It would be like a writer putting several magazine articles a week, while insisting on on manually putting in the MS Word or OO writer formatting tags manually, instead of kicking out content.
A magazine article has been rendered, by the publisher, and printed onto a fixed-size page. If you're going to render your web page to a bitmap or even PDF and hand it out, I'll agree that nobody cares about the HTML. When you're presenting it to a browser to render it, you're telling me that the magazine publisher doesn't care if you turn in an article that renders properly for them in MS Word 2010; they just care that it worked for you when you designed it in Microsoft Works 4.5.
I mount/boot,/bin,/sbin,/lib, and/lib64 read-only from a small SSD; I mount/usr on a large HDD. Maybe that's not a good argument, but it's yet another reason I'll probably never use Fedora.
When I get an SSL certificate from my registrar, the fact that I am logged into the account that owns the domain should be enough proof. Since the computer can do this, it could be free. Frankly, any registrar should be able to issue a free normal SSL certificate, and if any of the big ones started this, they would all be pressured to follow suit. They make the big bucks on the EV certificates now anyway.
The fact that things can be copied and transferred into different formats more easily and without loss of accuracy is not a concern for anyone except content peddlers.
It could be a concern because it can be argued that there is no "seizure" involved in perfectly replicating a digital object. Therefore, any digital records can be taken by the government as long as the original is unaltered without violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Personally, I think that argument is a load of crap, but that doesn't mean courts won't accept it. If the Constitution were fully media-agnostic, it would take into consideration perfect replication of digital objects the same way it does limited-quantity analog objects. The issue isn't necessarily enshrining new digital rights but ensuring that the rights applied to the analog world are still protected when something goes digital.
Well, a cult is where a group of followers attempt to "care for" a god (always one, though one can join multiple cults) in the hope that the god will do things for them. A religion is where a group of followers attempt to follow a set of rules (e.g. 1234) in the hope that their god (or gods) will not do things to them (eg. 12/34. Sure, it's not a pefect distinction, but when one realizes that most modern cults (as opposed to the classical ones that worshiped Jupiter Optimus Maximus and such) set their founder up as the deity, it matches up pretty well.
Well, we have opposable thumbs, an advanced cerebral cortex, and our hyoid bone is descended. These allow us to do things like invent tools and articulate complex sounds.
If the majority of major websites took the "upgrade to a decent browser" approach, everybody (perhaps excluding some IT departments) running IE6 would suddenly find "the whole internet" broken and be forced to upgrade. Sadly, nobody wants to be the first to piss everyone off, so it'll never happen.
That's only because most people only have one kind of facial tissue in their local context, even though Kleenex makes several (e.g. lotion, ultra soft, reguar, aloe, etc). On the other hand, there are currently at least six types of Coke (Coke Classic, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Cherry Coke). To make it worse, half of the soft drinks are distributed by Coke, and restaurants will often tell you "we have Coke" or "we have Pepsi" when they mean "we have products distributed by X". Personally, I've lived in the South my entire life and never had anyone ask me what kind of Coke I wanted. I've always treated that as a lame Jeff Foxworthy "Redneck" joke.
To a user, the "magic box" with all the fancy wires running to it and blinkenlights on the front is a central unit that does processing, and if you want to get down to it, the CPU is the computer (i.e. it actually does the computations, and everything else is storage or I/O, even if it's inside the "magic box"), so "computer" isn't even an unambiguous term here. Granted, telling the user that "the CPU is actually a chip inside the case, along with a lot of other things" is nice in theory, but the user isn't going to remember unless you give them a replacement term for what they called "the CPU". Personally, I call it the case and use a grocery store analogy if necessary. The case holds all of the parts of the computer "just like" a case of water holds all of the individual bottles.
Except that the government is bound by the rules of the Constitution. By law, it is impossible for the legislature to violate the Constitution (since an un-Constitutional law is illegal, it is, at least in relation to the body of law, nonexistant), and the legislature makes the rules for the school systems. As such, the government can't discriminate in any way prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, if people associated with the government discriminate in an un-Constitutional manner, they are subject to disciplinary action or even losing their jobs. Your analogy is not only inappropriate and incorrect, it is outright stupid.
