Mod parent up, I use my parking brake all day every day (like some do the start button - see the tie in?). Only just not while driving. I think "emergency brake" is a USA thing.
I use the Start button b/c it doesn't require a mouse. WindowsKey->P->MMM->Enter->E == Excel *. Using the start button and a mouse is a pain b/c a itsy bitsy bit of the mouse wondering and you have to start over. The real WTF is using a menu paradigm as an application launcher; but Windows doesn't really have much better to offer. I am really looking forward to being able to just type a few letters of the "app" and pressing enter as an alternative (that comes w/ Win7 right?).
* I renamed all my MS Office programs and took "Microsoft" off so the actual name of the program is the first letter to aid my hotkey addiction.
A Doctor Who classic episode actually used this theme, with two androids playing RPS against each other. As both AIs were written using the same algorithms, they derived exactly the same strategy in an attempt to predict each other's moves... and every round was a draw, as they always threw the same. The game was played to show why they had sought the Doctor's help in ending an android/Dalek war
I think I watched that recently on this channel. Were they dressed in tight shiny silver suits with beaded braided hair? Something eerie going on with there eyes too.
So what makes you think that $11/hr is not a "living wage". I'm a bit curious because I currently make slightly more than that and have no trouble putting most of that money away.
Not a "living wage" means you can't work at Apple and afford Apple products. Now that's tragic.
Maybe you can explain how Watergate is relevant to lying about your education. If somebody could make that connection, I wouldn't object too much to the application of the -gate.
Lying on your resume, lying about taping secret conversations... seems pretty straight forward to me.
(OK, Watergate was much more complex than lying. But it was the tapes that indicted the president and unraveled a big part of the operation. It was the lying part that the American audience saw the most.)
Professor Frink (at a scientific convention):... murmurs, talk, and inattention... "Don't make me flick the lights on and off!"... no response... "Pi is exactly 3!"... gasps from attending scientists... "I'm sorry it had to come to that".:))
Exactly what happened to the music industry. They were late in getting into online and mp3 music and they play catch up by suing the world. Now hulu brings TV online and in a surprise reverse of history, set trends in opening up content. Now they want to lock it back up!?! WTF hulu/cable. Now you'll drive your viewers to pirating and you'll have to play catch up in court one viewer at a time.
Uggg. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
On the story about the TSA patting down a screaming 4 year old the other day, a commenter said he'd kill the TSA if he tried that on his kid. Was that a loving comment? If you're the TSA, no. If you're the little girl then hell yeah! My Dad rocks, he'd do anything to protect me!
What the commenter was wanting was justice. Love requires justice, and justice should always be accompanied by love. So was God loving when he sent an angel to kill the firstborns? He gave Pharaoh 9 outs. Let em go, No, Ok, lice. Now?, No, Ok bloody Nile. Now?, No, Ok locusts/frogs/darkness/etc.... (not listed in any specific order here)
I'd say it was Pharaoh being unloving. He took 9 slap on the wrists and committed the entire country to judgement.
This is probably among the worst ideas I've ever heard. They're basically saying "Standardize at the cost of having different architectures that are superior in their own ways", which is just absurd.
This one might be a worse idea? Bad idea jeans, maybe the Chinese were wearing them when they came up with this idea?
See the real question is whether significantly less than 100% is a natural state or if it is a product of placing systems ahead of humans.
No, I don't think you understood me or my reply at all. I'm asking if close to 100% can be achived *WITHIN* the natural state of the test taker.
Say we have a situation like my friend T**s..n (with a speech impediement X and a physical deformity Y) being asked if he likes option A or B. T**s..n has no concept of A or B or even that he is X or Y. But the test sensors kick in and infer that A or B implies complete failure for T**s..n (of X and Y) and subsititues a completely different question for our special child.
Without giving too much away, T**s..n is a real kid and he does not know he is different (except that he gets teased more than the other kids and teachers have a little difficulty understanding him). So if a "standardized test" asks him if he likes 'math' more than 'english/(his language)' then the "smart test" can change that to 'marbles / tag'... or whatever his brain needs to push him to *HIS* maximum. And continue to push him to *HIS* maximum.
