I hear similar accusations from people who don't understand how the basic economy works. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but you are going to have to support your assertion.
Our political system has two parties, which conspire to exclude a third party. Any idiot can see that the religious, social, moral, religious, and fiscal conservatives can't live under the same banner happily. And the opposition can't live happily under the other banner.
How would critical thinking change this? We need a third and fourth party. If I vote third party, will this help? Support your assertion, because I don't see it.
The economic system is capitalism. Are you suggesting that the people with money would somehow abdicate that system even if 99% of the citizens agreed? Would 99% agree on this? What would replace it?
You sound awfully sure. Do you have the knowledge to back it up?
None of your teachers intended to challenge your fixed beliefs, that I believe. But the Republicans believe that things like Anthropomorphic Global Warming, evolution, and basic accepted science in general, "have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority".
All Republicans have to do is state a good faith belief that something challenges fixed beliefs, and now it goes against their platform. Did life evolve instead of being created? Violation.
Keep in mind that "mastery learning" is essentially repeating something until you give the "right" answers, where the right answers are determined by the curriculum. This is very effective in subjects like maths. In subjects like history, it can be used to beat values into the students, figuratively speaking. So they have a legitimate complaint, or at least half of one. That makes the complaint look legitimate to those who agree, and illegitimate to those who do not.
I admire its brilliance, in that it uses language to achieve a goal. Of course, that goal is political in nature, so it is by definition a misuse of language.
But, for those who use critical thinking skills, it is both clear and unconvincing.
No. Walk through every control panel setting, followed by every administrator setting.
Some of the settings are in-place windows, some are rundll dialogs, some are MMC applets. Even the consistent dialogs are mostly inconsistent.
Ultimately everything is a registry setting, which means there should be one way of setting it. But, this is the retardation: Internet Settings is both how you control IE, and how you control the network.
Uncheck "check for publisher revocation" in the IE control panel, and suddenly BIDS is faster. It controls IE, and everything that uses the Internet Application hosted via COM, and shitloads of things that seem unrelated.
And there are plenty of these application specific, but system wide settings. Flash Player has a control panel, Java has a control panel. Do they belong in the system settings? Is there another way to get to their settings without finding a Flahs/Java something to launch? Should Sound be in the control panel, or only available by right-clicking the speaker icon?
Everything is a front end to the registry. Do they have to all have different interfaces to do the same thing?
And then there is group policy. Some settings are set via group policy, and they are different registry settings from a user setting it, with different precedence. Some settings merely disable the UI portions of the previous dialogs. And depending on the OS version, they behave differently and are in different places.
So even the registry isn't consistent, and it's basically a front end to itself in many ways.
We have a generic interface to regedit, and that's regedit. And made to look like the classic control panel means it looks like literally anything you can imagine.
When I push a button and nothing happens, I wonder if my man hands confused the sensors. And I wonder if the signal has gone because certain kinds of wind interfere with both 3G and OTA TV. And I wonder if it was a "select" click instead of a"go" click.
I wonder all kinds of things in the time it takes for me to click on something and when it responds. And if it can be fast enough to do what I ask when I ask, then I care.
I realize that most of my complaints are based on shitty UI design. I can't control that, unless I want to rewrite lots of apps. But I can control performance. Until the fucktards who write shitty UIs die in a fire, I care about speed balanced with battery life.
When the UI makes sense and gives me feedback and is okay with large fingers, I'll only care about the battery.
As soon as the beats agreement was in place, Apple probably had a plan to draw down bose inventory. When it reached a certain point, possibly after existing purchase agreements were complete, the inventory was removed.
Apple rarely gives this kind of warning, preferring to make changes instead, or announce as late as possible. Tying this to some sort of revenge makes no sense.
If it were in response to patent lawsuits, the plan was based on the risk of losing well before the outcome could be known, and a supply chain decision would have been made that we are just now seeing.
Can you point to something specific that the old way is better?
As with systemd it seems that some people are ready to adopt the new and toss the old in the trash. NIH served Canonical well there, as their customers are both direct users (who according to the Ubuntu philosophy have no need to know what systemd is or what it does) and people who maintain Debian based or similar distros.