Welcome to the United States of America. Literally, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. Yes, this is a pretty fucked up world, but defending oneself from a ridiculous lawsuit that the plaintiff is virtually guaranteed to lose still costs money.
If someone complained, they'd switch to "this is so homosexual", "he likes men", etc. - avoiding the word but keeping the sentiment. The meaning behind the comment is clear Actually, it's not clear. Was the original statement intended to mean, "I don't like homosexual males" or was it said without thinking? If the latter, changing "this is so gay" to "this is so homosexual" basically means, "I don't like people who make a big deal out of things" or in a slightly rougher form, "shut up and quit bitching at me". It's a case where you make them feel like a shithead, which breeds resentment, which causes an even more offensive reaction. The solution is neither to complain or to ignore them. If you're personally offended by someone using an anti-group-x term to mean "stupid" or "bad", instead of bringing up group-x, why not just say, "why don't you just say what you mean?" and encourage people to use words which accurately communicate their intended ideas. Offering a solution is much more useful than pointing out the problem.
Actually, it's more along the lines of saying, "Sure you can be a Jew, just don't walk down the street in a neo-Nazi neighborhood screaming, 'I'm a Jew!' over and over at the top of your lungs" than it is like saying, "Sure you can be a jew, just don't look like one". Especially if 90% of the people on the street don't care about your ethnicity because they're trying to mind their own business. Inviting trouble disrupts the environment of everyone else, and everyone needs to be considerate of each other. It isn't about appeasing the homophobes. It's about keeping the homophobes from causing problems for the vast majority of the paying customers.
I heard their response not as "it's wrong to promote this" but more as "you guys are going to get reamed by the hordes of kiddies and doods, we can't stop them all, but they can't harass you if you don't advertise. So don't advertise.... please??" And more importantly to Blizzard, all of the resulting flamewars are going to disrupt the enjoyment of the game for the 90% of paying customers who just don't give a damn about the sexual orientation of other players.
Making such a rule is a good idea. It does not require advertising oneself as LGBT-friendly. Frankly, being tolerant of other human beings should be the rule rather than the exception. The problem with the guild is that it's bringing issues of sexuality into a forum where they don't belong. Advertising itself as LGBT-friendly does nothing to help people avoid idiots, and by bringing attention to the sexuality of its members, it can actually draw idiots to cause problems. I don't really think banning it is a great idea, but I think the guild is not going about the situation in the most reasonable manner, either. Frankly, it's rather self-defeating.
The amazing part is that both parties are in the wrong. Both parties support things that a large number (if not majority) of the people consider evil (or at least Bad Things). Generally, people pick a few key issues, pick a side based on said issues, and ignore the evils of "their" side because they have determined it to be the side of "lesser" evil. Debating an evil opponent is useless, but most people aren't evil. Most people advocate a position that can be construed to indirectly support evil things. Converting someone on their pet topic will never work, but in many cases, since there are few (I can only think of 1) topics where both sides consider each other to be evil (rather than one side considering the other evil, while the second side considers the first side misguided, stupid, counterproductive, or some other lesser form of "wrong"), it is far more productive to find common ground in the things that you both agree are evil and try to change them. Sadly, political parties inhibit productivity.
The solution here is that the upper ranges of government coordinate between the municipalities. The national government coordinates commerce and transportation between states. The states can coordinate between municipalities. For one, municipalities can play nicely with each other and honor each other's decisions for each other's citizens. This is like how a driver's license from one state is valid in any other state. Also, states can create rules that, for example, it is legal to transport alcohol through a dry county in a sealed container, but a rational municipality that wants to play nicely with its neighbors may decide that since it's illegal to have an open container of alcohol in a vehicle because of DUI issues, there's no reason to prohibit transportation of a closed container if you prohibit possession of the alcohol outside of a car. I think I drifted a bit in there, but the main point is that the tradeoff doesn't have to be as big as some would suggest if local governments can be assumed to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat respectful of their peers or if the encompassing layer of government can be assumed to provide coordination between sub-governments.