I believe you're making a fundamental error
No, I don't think so. You see, if a prediction of failure can be relied upon, then a substitue situation/question can be presented in a completely different context sensitive awareness case that can challenge the recipeint upto *their maximum*.
I.e. I would like "to bring forth from within" the MAXIMUM potential from my friend T**s..n and I would fight anyone who tries to deny him that.
instead of the training for dependency and complacency that excess standardization produces.
If there was a driver that would encrypt/decrypt the traffic en route then maybe I'd store stuff in the free version. Then I could share the key w/ my work PC or a co-worker or whoever I want to grant access to the files.
Google is brilliant at getting us to turn over information to them. If I store a file it is for MY use, not theirs. Especially if I have a paid account, then using the data to spam me w/ ads is even worse.
Which church is it? Would you welcome me and my husband, as full members? Would you expect us to dissolve our relationship?
It is a Bible church, which is to say we don't belong to any specific denomination. If it's in the Bible then we believe/follow it. We place no restrictions on anyone who wants to visit. Our first point in "Our Beliefs" says:
Section 1: The Scriptures - We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, and the supreme and final authority in doctrine and practice.
Our church also says : our doors are wide open and accessible to people of all backgrounds.
So if a man and woman wanted to be members but were living together and not married, no I don't think the curch would accept that. Simply because they are not in line with our beliefs. If a businessman was frauding his employees or customers, then no again. But none of these people would ever be turned away. We would welcome them and love on them and the rest is up to them and God.
So to answer you're question, no. Not because you're gay, the church wouldn't ever single you out because of that. I think it would be disingenuous of the church to admit into membership anyone who lives contrary to the scriptures they hold as infallible. But you are welcome to come and worship with us and pursue God and study the Bible. The rest is up to you and God.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church?
Yes, absolutely. Jesus was criticized for hanging out with tax collectors (aka traitors to the Romans), whores, drunks, "sinners" (hissss). But Jesus said he was the Great Physician and didn't come to those who have no need of a doctor, but to the sick and wounded. I think some Christians forget that being isolated in their own little world of church friends.
I'd love for gays to come to my church. I've invited gay friends and co-workers. I rarely get taken up on it.
So who criticized Jesus? The religious leaders, the hypocritical Pharisees. So those Christians who criticize the gays are siding with the Pharisees, who were the enemies of Jesus. Ironic much? They don't see their intolerance, their little white lies, their taking work supplies home, etc... to have the EXACT same penalty as homosexuality; namely judgement of God.
So if a church turns away LGBT, then they need to turn away the lair, cheater, stealer, including the pastor and deacons and members. Hopefully someday they'll wake up.
But a warning to non-Christians, please don't judge us all by these examples. Just as we shouldn't judge all lawyers by the sleazy ambulance chasers. Lest we become like them.
So he won't approve the drug of Joe Street has in his overcoat? Good. There needs to be someone backing the drug to be responsible for it when it causes cancer in half the recipients. You know, those class action law suits you see on TV. I think the US is too litigious already but when you rush a drug to market and bypass the doctors and advertise straight to the public, then yes you need to be liable and you need near unlimited finances to prove you can stay around for a while in case something does go wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up, I use my parking brake all day every day (like some do the start button - see the tie in?). Only just not while driving. I think "emergency brake" is a USA thing.
I use the Start button b/c it doesn't require a mouse. WindowsKey->P->MMM->Enter->E == Excel *. Using the start button and a mouse is a pain b/c a itsy bitsy bit of the mouse wondering and you have to start over. The real WTF is using a menu paradigm as an application launcher; but Windows doesn't really have much better to offer. I am really looking forward to being able to just type a few letters of the "app" and pressing enter as an alternative (that comes w/ Win7 right?).
* I renamed all my MS Office programs and took "Microsoft" off so the actual name of the program is the first letter to aid my hotkey addiction.
Because the only people giving them feedback were morons.