If Canonical makes something better, and people who do not have financial incentive to adopt it do so, what does it say about the technology?
And if absolutely no one other than Canonical adopts it, who is hurt?
The open source philosophy says that Canonical is free to fork or replace something, and the larger community is free to to adopt or ignore the results. Just as Red Hat, and just as Linus. Do you disagree?
I don't fucking know, why are you asking us this horseshit? "electronic convict" wrote it, and some neckbearded waterbrained halfwit decided to post it, and I use the term "edit" absently.
You kind of answered your own question at the end, but you really should confirm it with the source.
I would rather someone call me SHITCOCK and end the discussion, as opposed to politely telling me he won't accept my feedback. If you won't accept my feedback, will you admit you were wrong about this one thing? And the discussion goes on.
"Shut up you idiotic shitstained spooge gargler" is a more concise translation of "I am done listening".
If you value time, this is the polite way of doing it. If you value social custom, it's not the polite way. People have different values.
Are you saying that people who value time and are clear and abrupt should change their value system? You can't have perfect, and these people are already in the world, so don't tell me people should be understanding of these things. Especially when you demonstrated a lack of understanding.
I will add that "Coworker" is only a valid example if you work in a truly international crowd, and you are likely to be talking to a German or Fin or Australian or Brit or any other nationality equally, not someone who shares your particular cultural value system. Which is not all that common, even for international business.
If I really wanted to do something the world generally thought of as ridiculous, I would try to get something moving under a lame duck term. It's not like he can accomplish anything major, but setting things in motion.
Unfortunately, it's easier to post "It's a distraction from X" than it is to come up with a few reasonably sane ideas based on all of the science fiction ever.
What little we have learned in our lifetimes, we should be able to put to use correcting the errors in what we have read.
Are you a plaintiff? Do you have to take time from work to testify, talk with lawyers, sign things, video deposition, or do any number of things that these people have had to do?
After a while, "Fuck this, gimme the 2 grand" also means "I can't fight for the moral side anymore"
If it were you, you would have given in a long time ago, statistically speaking. If you are 1 in 100, you would have given in before this appeal started. You would have to be 1 in 1000 at least to get this far. Basic stats means I don't believe you. And you shouldn't believe you until you have been through this.
Fighting for the right side takes more effort than most people have. It seems like once a year we get the odd "I lost $25k or more even though I won the lawsuit" story. One per year, in my unscientific anecdote, which might sound like a lot. But it's not enough to win any ground.
Do you want to bankroll the losers? You already are, so that's a trick question. But if it were you, you would really appreciate someone kicking in a few bucks so you and your unemployed ass could take time to fight the good fight. And when the donations don't add up, you give in and live your life.
Because you didn't take all of the plenty of evidence that seems to you, and ask the DA of the relevant jurisdiction(s) to either file a RICO Act lawsuit or explain why.
Also, even if you did, you probably don't have standing.
So "because you don't understand how the legal system works" is the best answer. The system is not intended to watch everything that goes on and try to nail everyone for everything they can get nailed for. And it's not all about the rich getting off cos they are rich. If that's honestly what you believe, then why ask questions? The rich get everything and you don't, right? So why did they lose this case? And why has a judge already taken a position against the judgement?
Read up, answer your own question. And do it with an open mind. Because cognitive dissonance hurts.
Systems and technologies are not the same as employment contracts. In this case it was fairly obvious, but you're an idiot.
Smart people can understand they got screwed. But winning a legal case is a whole lot more than understanding that you got screwed.
Employees would feel that you are right, but you are spewing nonsense. The legal system is not something that most employees study. Going to the cleaners is not guaranteed.
And, even if you lose, you may not visit the cleaners at all. Which is kinda the reason there is an article here.
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advice about not following advice.
Editor's note: Laura Kahn is the author of Who's in Charge? Leadership during epidemics, bioterror attacks, and other public health crises.