What if you miss and hit the pregnant store clerk instead, thus taking another life (or lives, depending on your view on abortion), and not accomplishing the goal of stopping the robbery. Well, if you are proficient with a firearm and you miss, those are the breaks. It's a tragic accident, but a tragic and fatal accident is frankly better than a murder. (Note: murder is intentional) On the other hand, if you are not proficient with a firearm, you don't need to try to use one. It's about personal responsibility.
What if both you and the robber die? That's a personal decision: "was it worth it?" I personally would say, no, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I would give the guy the money and then likely shoot him as he tries to leave because he's directly threatening everyone in the parking lot.
What if the robber's gun wasn't actually loaded? Irrelevant. If the gun reasonably appears to be a real gun (ie, those air pistols that look like a Glock or Desert Eagle count), the reasonable response is to defend yourself. You can't know if it's loaded or not, and if you point a gun at someone, that's a threat of lethal force. This elevates the appropriate response to the level of lethal force.
Just, as a side note, robbery and theft are not the same. Theft is larceny. It's simply taking something that isn't yours. Robbery is a violent crime. It's taking something that isn't yours, directly from someone else, by force or threat of force. It's the force/threat-of-force that justifies the reaction.
If I come home and find my stereo missing, then find the person who stole it, the proper thing to do is to have the guy arrested and prosecuted, not shoot him. On the other hand, if I come home and a guy is trying to steal my stereo, I tell him to put it back and get off my property, and he pulls out a weapon, I'm going to shoot him in the chest to protect myself and my family.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be like a writer putting several magazine articles a week, while insisting on on manually putting in the MS Word or OO writer formatting tags manually, instead of kicking out content.
A magazine article has been rendered, by the publisher, and printed onto a fixed-size page. If you're going to render your web page to a bitmap or even PDF and hand it out, I'll agree that nobody cares about the HTML. When you're presenting it to a browser to render it, you're telling me that the magazine publisher doesn't care if you turn in an article that renders properly for them in MS Word 2010; they just care that it worked for you when you designed it in Microsoft Works 4.5.
If you want to approach content creation as if it were page layout software, you shouldn't be creating web content.
Now you're going to decide who can and cannot create web content? No sir, you don't get to make that decision.
Perhaps I'm the illiterate one, but I read "shouldn't", not "can't." We all get to make that decision for ourselves. It's called an opinion.
There is also a link at the bottom of the cs101 page that takes you to the real crypto class page.
You mean actually go into a store and give money to people? WTF do you think this is, 1995?
I mount /boot, /bin, /sbin, /lib, and /lib64 read-only from a small SSD; I mount /usr on a large HDD. Maybe that's not a good argument, but it's yet another reason I'll probably never use Fedora.
When I get an SSL certificate from my registrar, the fact that I am logged into the account that owns the domain should be enough proof. Since the computer can do this, it could be free. Frankly, any registrar should be able to issue a free normal SSL certificate, and if any of the big ones started this, they would all be pressured to follow suit. They make the big bucks on the EV certificates now anyway.
It could be a concern because it can be argued that there is no "seizure" involved in perfectly replicating a digital object. Therefore, any digital records can be taken by the government as long as the original is unaltered without violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Personally, I think that argument is a load of crap, but that doesn't mean courts won't accept it. If the Constitution were fully media-agnostic, it would take into consideration perfect replication of digital objects the same way it does limited-quantity analog objects. The issue isn't necessarily enshrining new digital rights but ensuring that the rights applied to the analog world are still protected when something goes digital.
Well, a cult is where a group of followers attempt to "care for" a god (always one, though one can join multiple cults) in the hope that the god will do things for them. A religion is where a group of followers attempt to follow a set of rules (e.g. 1 2 3 4) in the hope that their god (or gods) will not do things to them (eg. 1 2/3 4. Sure, it's not a pefect distinction, but when one realizes that most modern cults (as opposed to the classical ones that worshiped Jupiter Optimus Maximus and such) set their founder up as the deity, it matches up pretty well.
