You don't have to be smart to use an app to jailbreak your phone. Anyone who can use Google and download a file can have a jailbroken phone in under an hour. The only set of people who can't accomplish this are those with severe mental handicaps, and self-defeating individuals who assume it's beyond their capabilities.
For practical purposes, if it takes you 12 hours to download a demo, then you can be included in the group of people without PSN access.
Regardless, a 12 hour download is still likely faster than waiting for a release of the BluRay, especially since movie tie-in game releases typically coincide with theatrical releases. By the time the BluRay comes out, you can probably find the game in the bargain bin anyway.
We don't explore because of what we know we'll find -- that's expansion or migration -- we explore because we *don't* know what we'll find.
The only valid question is whether we should use men or machines. Machines are robust and don't require life support, but they can't fix themselves, and for the most part, they can only do what they were intentionally designed to do. They cannot make decisions about unexpected events, although we don't particularly care if they die.
Additionally, people like to see and experience things for themselves. It's all well and good to record a video of a ride on a roller coaster, but it's a poor substitute for the real thing. Space tourism, including trips to the moon, may well be a huge industry in the future, but it can't exist absent a supporting infrastructure. Maybe you don't think that should be a role of NASA, but again, governments have been creating infrastructure and funding exploration since the beginning of recorded history, so it's not exactly without precedent.
Finally, the costs are relatively minimal. As a percent of Federal spending, NASA's budget is just over 0.5%. If your monthly expenses were $2,000, then NASA's budget would represent about $10 of that. So *even if* you were right, in that the only reason to go is for the cool factor, then that's a pretty good bargain to be cool. My poop costs more than that to make, and *nobody* thinks that's cool.
I know that's true for "free" phones, but I'm not really sure how it works for "discounted" phones. Do you have to agree to return it if you cancel within 30 days? Do you agree to pay the difference between the discount and retail?
Now that I think about it, I'm sure they have some verbiage in there to protect against that scenario, and your initial theory is probably correct.
Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything? It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.
It's better for us as a society to try new things than to be paralyzed in debate over cost/benefit analysis.
A base on the moon is a good interim step, learning to crawl before we walk, and while it may not have any known payoffs in material gains, the increased knowledge will be priceless. Further, it's a lot easier to resupply and make significant changes on the moon than on a distant planet.
There's a reason we test designs on earth as much as possible before we launch them, and it's the same reason we should be testing designs for human habitation on the moon before we try them elsewhere.
Unless you think there's no point in exploration period, which ignores the entirety of human history and a good portion of its technological advances.
It's probably cleverly obfuscated as "you're responsible for the usage of your phone," or something along those lines. Should they reimburse you when you accidentally drop the phone in a pond too? Take some personal responsibility.
It may be inconvenient *for you* that it's so easy to use a feature unintentionally, but for many others it's a convenience that they have web access when they need it without paying a monthly fee.
But can't you still get out of the contract within 30 days for free? How does raising the early termination fee solve the issue of buying on subsidy, then canceling the contract?
As far as I can tell, this will only affect people who would rather switch in 6 months or a year instead of waiting 2 years... the same old lock-in game the wireless carriers have been playing for years.
I didn't realize that giving away something that's already free and plentiful can add value. Unless they're planning to create a scarcity of game demos -- which sort of defeats the point -- then this adds little or no value, except possibly for people without PSN access.
If it's within your purview, you can always try ordering licenses for the software in question, or submitting the purchase request through proper channels. When asked why, explain that you cannot find any licensing information, and you're looking to protect the company's interests.
That said, it's not your job to make policy, nor is it your responsibility to protect the financial interests of the publishers of the software in question.
So, keep a record of all of your meetings and document all conversations you had with any superiors regarding the situation. Obviously you don't want to include any especially damning details one way or the other -- your goal here is not retribution, it's job and career security. If you said nothing to management about a problem you knew about, then you're at fault. At the same time, you don't want to take the fall if/when someone reports your company. Keeping records will help to defend against either scenario, and improve your job prospects should you be "let go." It's evidence that you were trying to be a team player. CYA -- Cover Your Ass -- but don't rock the boat unless you're prepared for the consequences when everyone ends up in the water (including yourself).