This article is advertising for a book. The only prompt on the question of who is a brief "This might explain why the question, âoeWhoâ(TM)s in charge?â is inevitably asked after failures in response to public health crises." And that question is a link to CNN asking the question. And it is answered there:
It's a partnership between the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local governments where an Ebola case occurs, said CDC Director Tom Frieden.
But local officials ultimately are in charge of each case, he said.
The linked article at thebulletin.org is tilting towards using this to push for universal insurance/healthcare, not even remotely pushing for a universal dictator like you claim. Most importantly, there is no support for the claim "The US Constitution... places responsibility for public health squarely on the shoulders of local and state political leaders." This is frequently argued, but it relies on interpretations of phrases like "provide for" and "general welfare".
The article is clearly written for a specific audience, one that is impressed by the number of hyperlinks without reading what is linked. Blame the author, and blame the idiots who buy her horseshit. But mostly blame yourself for inferring something that isn't really there. OP cherry picked bits of the article to create something that it seems even the author didn't mean to convey.
What would you rather they do? And are you really convinced that press conferences is all they do? You are repeating talking points and making an ass of yourself.
The CDC has published procedures on how to deal with Ebola. They can't individually contact every Doctor, Nurse, and any other position likely to be in contact with an infected person, to give them information that has been available for years.
Should they be beating the drum of self-quarantine? That's not the obvious step here. So I'm really wondering what could be done now.
In all of those areas, the people charged with responsibility have demonstrably overstepped what is authorized, but they could have solved the same problem a different way without conflicting with the Constitution. It would be better for everyone if they did, in fact. Due process, transparency, reason, and all of that.
I think you have heard something that fit your world view, and are repeating it without understanding the line of thought that went into it.
The article does not use the term "general public". Thanks to a misinterpretation by iONiUM, and your failure to make sure the thing you are criticising is even a thing, we are talking about a non-issue instead of the actual topic. Unless you are brand spanking new to this website, you should know better, and shame on you.
I don't even see a clarification of who is becoming more aware - only that people involved with open source in some fashion are making comments. The obvious conclusion is that the general public has more opportunity to be aware. Not that they take advantage of that opportunity.
Is this sarcasm? Or a genuine failure to understand how basic capitalism works?
Are you a communist? Should you be on a watch list somewhere?
My bill goes up a dollar every 6 months, and I'm about to jump ship (negotiating with the target to prevent this kind of behavior). Would I expect my bill to drop?
Fuck no, that isn't going to happen. Because of the basic economic system in place in the country.
I call a guy and agree to pay X dollars for a month, and are they going to tell me I owe them less? Would you tell your client they owe less than expected?
Sure you would. But if you were a high bandwidth essentially monopoly?
If Netflix is paying for the upload, and I am paying for the download, like net neutrality proponents say, the here's what I see.
I pay more for faster download speeds. Not for prioritization, but I pay more for a fatter pipe.
Do I expect Netflix to pay no more for a fatter pipe? Do I expect Netflix to throttle lower bandwidth customers to serve my 4k demands? Do I expect Netflix to pay for hardware, both ISP side and Netflix side, to serve my FIOS needs?
To me, all of the big ISPs have shown that they are willing to shit on everything, including content creators and customers, in the name of profit.
You have to scale your problem. What happens when everyone is streaming 4k video? From the net neutrality debate, both the customer pay more and the provider pay more.
Otherwise the argument "both are paying for bandwidth" falls on its face. Or do we change the argument now?
Probiotics are a very general class of things. And specifically taking bacteria pills (that is, a specific type of probiotic) like acidophilus is not as effective.
When you take antibiotics, you are disturbing an ecosystem that has evolved over years. Everything you eat could contribute to the bacteria makeup. Dirt is supposed to have beneficial "feel good" bacteria, and the microbiome may affect mood. Acidophilus and Bifidus and Bulgaricus alone will not restore what you just killed with antibiotics, or what you lost through diarrhea.
Healthy donor stool is the easiest, quickest way to get all of the bacteria. One pill won't do it, because your microbiome is likely to just kill most of the intruders. Not the immune system, but the existing bacteria - maybe just by starving them out. Repeated doses gives you a good chance to let the varied bacteria strains get established.