Well, we have opposable thumbs, an advanced cerebral cortex, and our hyoid bone is descended. These allow us to do things like invent tools and articulate complex sounds.
If the majority of major websites took the "upgrade to a decent browser" approach, everybody (perhaps excluding some IT departments) running IE6 would suddenly find "the whole internet" broken and be forced to upgrade. Sadly, nobody wants to be the first to piss everyone off, so it'll never happen.
That's only because most people only have one kind of facial tissue in their local context, even though Kleenex makes several (e.g. lotion, ultra soft, reguar, aloe, etc). On the other hand, there are currently at least six types of Coke (Coke Classic, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Cherry Coke). To make it worse, half of the soft drinks are distributed by Coke, and restaurants will often tell you "we have Coke" or "we have Pepsi" when they mean "we have products distributed by X". Personally, I've lived in the South my entire life and never had anyone ask me what kind of Coke I wanted. I've always treated that as a lame Jeff Foxworthy "Redneck" joke.
To a user, the "magic box" with all the fancy wires running to it and blinkenlights on the front is a central unit that does processing, and if you want to get down to it, the CPU is the computer (i.e. it actually does the computations, and everything else is storage or I/O, even if it's inside the "magic box"), so "computer" isn't even an unambiguous term here. Granted, telling the user that "the CPU is actually a chip inside the case, along with a lot of other things" is nice in theory, but the user isn't going to remember unless you give them a replacement term for what they called "the CPU". Personally, I call it the case and use a grocery store analogy if necessary. The case holds all of the parts of the computer "just like" a case of water holds all of the individual bottles.
I believe that the word you are looking for is "corporatism", which is often a component of--but not fully synonymous with--fascism.
The "Southern Democrat" for example, socially liberal but economically conservative.
I really hope you typed that backwards. Aside from geography, the defining characteristic of a Southern Democrat is social "conservatism".
The law doesn't define right and wrong. It is restricted to what things are allowed, required and prohibited.
Except that the government is bound by the rules of the Constitution. By law, it is impossible for the legislature to violate the Constitution (since an un-Constitutional law is illegal, it is, at least in relation to the body of law, nonexistant), and the legislature makes the rules for the school systems. As such, the government can't discriminate in any way prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, if people associated with the government discriminate in an un-Constitutional manner, they are subject to disciplinary action or even losing their jobs. Your analogy is not only inappropriate and incorrect, it is outright stupid.
Welcome to the United States of America. Literally, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. Yes, this is a pretty fucked up world, but defending oneself from a ridiculous lawsuit that the plaintiff is virtually guaranteed to lose still costs money.
If someone complained, they'd switch to "this is so homosexual", "he likes men", etc. - avoiding the word but keeping the sentiment. The meaning behind the comment is clear
Actually, it's not clear. Was the original statement intended to mean, "I don't like homosexual males" or was it said without thinking? If the latter, changing "this is so gay" to "this is so homosexual" basically means, "I don't like people who make a big deal out of things" or in a slightly rougher form, "shut up and quit bitching at me". It's a case where you make them feel like a shithead, which breeds resentment, which causes an even more offensive reaction. The solution is neither to complain or to ignore them. If you're personally offended by someone using an anti-group-x term to mean "stupid" or "bad", instead of bringing up group-x, why not just say, "why don't you just say what you mean?" and encourage people to use words which accurately communicate their intended ideas. Offering a solution is much more useful than pointing out the problem.
Actually, it's more along the lines of saying, "Sure you can be a Jew, just don't walk down the street in a neo-Nazi neighborhood screaming, 'I'm a Jew!' over and over at the top of your lungs" than it is like saying, "Sure you can be a jew, just don't look like one". Especially if 90% of the people on the street don't care about your ethnicity because they're trying to mind their own business. Inviting trouble disrupts the environment of everyone else, and everyone needs to be considerate of each other. It isn't about appeasing the homophobes. It's about keeping the homophobes from causing problems for the vast majority of the paying customers.