Skroob: That's amazing! I've got the same checkbox on my luggage! Prepare Spaceball 1 for immediate departure! And uncheck that box on my luggage!
The same idiots who like the ribbon.
Worse, the same idiots that like clippy ..... (Mr Burns' shudder.)
It is here at about 14:15. "Destiny of the Daleks", fighting a war with the Movellans.
A Doctor Who classic episode actually used this theme, with two androids playing RPS against each other. As both AIs were written using the same algorithms, they derived exactly the same strategy in an attempt to predict each other's moves... and every round was a draw, as they always threw the same. The game was played to show why they had sought the Doctor's help in ending an android/Dalek war
I think I watched that recently on this channel. Were they dressed in tight shiny silver suits with beaded braided hair? Something eerie going on with there eyes too.
So what makes you think that $11/hr is not a "living wage". I'm a bit curious because I currently make slightly more than that and have no trouble putting most of that money away.
Not a "living wage" means you can't work at Apple and afford Apple products. Now that's tragic.
Okay, so you've been partnering with the evil Overlord for decades, and you thought yourself immune?
There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.
The launch went off without a hitch.
Not so: There have been several launch date delays since the mission was announced, most recently on 19 May 2012, due to a launch abort during the last second before liftoff.
Maybe *this* launch went fine but that doesn't mean the mission launched on time and without a hitch.
Maybe you can explain how Watergate is relevant to lying about your education. If somebody could make that connection, I wouldn't object too much to the application of the -gate.
Lying on your resume, lying about taping secret conversations ... seems pretty straight forward to me.
(OK, Watergate was much more complex than lying. But it was the tapes that indicted the president and unraveled a big part of the operation. It was the lying part that the American audience saw the most.)
Nah, probably just a aggravated case of emacs pinky finger.
Rationalization at it finest. Damn it I'm ENTITLED to see the movie EVEN IF I can't afford it. So ... hisssss noisssseee ...
You are not entitled to a job, a car, food on the table, or a movie in the DVD/Torrent player. Life is tough, get over yourself.
Ha, one of my favorite Frink's of ALL time!
Professor Frink (at a scientific convention): ... murmurs, talk, and inattention ... "Don't make me flick the lights on and off!" ... no response ... "Pi is exactly 3!" ... gasps from attending scientists ... "I'm sorry it had to come to that". :))
Exactly what happened to the music industry. They were late in getting into online and mp3 music and they play catch up by suing the world. Now hulu brings TV online and in a surprise reverse of history, set trends in opening up content. Now they want to lock it back up!?! WTF hulu/cable. Now you'll drive your viewers to pirating and you'll have to play catch up in court one viewer at a time.
Uggg. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Is this a last ditch attempt at an April Fools joke? Surely the OP knows those are supposed to come on the 1st!?!
On the story about the TSA patting down a screaming 4 year old the other day, a commenter said he'd kill the TSA if he tried that on his kid. Was that a loving comment? If you're the TSA, no. If you're the little girl then hell yeah! My Dad rocks, he'd do anything to protect me!
What the commenter was wanting was justice. Love requires justice, and justice should always be accompanied by love. So was God loving when he sent an angel to kill the firstborns? He gave Pharaoh 9 outs. Let em go, No, Ok, lice. Now?, No, Ok bloody Nile. Now?, No, Ok locusts/frogs/darkness/etc.... (not listed in any specific order here)
I'd say it was Pharaoh being unloving. He took 9 slap on the wrists and committed the entire country to judgement.
This is probably among the worst ideas I've ever heard. They're basically saying "Standardize at the cost of having different architectures that are superior in their own ways", which is just absurd.
This one might be a worse idea? Bad idea jeans, maybe the Chinese were wearing them when they came up with this idea?
Of if it breaks, you're about to be a daddy.
See the real question is whether significantly less than 100% is a natural state or if it is a product of placing systems ahead of humans.
No, I don't think you understood me or my reply at all. I'm asking if close to 100% can be achived *WITHIN* the natural state of the test taker.