I'm not a doctor, but I've been watching Glenn Beck, and here's what I think he'd have to say:
Why bother fixing it? They're just going to implant tiny remote-controlled exploding devices in the chest cavities of all citizens once the Socialist "healthcare" program takes effect. Come on, people, WAKE UP!!! I mean.... *guffaw*...... *rolls eyes*..... Whore!! I'm not saying *you* are a whore, but certainly we can all agree that whores want free healthcare, therefore people who want free healthcare are whores! *Expression of poignant thought*
Don't forget, today is 11/13, the two month anniversary of 913!!!! Grassroots Tea Party forever!!
I've owned six dogs, five breeds, and while that's not a huge sample, I'm not really convinced that there's any significant difference from breed to breed. More importantly, I've seen no scientific evidence to verify such claims of supposed breed behavior traits. In the animal world, size == power, so yes, larger dogs may be more likely to pick fight over flight, but beyond that I think the differences are mostly conditioning. In my opinion, it's people's expectations, and perhaps unconscious cues, that creates (or emphasizes) a specific behavior, the same way if I suggest that you'll see the number 12 a lot today, you'll be more likely to notice when you do.
*Any* dog can potentially bite when awoken, hence the term "let sleeping dogs lie." *Any* dog can be taught to be ferocious, but Rotts & Pits are more muscular than most, and therefore more effective in their attacks, and more readily sought out by people who want their dogs to be weapons. Dogs that don't warn or growl are dogs that have been taught (conditioned) not to growl. "Sensitive" is a fairly ambiguous term. They're good (bad) at interpreting body language? They're easily offended? They're easily confused? A well-trained dog knows what is expected of it, what is unacceptable, and any perceived sensitivity is likely a lack of consistency in its training.
For example, if a dog is sometimes permitted and sometimes rebuffed (or worse, beaten) when it jumps on the couch, then it will remain confused. He knows that *being* on the couch feels good, and it must be ok, because every time he lays there you pet him, or at least tacitly accept his presence. (Actually he only gets to lay there when you let him, but you have to look at it from the dog's perspective: Only good things happen once he's settled on the couch, so being on the couch must be okay. It doesn't help that being comfortable is its own reward). But he also knows that *getting* to the couch is dangerous, because sometimes he makes it, and sometimes bad things happen. It's much the same way you might be on your toes when you have to walk down a dark alley to get to a night club. The act of getting on the couch becomes the dark alley for the dog. He may or may not safely arrive, and he has to be ready to defend himself through fight or flight, but it's worth trying.
Dogs can develop all sorts of nonsense connections because of our inconsistent behavior. If you're housebreaking a dog and you punish him after the fact, he could develop a negative association with the *room* you took him in to rub his nose in it, swat him, or whatever (which, ethical issues aside, is why punishment is such an ineffective and potentially dangerous training technique in enough instances that it should just be avoided altogether.) So any time he's in that room thereafter, he's on alert for any (perceived) threat.
Say you (or someone else) yelled at your dog and then swatted him, and now he's learned to associate a yell and a raised hand with incoming pain. Next thing you know, your kids are running around screaming and waving their hands, and the dog flips out.
It doesn't even take punishment though. Dogs can't necessarily distinguish between accidental harm and intentional harm, so if you hop out of bed one day and land on his tail, he may learn to fear you getting out of bed. The next day you wake up and jump out of bed, and the dog bites you to defend himself.
It can be a long road to break a dog of its fears -- one that most people will never tread. Either the dog consistently chooses flight, and they ignore it, or he chooses to fight, and they give him up or put him down (no Rick Roll intended). Which is unfortunate, and probably the cause of many instances of dog "aggression" (self defense).
All of that said, I'll concede that there can be hereditary issues like glandular differences that could predispose one breed to abnormal levels of a given hormone. But that's hardly the same as ambiguous, undisprovable statements I've seen, such as "labs LOVE to please people," or "Pits are mean," which I've found no more or less true than for any other breed.