Why don't we just figure out which bacteria are needed and give you those? Man, you are brilliant. So brilliant, that you won't be surprised to find out that lots of people are trying to figure out which ones are good, useless, or bad. As you can imagine, isolating the effects of a single type of bacterium on humans, without negatively impacting health, which would throw off the results of such a study, is complicated.
And it is by no means crude. Crude is having someone poop in a jar, putting it in a blender, and giving yourself a poop enema. This method seems to be a simpler and cleaner way, as well as being possible to get it further into the intestines than you can do at home safely.
People facing backlash and or lawsuits due to gender inequality have a vested interest in at least appearing to do what they can. Same reason Microsoft benefits from helping a nearly defunct Apple so they have a competitor in the face of monopoly trials.
The people pushing the issue, the gender equality folks, have a personal agenda, and you won't change their mind. So this group is either on board with equality people, or paying lip service. That won't go away until the equality people are satisfied, or die of old age.
So media covers it, which could change the landscape of IT in many ways, maybe laws or hiring practice or just having more competition. That may affect the target audience of this website, making it news for nerds.
I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that it isn't relevant news. And in no way is this written as if slashdot thinks the world needs more woman coders. You might try reading it again and evaluating just exactly what your objection to this story stems from.
Slashdot Mirror
In what way?
I hear similar accusations from people who don't understand how the basic economy works. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but you are going to have to support your assertion.
Our political system has two parties, which conspire to exclude a third party. Any idiot can see that the religious, social, moral, religious, and fiscal conservatives can't live under the same banner happily. And the opposition can't live happily under the other banner.
How would critical thinking change this? We need a third and fourth party. If I vote third party, will this help? Support your assertion, because I don't see it.
The economic system is capitalism. Are you suggesting that the people with money would somehow abdicate that system even if 99% of the citizens agreed? Would 99% agree on this? What would replace it?
You sound awfully sure. Do you have the knowledge to back it up?
I see your point, but you missed the point.
None of your teachers intended to challenge your fixed beliefs, that I believe. But the Republicans believe that things like Anthropomorphic Global Warming, evolution, and basic accepted science in general, "have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority".
All Republicans have to do is state a good faith belief that something challenges fixed beliefs, and now it goes against their platform. Did life evolve instead of being created? Violation.
Keep in mind that "mastery learning" is essentially repeating something until you give the "right" answers, where the right answers are determined by the curriculum. This is very effective in subjects like maths. In subjects like history, it can be used to beat values into the students, figuratively speaking. So they have a legitimate complaint, or at least half of one. That makes the complaint look legitimate to those who agree, and illegitimate to those who do not.
I admire its brilliance, in that it uses language to achieve a goal. Of course, that goal is political in nature, so it is by definition a misuse of language.
But, for those who use critical thinking skills, it is both clear and unconvincing.
No. Walk through every control panel setting, followed by every administrator setting.
Some of the settings are in-place windows, some are rundll dialogs, some are MMC applets. Even the consistent dialogs are mostly inconsistent.
Ultimately everything is a registry setting, which means there should be one way of setting it. But, this is the retardation: Internet Settings is both how you control IE, and how you control the network.
http://dbaspot.com/sqlserver-d...
Uncheck "check for publisher revocation" in the IE control panel, and suddenly BIDS is faster. It controls IE, and everything that uses the Internet Application hosted via COM, and shitloads of things that seem unrelated.
And there are plenty of these application specific, but system wide settings. Flash Player has a control panel, Java has a control panel. Do they belong in the system settings? Is there another way to get to their settings without finding a Flahs/Java something to launch? Should Sound be in the control panel, or only available by right-clicking the speaker icon?
Everything is a front end to the registry. Do they have to all have different interfaces to do the same thing?
And then there is group policy. Some settings are set via group policy, and they are different registry settings from a user setting it, with different precedence. Some settings merely disable the UI portions of the previous dialogs. And depending on the OS version, they behave differently and are in different places.
So even the registry isn't consistent, and it's basically a front end to itself in many ways.
