This is a follow-up, not a duplicate.
My favorite sentence: "On first read I don’t see how any software patent claims written as method or systems claims can survive challenge."
Second favorite: "it is going to be much more expensive to protect software with a patent."
...soaring over the snowcapped brimstone...
I have a contrary opinion: deadbolts are prior art; slide-to-unlock is not patentable.
So, there is a six-minute video of a guy talking about 3D printing. Am I out of line for expecting a video that shows the 3D printing? I'm not even interested in the first word the guy spoke much less six minutes of him talking. If you promise me "3D Printing with Molten Steel (Video)" is it unreasonable to assume that the Video is of 3D Printing with Molten Steel?
I feel you, but the people with the important opinion are in Congress. If Congress is dissatisfied with rules made under delegated authority, then they haul directors in to answer questions. It happens all the time, every month or two a new commission is asking new questions of somebody. So if Congress thinks the IRS is coloring outside the lines, Congress would tell them to knock it off. If they don't do that, it's reasonable to conclude that the rules accord with the law well enough to satisfy Congress.