The declaration of independence would seem to disagree with you: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". It's not me saying that...it's the founding fathers.
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So do you support the right of states to decree that slavery is legal? Or that blacks can't enter a business?
Can you explain why you feel those two things are different?
Because one group of people voting to deny rights from another group of people has pretty much already been shot down in US law.
Why do I get the sense that people who would be screeching about how they're having Sharia law forced on them are completely willing to do the same thing?
What you're saying is "I am in favor of my religion imposing obligations on other people while screaming how it would be outrageous if done to me". You're saying your religion is special and different in law.
The problem with this is that SCOTUS has basically said "this isn't a set of rights which is up to be decided by a vote".
So, like you can't have a state which says "woo hoo, slavery is legal, bitches", you also can't have a state which says "we deny you this right to do the same thing we do even if you feel self entitled and special".
The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.
What next, pass a law which says any Christian may rape the wives of non-Christians if they deem it appropriate? Because that's about the same level of lies and bullshit.
So it's judicial activism to say that "your discriminatory law is discriminatory and therefore bullshit"?
Because what they've basically said is the religious right doesn't get to define what rights other people have, and that marriage has a civil definition which provides rights and protections which can't be taken away.
So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
The argument that "we got together and had a vote and you don't get this right" is pretty much garbage.
Honestly, given that everybody is saying "yarg, teh terrorists hate our freedom", to say that it is your religious right to demand someone else doesn't get a right is pure hypocrisy.
If you're going to swap one theocracy for another... just give up now.
So we always see these things listed in terms of "how many of these can we transmit".
The problem, of course, is you'd need, I assume all of this carefully staged and ready to cram it down that pipe.
This sounds useful for moving a bunch of bulk data you have already collected, but it seems like the reality of this is always that getting the data ready is your real bottleneck, not to mention the receiving end being able to ingest it.
What real world things can be done with this? I know it's real, but it just seems like you can only even think of getting close to this with a carefully prepared test.
For almost anything else, the chance of being able to send, or receive this much data, and then be able to actually put it someplace... well, that seems unlikely.
This helps, what, carriers and trunk lines? (Not that it's a bad thing)
my first thought was, in order to detect on females you have to have intercourse first
Yes, but with a condom.
So, your choice... after you've had sex with someone new, and you see that it's turned a nasty color... you can say "wow, you should really get checked out"... or you have sex without a condom, and then in a few weeks you're thinking "hmmm, that's not right".
Given the choice of knowing what you just got yourself into, and having absolutely no idea, this is a damned sight better.
People have gotten used to condoms much more than your partner running a quick swab test.
Really? So, in theory, a planet could change from not being detected by our current techniques to detected by them, and that isn't "rejuvenation"?
Nobody is saying it's Oil of Olay, but in terms of the observability of these planets, I think it's a fair term.
In theory, a star could belch, and suddenly if you checked against previous data you'd find new planets. Because suddenly they glow. That in and of itself is mindboggling in terms of the probability of finding it.
As much as it's a big-ass sky, we're kind of at a point where we can see the kind of things which have timescales in the thousands or millions of years... only we might be lucky enough to see them and say "holy cow, that planet looks new because it got heated by its sun and we never thought of that".
And the difference from 25 years ago is almost beyond comparison, and even the wildest dreams people had back then. Because even the basic idea of any of this stuff was bordering on speculative fiction.
Bad science journalism my ass. This is some pretty cool stuff, and I can guarantee you 25 years ago nobody would have ever suggested what you think is easy, likely, or even possibly common enough in the universe for you to feel smug.
The more we look out at space and realize how utterly jaw droppingly awesome it is, the more damned awesome it is.
Yes, shit heats and cools. But this is way cooler than that.
Well, TFA is really thin on details... so either it's just puffery of something which is considered routine, or there's more to it than we think and they've actually done something new.
I know the actual levitation bit has been around a while, but it doesn't seem like Lexus/Toyota is going to make an announcement without it actually being some form of advance.
At least death star works on known tech, to build hover bike you have to learn to hover first
From what I can tell, it's using essentially the same tech as a quadcopter:
The hoverbike, remote-controlled versions of which are already flying, is heavily based on drone technology, powered by four bladed fans in protective casings. The design is intended to provide stability, speed and, the company hopes, the same range as a small helicopter.
Whether or not it's going to be useful remains to be seen, but, really, quadcopters already can hover.
Which means it's a lot less Star Wars than the headline suggests.
So, if I assume there's been at least one monthly major security issue attributable to Adobe (maybe twice monthly, once for Reader and once for Flash)... and if we extend that over the last decade or, it becomes pretty obvious that Adobe writes some shitty code.