We have a generic interface to regedit, and that's regedit. And made to look like the classic control panel means it looks like literally anything you can imagine.
I don't see a mistakenly created certificate. It looks like it is legitimately for hotmai.com
Which seems to be owned by microsoft and exists to redirect people who are not cautious about typing domains to the intended destination.
Taking over the DNS redirects and serving hotmail-looking content is a good way to catch a few people, if that's your game.
Or another way - if Microsoft is catching typos, why would a nation state be amateurish for doing the same thing?
When I push a button and nothing happens, I wonder if my man hands confused the sensors. And I wonder if the signal has gone because certain kinds of wind interfere with both 3G and OTA TV. And I wonder if it was a "select" click instead of a"go" click.
I wonder all kinds of things in the time it takes for me to click on something and when it responds. And if it can be fast enough to do what I ask when I ask, then I care.
I realize that most of my complaints are based on shitty UI design. I can't control that, unless I want to rewrite lots of apps. But I can control performance. Until the fucktards who write shitty UIs die in a fire, I care about speed balanced with battery life.
When the UI makes sense and gives me feedback and is okay with large fingers, I'll only care about the battery.
As soon as the beats agreement was in place, Apple probably had a plan to draw down bose inventory. When it reached a certain point, possibly after existing purchase agreements were complete, the inventory was removed.
Apple rarely gives this kind of warning, preferring to make changes instead, or announce as late as possible. Tying this to some sort of revenge makes no sense.
If it were in response to patent lawsuits, the plan was based on the risk of losing well before the outcome could be known, and a supply chain decision would have been made that we are just now seeing.
Apple does not throw a fuck you tantrum.
The bunch of criminals were not on trial.
Also, the fact that this made it to the state Supreme Court means it was not obviously a crime when it was done.
If you can catch Florida law enforcement doing it now, you would have a really good case for a lawsuit.
Much as it would simplify things, the world does not work the way you think/wish it does.
Can you point to something specific that the old way is better?
As with systemd it seems that some people are ready to adopt the new and toss the old in the trash. NIH served Canonical well there, as their customers are both direct users (who according to the Ubuntu philosophy have no need to know what systemd is or what it does) and people who maintain Debian based or similar distros.
If Canonical makes something better, and people who do not have financial incentive to adopt it do so, what does it say about the technology?
And if absolutely no one other than Canonical adopts it, who is hurt?
The open source philosophy says that Canonical is free to fork or replace something, and the larger community is free to to adopt or ignore the results. Just as Red Hat, and just as Linus. Do you disagree?
Now, explain yourself, or retract your post.
I don't fucking know, why are you asking us this horseshit? "electronic convict" wrote it, and some neckbearded waterbrained halfwit decided to post it, and I use the term "edit" absently.
You kind of answered your own question at the end, but you really should confirm it with the source.
I would rather someone call me SHITCOCK and end the discussion, as opposed to politely telling me he won't accept my feedback. If you won't accept my feedback, will you admit you were wrong about this one thing? And the discussion goes on.
"Shut up you idiotic shitstained spooge gargler" is a more concise translation of "I am done listening".
If you value time, this is the polite way of doing it. If you value social custom, it's not the polite way. People have different values.
Are you saying that people who value time and are clear and abrupt should change their value system? You can't have perfect, and these people are already in the world, so don't tell me people should be understanding of these things. Especially when you demonstrated a lack of understanding.
I will add that "Coworker" is only a valid example if you work in a truly international crowd, and you are likely to be talking to a German or Fin or Australian or Brit or any other nationality equally, not someone who shares your particular cultural value system. Which is not all that common, even for international business.
If I really wanted to do something the world generally thought of as ridiculous, I would try to get something moving under a lame duck term. It's not like he can accomplish anything major, but setting things in motion.
Unfortunately, it's easier to post "It's a distraction from X" than it is to come up with a few reasonably sane ideas based on all of the science fiction ever.
What little we have learned in our lifetimes, we should be able to put to use correcting the errors in what we have read.
Are you a plaintiff? Do you have to take time from work to testify, talk with lawyers, sign things, video deposition, or do any number of things that these people have had to do?