It doesn't really matter whether the cause is the owner or the dog itself. If there's a high correlation of attacks with a certain breed, then that's evidence of a public health/safety risk, regardless of the cause. It's the same reason you can't buy liquor 24/7; not because liquor is inherently more dangerous after midnight or 2AM, but because making it available during those hours results in an increase in crime, while halting sales results in a decrease.
Personally, I don't agree with either of those actions (banning breeds or regulating the hours of liquor sales) even if they increase public safety, but your specific argument is flawed. There is no question that banning pitbulls will lead to fewer attacks by pitbulls as long as the law is enforceable and enforced. The only question is whether it's justifiable to punish the many for the acts of the few, and in the US, where safety is concerned, the answer is a resounding "yes." I could go on a rant about the ill-effects of the pursuit of safety, but I'll save that for the next article about the Patriot Act or DHS.
Many urban areas also require a license to own a dog...
On a side note, licensing systems are ostensibly well intentioned, but they have enormous potential for abuse and few (if any) safeguards against such abuse.
Heh, yeah.. especially if this account (also by Hipcheck16) is accurate:
Hey Daily Herald - why don't you investigate whose campaign has been anonymously calling residents and stating that two of the other candidates are running anti-Semitic campaigns?
Interestingly, the callers weren't smart enough to realize that one of the candidates they accuse of being anti-Semitic is actually JEWISH, and the other is not Jewish, but has a JEWISH brother-in-law, several close friends who are JEWISH and the endorsement of at least 5 local elected officials, including Sid Mathias and David Stolman, who are also JEWISH? Does that seem like someone who would be anti-Semitic?
How low does a candidate have to sink to win this election? As if tearfully pandering for votes at Dominick's last Saturday and accusing other candidates and their children of stealing signs aren't enough, they now have to resort to the most vile and disgusting- and untrue- allegations that could ever be raised in a political campaign. Even if she gets elected, her true nature has now been revealed.
People who live in glass houses should not throw Stones. Only desperate and unqualified candidates do that. But that's been an issue throughout this election, hasn't it?
How puzzling that she's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mutating neutrinos"... really?
Of course. Something with that many big words will surely end the world.
The joke will be on them when they discover the value of real estate in 2013.
You don't have to be smart to use an app to jailbreak your phone. Anyone who can use Google and download a file can have a jailbroken phone in under an hour. The only set of people who can't accomplish this are those with severe mental handicaps, and self-defeating individuals who assume it's beyond their capabilities.
For practical purposes, if it takes you 12 hours to download a demo, then you can be included in the group of people without PSN access.
Regardless, a 12 hour download is still likely faster than waiting for a release of the BluRay, especially since movie tie-in game releases typically coincide with theatrical releases. By the time the BluRay comes out, you can probably find the game in the bargain bin anyway.
We don't explore because of what we know we'll find -- that's expansion or migration -- we explore because we *don't* know what we'll find.
The only valid question is whether we should use men or machines. Machines are robust and don't require life support, but they can't fix themselves, and for the most part, they can only do what they were intentionally designed to do. They cannot make decisions about unexpected events, although we don't particularly care if they die.
Additionally, people like to see and experience things for themselves. It's all well and good to record a video of a ride on a roller coaster, but it's a poor substitute for the real thing. Space tourism, including trips to the moon, may well be a huge industry in the future, but it can't exist absent a supporting infrastructure. Maybe you don't think that should be a role of NASA, but again, governments have been creating infrastructure and funding exploration since the beginning of recorded history, so it's not exactly without precedent.
Finally, the costs are relatively minimal. As a percent of Federal spending, NASA's budget is just over 0.5%. If your monthly expenses were $2,000, then NASA's budget would represent about $10 of that. So *even if* you were right, in that the only reason to go is for the cool factor, then that's a pretty good bargain to be cool. My poop costs more than that to make, and *nobody* thinks that's cool.
I know that's true for "free" phones, but I'm not really sure how it works for "discounted" phones. Do you have to agree to return it if you cancel within 30 days? Do you agree to pay the difference between the discount and retail?