I'm not sure a single software vendor on the planet, except Microsoft, has caused so much security holes in all of the history of computers.
Pity we couldn't bill them for all the wasted time and resources.
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26%)... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
As opposed to, what, an independent legal obligation to its fucking corporations?
This isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's a rejection of the stupid idea that government doesn't owe a duty of care and concern for its citizens. That's kind of the purpose of governments, despite all the delusional rantings to the contrary we see around here.
Well, you screwed up. Windows 2003 is based on XP-64. You should've looked for XP-64 drivers and they would have installed just fine.
There's two problems with that:
1) There sure as hell is a 32-bit version of Windows 2003, and these were definitely 32-bit machines 2) The drivers simply did not exist. Dell had never made them for Windows 2003
And it sounds like you didn't install the proper video adapter drivers or your display had a shitty EDID
Look, you may not believe it, but I don't give a fuck.
As delivered to us, out of the box from the manufacturer, the monitor in its own settings to list its possible resolutions, as well as the documentation for the monitor simply did not list an actual wide screen resolution. Every single resolution this could do was a 4:3 aspect ratio.
My guess is this was some shitty marketing ploy when widescreen monitors were first becoming popular with consumers.
I didn't build the damned thing. As delivered to IT and plunked on our desks, these things were garbage. They were the most nonsensical monitors I've ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
.
There is no religious exemption.
So do you support the right of states to decree that slavery is legal? Or that blacks can't enter a business?
Can you explain why you feel those two things are different?
Because one group of people voting to deny rights from another group of people has pretty much already been shot down in US law.
Why do I get the sense that people who would be screeching about how they're having Sharia law forced on them are completely willing to do the same thing?
What you're saying is "I am in favor of my religion imposing obligations on other people while screaming how it would be outrageous if done to me". You're saying your religion is special and different in law.
Sorry, but that's just a steaming pile of crap.
The problem with this is that SCOTUS has basically said "this isn't a set of rights which is up to be decided by a vote".
So, like you can't have a state which says "woo hoo, slavery is legal, bitches", you also can't have a state which says "we deny you this right to do the same thing we do even if you feel self entitled and special".
The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.
What next, pass a law which says any Christian may rape the wives of non-Christians if they deem it appropriate? Because that's about the same level of lies and bullshit.
So it's judicial activism to say that "your discriminatory law is discriminatory and therefore bullshit"?
Because what they've basically said is the religious right doesn't get to define what rights other people have, and that marriage has a civil definition which provides rights and protections which can't be taken away.
So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
The argument that "we got together and had a vote and you don't get this right" is pretty much garbage.
Honestly, given that everybody is saying "yarg, teh terrorists hate our freedom", to say that it is your religious right to demand someone else doesn't get a right is pure hypocrisy.
If you're going to swap one theocracy for another ... just give up now.
So we always see these things listed in terms of "how many of these can we transmit".
The problem, of course, is you'd need, I assume all of this carefully staged and ready to cram it down that pipe.
This sounds useful for moving a bunch of bulk data you have already collected, but it seems like the reality of this is always that getting the data ready is your real bottleneck, not to mention the receiving end being able to ingest it.
What real world things can be done with this? I know it's real, but it just seems like you can only even think of getting close to this with a carefully prepared test.
For almost anything else, the chance of being able to send, or receive this much data, and then be able to actually put it someplace ... well, that seems unlikely.
This helps, what, carriers and trunk lines? (Not that it's a bad thing)
Yes, but with a condom.
So, your choice ... after you've had sex with someone new, and you see that it's turned a nasty color ... you can say "wow, you should really get checked out" ... or you have sex without a condom, and then in a few weeks you're thinking "hmmm, that's not right".
Given the choice of knowing what you just got yourself into, and having absolutely no idea, this is a damned sight better.
People have gotten used to condoms much more than your partner running a quick swab test.
Really? So, in theory, a planet could change from not being detected by our current techniques to detected by them, and that isn't "rejuvenation"?
Nobody is saying it's Oil of Olay, but in terms of the observability of these planets, I think it's a fair term.
In theory, a star could belch, and suddenly if you checked against previous data you'd find new planets. Because suddenly they glow. That in and of itself is mindboggling in terms of the probability of finding it.
As much as it's a big-ass sky, we're kind of at a point where we can see the kind of things which have timescales in the thousands or millions of years ... only we might be lucky enough to see them and say "holy cow, that planet looks new because it got heated by its sun and we never thought of that".
And the difference from 25 years ago is almost beyond comparison, and even the wildest dreams people had back then. Because even the basic idea of any of this stuff was bordering on speculative fiction.
Bad science journalism my ass. This is some pretty cool stuff, and I can guarantee you 25 years ago nobody would have ever suggested what you think is easy, likely, or even possibly common enough in the universe for you to feel smug.