After a while, "Fuck this, gimme the 2 grand" also means "I can't fight for the moral side anymore"
If it were you, you would have given in a long time ago, statistically speaking. If you are 1 in 100, you would have given in before this appeal started. You would have to be 1 in 1000 at least to get this far. Basic stats means I don't believe you. And you shouldn't believe you until you have been through this.
Fighting for the right side takes more effort than most people have. It seems like once a year we get the odd "I lost $25k or more even though I won the lawsuit" story. One per year, in my unscientific anecdote, which might sound like a lot. But it's not enough to win any ground.
Do you want to bankroll the losers? You already are, so that's a trick question. But if it were you, you would really appreciate someone kicking in a few bucks so you and your unemployed ass could take time to fight the good fight. And when the donations don't add up, you give in and live your life.
Because you didn't take all of the plenty of evidence that seems to you, and ask the DA of the relevant jurisdiction(s) to either file a RICO Act lawsuit or explain why.
Also, even if you did, you probably don't have standing.
So "because you don't understand how the legal system works" is the best answer. The system is not intended to watch everything that goes on and try to nail everyone for everything they can get nailed for. And it's not all about the rich getting off cos they are rich. If that's honestly what you believe, then why ask questions? The rich get everything and you don't, right? So why did they lose this case? And why has a judge already taken a position against the judgement?
Read up, answer your own question. And do it with an open mind. Because cognitive dissonance hurts.
Systems and technologies are not the same as employment contracts. In this case it was fairly obvious, but you're an idiot.
Smart people can understand they got screwed. But winning a legal case is a whole lot more than understanding that you got screwed.
Employees would feel that you are right, but you are spewing nonsense. The legal system is not something that most employees study. Going to the cleaners is not guaranteed.
And, even if you lose, you may not visit the cleaners at all. Which is kinda the reason there is an article here.
If you take any other advice here, you are an idiot. Not one person here can honestly tell you what to do unless they are part of your negotiation.
If you advance sufficiently far, you should be able to get some basic contacts for the company. I would ask the legal team there what advice they have. But if you take my advice without asking a qualified lawyer, you are an idiot.
Don't ask legal questions here, and don't follow any advice given. Especially this advice about not following advice.
This article is advertising for a book. The only prompt on the question of who is a brief "This might explain why the question, âoeWhoâ(TM)s in charge?â is inevitably asked after failures in response to public health crises." And that question is a link to CNN asking the question. And it is answered there:
The linked article at thebulletin.org is tilting towards using this to push for universal insurance/healthcare, not even remotely pushing for a universal dictator like you claim. Most importantly, there is no support for the claim "The US Constitution ... places responsibility for public health squarely on the shoulders of local and state political leaders." This is frequently argued, but it relies on interpretations of phrases like "provide for" and "general welfare".
The article is clearly written for a specific audience, one that is impressed by the number of hyperlinks without reading what is linked. Blame the author, and blame the idiots who buy her horseshit. But mostly blame yourself for inferring something that isn't really there. OP cherry picked bits of the article to create something that it seems even the author didn't mean to convey.
What would you rather they do? And are you really convinced that press conferences is all they do? You are repeating talking points and making an ass of yourself.
The CDC has published procedures on how to deal with Ebola. They can't individually contact every Doctor, Nurse, and any other position likely to be in contact with an infected person, to give them information that has been available for years.
Should they be beating the drum of self-quarantine? That's not the obvious step here. So I'm really wondering what could be done now.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...
Start there. It's a biased source. But they are obviously doing nothing but giving press conferences.
In what way is the Constitution outmoded?
In all of those areas, the people charged with responsibility have demonstrably overstepped what is authorized, but they could have solved the same problem a different way without conflicting with the Constitution. It would be better for everyone if they did, in fact. Due process, transparency, reason, and all of that.
I think you have heard something that fit your world view, and are repeating it without understanding the line of thought that went into it.
Enforcement of laws and regulations, looks like. Which is not the same as studying causes and preventions of things.