I heard their response not as "it's wrong to promote this" but more as "you guys are going to get reamed by the hordes of kiddies and doods, we can't stop them all, but they can't harass you if you don't advertise. So don't advertise.... please??"
And more importantly to Blizzard, all of the resulting flamewars are going to disrupt the enjoyment of the game for the 90% of paying customers who just don't give a damn about the sexual orientation of other players.
Making such a rule is a good idea. It does not require advertising oneself as LGBT-friendly. Frankly, being tolerant of other human beings should be the rule rather than the exception. The problem with the guild is that it's bringing issues of sexuality into a forum where they don't belong. Advertising itself as LGBT-friendly does nothing to help people avoid idiots, and by bringing attention to the sexuality of its members, it can actually draw idiots to cause problems. I don't really think banning it is a great idea, but I think the guild is not going about the situation in the most reasonable manner, either. Frankly, it's rather self-defeating.
The amazing part is that both parties are in the wrong. Both parties support things that a large number (if not majority) of the people consider evil (or at least Bad Things). Generally, people pick a few key issues, pick a side based on said issues, and ignore the evils of "their" side because they have determined it to be the side of "lesser" evil. Debating an evil opponent is useless, but most people aren't evil. Most people advocate a position that can be construed to indirectly support evil things. Converting someone on their pet topic will never work, but in many cases, since there are few (I can only think of 1) topics where both sides consider each other to be evil (rather than one side considering the other evil, while the second side considers the first side misguided, stupid, counterproductive, or some other lesser form of "wrong"), it is far more productive to find common ground in the things that you both agree are evil and try to change them. Sadly, political parties inhibit productivity.
The solution here is that the upper ranges of government coordinate between the municipalities. The national government coordinates commerce and transportation between states. The states can coordinate between municipalities. For one, municipalities can play nicely with each other and honor each other's decisions for each other's citizens. This is like how a driver's license from one state is valid in any other state. Also, states can create rules that, for example, it is legal to transport alcohol through a dry county in a sealed container, but a rational municipality that wants to play nicely with its neighbors may decide that since it's illegal to have an open container of alcohol in a vehicle because of DUI issues, there's no reason to prohibit transportation of a closed container if you prohibit possession of the alcohol outside of a car. I think I drifted a bit in there, but the main point is that the tradeoff doesn't have to be as big as some would suggest if local governments can be assumed to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat respectful of their peers or if the encompassing layer of government can be assumed to provide coordination between sub-governments.
What if you miss and hit the pregnant store clerk instead, thus taking another life (or lives, depending on your view on abortion), and not accomplishing the goal of stopping the robbery.
Well, if you are proficient with a firearm and you miss, those are the breaks. It's a tragic accident, but a tragic and fatal accident is frankly better than a murder. (Note: murder is intentional) On the other hand, if you are not proficient with a firearm, you don't need to try to use one. It's about personal responsibility.
What if both you and the robber die?
That's a personal decision: "was it worth it?" I personally would say, no, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I would give the guy the money and then likely shoot him as he tries to leave because he's directly threatening everyone in the parking lot.
What if the robber's gun wasn't actually loaded?
Irrelevant. If the gun reasonably appears to be a real gun (ie, those air pistols that look like a Glock or Desert Eagle count), the reasonable response is to defend yourself. You can't know if it's loaded or not, and if you point a gun at someone, that's a threat of lethal force. This elevates the appropriate response to the level of lethal force.
Just, as a side note, robbery and theft are not the same. Theft is larceny. It's simply taking something that isn't yours. Robbery is a violent crime. It's taking something that isn't yours, directly from someone else, by force or threat of force. It's the force/threat-of-force that justifies the reaction.
If I come home and find my stereo missing, then find the person who stole it, the proper thing to do is to have the guy arrested and prosecuted, not shoot him. On the other hand, if I come home and a guy is trying to steal my stereo, I tell him to put it back and get off my property, and he pulls out a weapon, I'm going to shoot him in the chest to protect myself and my family.