The more we look out at space and realize how utterly jaw droppingly awesome it is, the more damned awesome it is.
Yes, shit heats and cools. But this is way cooler than that.
Hmmm ... don't pretty much 100% of all electric cars need their batteries replaced after a few years?
I suspect the number of modern cars which need a new transmission or a new engine is really small.
Your chance of needing to replace a transmission or engine is nothing at all the same as your need to change the batteries in your electric car.
You're not comparing the same thing. Not even close.
That's kind of funny, actually.
Nonetheless, on this side of the Atlantic, I've definitely heard those orange flashlights for moving around the planes called lollipops.
Whether it's a common term or not, I have no idea.
Hmmm ... I'm not British, but I've heard the bright orange flashlights referred to as lollipops before.
Are you sure about that? Or is this just something you think you heard somewhere?
No, instead you should expect a huge jump in executive bonuses.
From what I've seen, all things which lower costs fail to lower consumer prices.
Yeah ... wow ... why the hell would someone pay tuition for something like that?
That's not an education. That's a web site or PBS.
This doesn't sound like it will improve education, just let Google co-opt university education with their crap.
I'm pretty sure there is no other area of education in which private corporations and interests are so heavily involved.
The new corporate vision of "every learns teh CS the way we think it should be taught" sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
Well, TFA is really thin on details ... so either it's just puffery of something which is considered routine, or there's more to it than we think and they've actually done something new.
I know the actual levitation bit has been around a while, but it doesn't seem like Lexus/Toyota is going to make an announcement without it actually being some form of advance.
Has been for as long as that Ask.com piece of shit has been snuck in with a pre-selected check box.
Pretty much as soon as Oracle took over as far as I can tell.
Gee, I'm awful glad I don't have Java on my personal machine any more.
Because the sleazy bastards running it are mostly interested in their ad revenue.
Here's a thought, guys ... how about you stop trying to change our browsers for your own benefit?
Java is dying under the stewardship of Oracle. The sooner the better.
Temba ... his arms wide ... ... the steeliness of the floaty-surface inadequately achieves the hoverageness of the levitationality because of ... why?
Anybody can snark, enlighten us.
Maglev with superconductors and liquid nitrogen is not very impressive?
Sorry, I disagree.
Faster than you can say "hooolyyy f..."
Yeah, no kidding. Both Android and iOS have brought us smaller, leaner apps which take up far less space.
Microsoft still wants to give us fat x86 binaries.
Oh well, it's not like I'd be running this anyway.
Once again, Microsoft is so heavily stuck in the "I'm a PC and he's a Mac" mindset they're incapable of looking past Office and Exchange.
Good innovating there, Microsoft. The killer mobile app isn't a fucking Power Point slide.
More like a variant on the helicopter/quadcopter, but pretty much.
You assume that a lot of rigor is put into describing stuff as "Star Wars like" in terms of getting the metaphor exactly correct.
I assure you, that's not the case.
For the most part the nerd outrage is lost on deaf ears, like so much pointless noise. You know, like the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons.
The sooner you accept this fact, the happier you will be. ;-)
From what I can tell, it's using essentially the same tech as a quadcopter:
Whether or not it's going to be useful remains to be seen, but, really, quadcopters already can hover.
Which means it's a lot less Star Wars than the headline suggests.
So, if I assume there's been at least one monthly major security issue attributable to Adobe (maybe twice monthly, once for Reader and once for Flash) ... and if we extend that over the last decade or, it becomes pretty obvious that Adobe writes some shitty code.
I'm not sure a single software vendor on the planet, except Microsoft, has caused so much security holes in all of the history of computers.
Pity we couldn't bill them for all the wasted time and resources.
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26%) ... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
As opposed to, what, an independent legal obligation to its fucking corporations?
This isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's a rejection of the stupid idea that government doesn't owe a duty of care and concern for its citizens. That's kind of the purpose of governments, despite all the delusional rantings to the contrary we see around here.
There's two problems with that:
1) There sure as hell is a 32-bit version of Windows 2003, and these were definitely 32-bit machines
2) The drivers simply did not exist. Dell had never made them for Windows 2003
Look, you may not believe it, but I don't give a fuck.
As delivered to us, out of the box from the manufacturer, the monitor in its own settings to list its possible resolutions, as well as the documentation for the monitor simply did not list an actual wide screen resolution. Every single resolution this could do was a 4:3 aspect ratio.
My guess is this was some shitty marketing ploy when widescreen monitors were first becoming popular with consumers.
I didn't build the damned thing. As delivered to IT and plunked on our desks, these things were garbage. They were the most nonsensical monitors I've ever seen.