So I should ask, What do you know about the CDC and OSHA, besides what you get from anti-government opinion pieces?
The article does not use the term "general public". Thanks to a misinterpretation by iONiUM, and your failure to make sure the thing you are criticising is even a thing, we are talking about a non-issue instead of the actual topic. Unless you are brand spanking new to this website, you should know better, and shame on you.
I don't even see a clarification of who is becoming more aware - only that people involved with open source in some fashion are making comments. The obvious conclusion is that the general public has more opportunity to be aware. Not that they take advantage of that opportunity.
I agree.
Now, how do we prevent known terrorists from boarding planes when we know so little about them?
Isn't your argument, in fact, basically "Let a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
If it isn't, then clarify? If it is, then why hide behind nice-sounding words?
Is this sarcasm? Or a genuine failure to understand how basic capitalism works?
Are you a communist? Should you be on a watch list somewhere?
My bill goes up a dollar every 6 months, and I'm about to jump ship (negotiating with the target to prevent this kind of behavior). Would I expect my bill to drop?
Fuck no, that isn't going to happen. Because of the basic economic system in place in the country.
I call a guy and agree to pay X dollars for a month, and are they going to tell me I owe them less? Would you tell your client they owe less than expected?
Sure you would. But if you were a high bandwidth essentially monopoly?
I will take the net neutrality viewpoint here.
If Netflix is paying for the upload, and I am paying for the download, like net neutrality proponents say, the here's what I see.
I pay more for faster download speeds. Not for prioritization, but I pay more for a fatter pipe.
Do I expect Netflix to pay no more for a fatter pipe? Do I expect Netflix to throttle lower bandwidth customers to serve my 4k demands? Do I expect Netflix to pay for hardware, both ISP side and Netflix side, to serve my FIOS needs?
To me, all of the big ISPs have shown that they are willing to shit on everything, including content creators and customers, in the name of profit.
You have to scale your problem. What happens when everyone is streaming 4k video? From the net neutrality debate, both the customer pay more and the provider pay more.
Otherwise the argument "both are paying for bandwidth" falls on its face. Or do we change the argument now?
Probiotics are a very general class of things. And specifically taking bacteria pills (that is, a specific type of probiotic) like acidophilus is not as effective.
When you take antibiotics, you are disturbing an ecosystem that has evolved over years. Everything you eat could contribute to the bacteria makeup. Dirt is supposed to have beneficial "feel good" bacteria, and the microbiome may affect mood. Acidophilus and Bifidus and Bulgaricus alone will not restore what you just killed with antibiotics, or what you lost through diarrhea.
Healthy donor stool is the easiest, quickest way to get all of the bacteria. One pill won't do it, because your microbiome is likely to just kill most of the intruders. Not the immune system, but the existing bacteria - maybe just by starving them out. Repeated doses gives you a good chance to let the varied bacteria strains get established.
Why don't we just figure out which bacteria are needed and give you those? Man, you are brilliant. So brilliant, that you won't be surprised to find out that lots of people are trying to figure out which ones are good, useless, or bad. As you can imagine, isolating the effects of a single type of bacterium on humans, without negatively impacting health, which would throw off the results of such a study, is complicated.
And it is by no means crude. Crude is having someone poop in a jar, putting it in a blender, and giving yourself a poop enema. This method seems to be a simpler and cleaner way, as well as being possible to get it further into the intestines than you can do at home safely.
People facing backlash and or lawsuits due to gender inequality have a vested interest in at least appearing to do what they can. Same reason Microsoft benefits from helping a nearly defunct Apple so they have a competitor in the face of monopoly trials.
The people pushing the issue, the gender equality folks, have a personal agenda, and you won't change their mind. So this group is either on board with equality people, or paying lip service. That won't go away until the equality people are satisfied, or die of old age.
So media covers it, which could change the landscape of IT in many ways, maybe laws or hiring practice or just having more competition. That may affect the target audience of this website, making it news for nerds.
I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that it isn't relevant news. And in no way is this written as if slashdot thinks the world needs more woman coders. You might try reading it again and evaluating just exactly what your objection to this story stems from.