Now that I think about it, I'm sure they have some verbiage in there to protect against that scenario, and your initial theory is probably correct.
I don't get phone service from Verizon.
That's the responsible thing to do.
Agreed, that's certainly the most reasonable approach if you're bothered by the issue. No need for name calling.
I see an incongruence between English and that imaginative word you used.
Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything? It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.
Man, someone's going to be *pissed* when they find out their "moon water" actually comes from a tap somewhere in Jersey.
It's better for us as a society to try new things than to be paralyzed in debate over cost/benefit analysis.
A base on the moon is a good interim step, learning to crawl before we walk, and while it may not have any known payoffs in material gains, the increased knowledge will be priceless. Further, it's a lot easier to resupply and make significant changes on the moon than on a distant planet.
There's a reason we test designs on earth as much as possible before we launch them, and it's the same reason we should be testing designs for human habitation on the moon before we try them elsewhere.
Unless you think there's no point in exploration period, which ignores the entirety of human history and a good portion of its technological advances.
It's probably cleverly obfuscated as "you're responsible for the usage of your phone," or something along those lines. Should they reimburse you when you accidentally drop the phone in a pond too? Take some personal responsibility.
It may be inconvenient *for you* that it's so easy to use a feature unintentionally, but for many others it's a convenience that they have web access when they need it without paying a monthly fee.
But can't you still get out of the contract within 30 days for free? How does raising the early termination fee solve the issue of buying on subsidy, then canceling the contract?
As far as I can tell, this will only affect people who would rather switch in 6 months or a year instead of waiting 2 years... the same old lock-in game the wireless carriers have been playing for years.
The only real insight was Freud's obsession with the phallus, and his lack of consideration for basic physics.
Don't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.
Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means.
The number is spelled "googol." Just saying..
Unless he actually meant that the device allows you to control Google, which would also be cool.
I didn't realize that giving away something that's already free and plentiful can add value. Unless they're planning to create a scarcity of game demos -- which sort of defeats the point -- then this adds little or no value, except possibly for people without PSN access.
Not necessarily.
If it's within your purview, you can always try ordering licenses for the software in question, or submitting the purchase request through proper channels. When asked why, explain that you cannot find any licensing information, and you're looking to protect the company's interests.
That said, it's not your job to make policy, nor is it your responsibility to protect the financial interests of the publishers of the software in question.
So, keep a record of all of your meetings and document all conversations you had with any superiors regarding the situation. Obviously you don't want to include any especially damning details one way or the other -- your goal here is not retribution, it's job and career security. If you said nothing to management about a problem you knew about, then you're at fault. At the same time, you don't want to take the fall if/when someone reports your company. Keeping records will help to defend against either scenario, and improve your job prospects should you be "let go." It's evidence that you were trying to be a team player. CYA -- Cover Your Ass -- but don't rock the boat unless you're prepared for the consequences when everyone ends up in the water (including yourself).
I'm not a doctor, but I've been watching Glenn Beck, and here's what I think he'd have to say:
Why bother fixing it? They're just going to implant tiny remote-controlled exploding devices in the chest cavities of all citizens once the Socialist "healthcare" program takes effect. Come on, people, WAKE UP!!! I mean.... *guffaw*...... *rolls eyes*..... Whore!! I'm not saying *you* are a whore, but certainly we can all agree that whores want free healthcare, therefore people who want free healthcare are whores! *Expression of poignant thought*
Don't forget, today is 11/13, the two month anniversary of 913!!!! Grassroots Tea Party forever!!
This gives a whole new meaning to heart attack.
Someone had to say it.
I think I've seen her.. there's a vas deferens between her left and right legs, right?
I've owned six dogs, five breeds, and while that's not a huge sample, I'm not really convinced that there's any significant difference from breed to breed. More importantly, I've seen no scientific evidence to verify such claims of supposed breed behavior traits. In the animal world, size == power, so yes, larger dogs may be more likely to pick fight over flight, but beyond that I think the differences are mostly conditioning. In my opinion, it's people's expectations, and perhaps unconscious cues, that creates (or emphasizes) a specific behavior, the same way if I suggest that you'll see the number 12 a lot today, you'll be more likely to notice when you do.