Say we have a situation like my friend T**s..n (with a speech impediement X and a physical deformity Y) being asked if he likes option A or B. T**s..n has no concept of A or B or even that he is X or Y. But the test sensors kick in and infer that A or B implies complete failure for T**s..n (of X and Y) and subsititues a completely different question for our special child.
Without giving too much away, T**s..n is a real kid and he does not know he is different (except that he gets teased more than the other kids and teachers have a little difficulty understanding him). So if a "standardized test" asks him if he likes 'math' more than 'english/(his language)' then the "smart test" can change that to 'marbles / tag' ... or whatever his brain needs to push him to *HIS* maximum. And continue to push him to *HIS* maximum.
I believe you're making a fundamental error
No, I don't think so. You see, if a prediction of failure can be relied upon, then a substitue situation/question can be presented in a completely different context sensitive awareness case that can challenge the recipeint upto *their maximum*.
I.e. I would like "to bring forth from within" the MAXIMUM potential from my friend T**s..n and I would fight anyone who tries to deny him that.
instead of the training for dependency and complacency that excess standardization produces.
You confuse me with someone else ...
If there was a driver that would encrypt/decrypt the traffic en route then maybe I'd store stuff in the free version. Then I could share the key w/ my work PC or a co-worker or whoever I want to grant access to the files.
Google is brilliant at getting us to turn over information to them. If I store a file it is for MY use, not theirs. Especially if I have a paid account, then using the data to spam me w/ ads is even worse.
This is a joke, I get it. But if you could keep an child engaged at near 100% of their capacity, what potential.
Monty Python Airplane Pilots
...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?
James Cameron.
Which church is it? Would you welcome me and my husband, as full members? Would you expect us to dissolve our relationship?
It is a Bible church, which is to say we don't belong to any specific denomination. If it's in the Bible then we believe/follow it. We place no restrictions on anyone who wants to visit. Our first point in "Our Beliefs" says:
Section 1: The Scriptures - We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, and the supreme and final authority in doctrine and practice.
Our church also says : our doors are wide open and accessible to people of all backgrounds.
So if a man and woman wanted to be members but were living together and not married, no I don't think the curch would accept that. Simply because they are not in line with our beliefs. If a businessman was frauding his employees or customers, then no again. But none of these people would ever be turned away. We would welcome them and love on them and the rest is up to them and God.
So to answer you're question, no. Not because you're gay, the church wouldn't ever single you out because of that. I think it would be disingenuous of the church to admit into membership anyone who lives contrary to the scriptures they hold as infallible. But you are welcome to come and worship with us and pursue God and study the Bible. The rest is up to you and God.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church?
Yes, absolutely. Jesus was criticized for hanging out with tax collectors (aka traitors to the Romans), whores, drunks, "sinners" (hissss). But Jesus said he was the Great Physician and didn't come to those who have no need of a doctor, but to the sick and wounded. I think some Christians forget that being isolated in their own little world of church friends.
I'd love for gays to come to my church. I've invited gay friends and co-workers. I rarely get taken up on it.
So who criticized Jesus? The religious leaders, the hypocritical Pharisees. So those Christians who criticize the gays are siding with the Pharisees, who were the enemies of Jesus. Ironic much? They don't see their intolerance, their little white lies, their taking work supplies home, etc... to have the EXACT same penalty as homosexuality; namely judgement of God.
So if a church turns away LGBT, then they need to turn away the lair, cheater, stealer, including the pastor and deacons and members. Hopefully someday they'll wake up.
But a warning to non-Christians, please don't judge us all by these examples. Just as we shouldn't judge all lawyers by the sleazy ambulance chasers. Lest we become like them.
Thank you.
So he won't approve the drug of Joe Street has in his overcoat? Good. There needs to be someone backing the drug to be responsible for it when it causes cancer in half the recipients. You know, those class action law suits you see on TV. I think the US is too litigious already but when you rush a drug to market and bypass the doctors and advertise straight to the public, then yes you need to be liable and you need near unlimited finances to prove you can stay around for a while in case something does go wrong.