*Any* dog can potentially bite when awoken, hence the term "let sleeping dogs lie." *Any* dog can be taught to be ferocious, but Rotts & Pits are more muscular than most, and therefore more effective in their attacks, and more readily sought out by people who want their dogs to be weapons. Dogs that don't warn or growl are dogs that have been taught (conditioned) not to growl. "Sensitive" is a fairly ambiguous term. They're good (bad) at interpreting body language? They're easily offended? They're easily confused? A well-trained dog knows what is expected of it, what is unacceptable, and any perceived sensitivity is likely a lack of consistency in its training.
For example, if a dog is sometimes permitted and sometimes rebuffed (or worse, beaten) when it jumps on the couch, then it will remain confused. He knows that *being* on the couch feels good, and it must be ok, because every time he lays there you pet him, or at least tacitly accept his presence. (Actually he only gets to lay there when you let him, but you have to look at it from the dog's perspective: Only good things happen once he's settled on the couch, so being on the couch must be okay. It doesn't help that being comfortable is its own reward). But he also knows that *getting* to the couch is dangerous, because sometimes he makes it, and sometimes bad things happen. It's much the same way you might be on your toes when you have to walk down a dark alley to get to a night club. The act of getting on the couch becomes the dark alley for the dog. He may or may not safely arrive, and he has to be ready to defend himself through fight or flight, but it's worth trying.
Dogs can develop all sorts of nonsense connections because of our inconsistent behavior. If you're housebreaking a dog and you punish him after the fact, he could develop a negative association with the *room* you took him in to rub his nose in it, swat him, or whatever (which, ethical issues aside, is why punishment is such an ineffective and potentially dangerous training technique in enough instances that it should just be avoided altogether.) So any time he's in that room thereafter, he's on alert for any (perceived) threat.
Say you (or someone else) yelled at your dog and then swatted him, and now he's learned to associate a yell and a raised hand with incoming pain. Next thing you know, your kids are running around screaming and waving their hands, and the dog flips out.
It doesn't even take punishment though. Dogs can't necessarily distinguish between accidental harm and intentional harm, so if you hop out of bed one day and land on his tail, he may learn to fear you getting out of bed. The next day you wake up and jump out of bed, and the dog bites you to defend himself.
It can be a long road to break a dog of its fears -- one that most people will never tread. Either the dog consistently chooses flight, and they ignore it, or he chooses to fight, and they give him up or put him down (no Rick Roll intended). Which is unfortunate, and probably the cause of many instances of dog "aggression" (self defense).
All of that said, I'll concede that there can be hereditary issues like glandular differences that could predispose one breed to abnormal levels of a given hormone. But that's hardly the same as ambiguous, undisprovable statements I've seen, such as "labs LOVE to please people," or "Pits are mean," which I've found no more or less true than for any other breed.
It doesn't really matter whether the cause is the owner or the dog itself. If there's a high correlation of attacks with a certain breed, then that's evidence of a public health/safety risk, regardless of the cause. It's the same reason you can't buy liquor 24/7; not because liquor is inherently more dangerous after midnight or 2AM, but because making it available during those hours results in an increase in crime, while halting sales results in a decrease.
Personally, I don't agree with either of those actions (banning breeds or regulating the hours of liquor sales) even if they increase public safety, but your specific argument is flawed. There is no question that banning pitbulls will lead to fewer attacks by pitbulls as long as the law is enforceable and enforced. The only question is whether it's justifiable to punish the many for the acts of the few, and in the US, where safety is concerned, the answer is a resounding "yes." I could go on a rant about the ill-effects of the pursuit of safety, but I'll save that for the next article about the Patriot Act or DHS.
Many urban areas also require a license to own a dog...
On a side note, licensing systems are ostensibly well intentioned, but they have enormous potential for abuse and few (if any) safeguards against such abuse.
Heh, yeah.. especially if this account (also by Hipcheck16) is accurate:
How puzzling that she's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers.