The upper management are really clueless and they make sure all mice and keyboards are wireless only because they can then bundle geeksquad protection plans. IT is just an insane customer experience when you want a wired gaming mouse and they can not even carry it.
You mean like this, which shows as in-stock at every one of 10 stores near me? Or this or this?
And what the hell does being wireless have to do with anything? They try to sell protection plans on everything. I'm not defending BB, but your arguments are the ravings of a madman.
Anyone who cared about a given feature knew where it was. Lack of understanding on the part of the lazy and stupid doesn't constitute a valid reason for a UI redesign for everyone. It's like printing every commonly used shell command before each new prompt, but then renaming them all at the same time to instantly transform your power users into newbs. And then renaming them again based on what folder you're in.
You cannot fix stupid, and usually not lazy either. The same people who ignored your feature when it was hidden behind a menu (and rightly so) will *continue* to ignore it when it's in plain sight.
Unless you're a CTO or someone making major purchasing decisions for a large corporation or government entity that buys PCs, quite literally, by the truckload, then good luck with that. And those people are the target demographic, because they have a vested interest in locking down their systems as much as possible. The ability to absolutely prevent the installation of unauthorized software (and especially to prevent booting into something like BackTrack linux) is the wet dream of almost any IT manager.
I haven't read it, and so I'm not making an argument about the book itself, but once created, art has a life beyond its creator and its meaning is subjective. If one sees happiness in a Jackson Pollock, say, then the painting means happiness to them. If another person sees a mess, then to them it's a mess. The artist himself may have been expressing anger or remorse, but it's other people's interpretations that give it meaning. This is no less true for written works of art than other media. I may write a story about how I lost my dog and felt both remorse for not having better prevented this situation, and relief that I would no longer have to care for him. To me, it may have been a literal story. To someone else it could be a metaphor for losing a parent. None of this is to dismiss the importance of reading comprehension, but the idea that there is but one correct answer for the meaning of a work is simply a childish desire for order and absolute truth.
That's not to say that people haven't just read the cliffnotes, but that the author of said summary's interpretation isn't inherently wrong just because it wasn't what Bradbury was thinking of when he wrote it.
Exactly. It's not as if diversity of TLDs allows for diversity of offerings. Do you think there's competition from Google.com at Google.net or Google.info? Or (would be) at Google.search? No! The same companies are going to register the same fucking names on all TLDs. Smaller players are (possibly) going to quibble over who has rights to a given name across all TLDs, and any established company will get handed the rights to their names. In other words, this is all a bunch of hand-waving, and nothing will change.
Someone clearly didn't work in tech support when he/she was younger...stupid people are very likely to call tech support
Selection bias. You may believe there are more stupid people than there are simply because a disproportionate amount of your interactions have been with stupid people. Additionally, stupidity, ignorance, and laziness all have similar symptoms, so it's easy to mix them up.
That's not a bad idea. P=M/A, so if we dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air to increase the mass of the atmosphere, the pressure will naturally increase. Brilliant!
Increased odds doesn't mean something *will* happen, just that it's more likely to happen. Wearing a seatbelt increases your odds of surviving an accident. That doesn't mean people who wear seatbelts will always live, nor that people who don't will always die. The seatbelt wearers are simply more likely to survive.
Seven events where outcomes are random (or at least chaotic) are not sufficient to extrapolate whether predictions were correct or not. One hundred years may not be enough. In traffic, there are tens of thousands of events from which to gather data in a given year. Not so much for hurricanes. Just because storm intensity and/or count hasn't increased in the years we've seen doesn't mean it won't. Nor does it mean that it will. But the prudent course is to err on the side of caution.
Yes, that's the old way of doing it. Back in the day, mostly before radar became common (and radar detectors banned in Virginia) they would watch from the air and time how long it took a car to get from one point to the next and then radio the vehicle to units on the ground. That's why you see seemingly random white lines across the highway. Probably save a couple bucks by removing the signs and not painting the new lines.
Virginia is probably the worst state in the union to drive in. But it's all in the name of safety, right? At least their draconian enforcement measures have eliminated speeding and accidents, so there's that. Oh wait, I'm thinking of their draconian penalties for possession of marijuana. Oh wait, not cannabis; I meant moonshine. Ok, ok, I'll stop. Your turn, Virginia.
"Science" is using the wrong baseline. The baseline for productivity is not how well you remember objects on a table or answer math problems in a lab; it's how well you endure the tedium of showing up every day, after day, after day, after day, and what you would be doing if you *weren't* plugging in and listening to music. Such as arguing about productivity on Slashdot.
I'm sorry, who the fuck are you replying to? I didn't say anything about giving up all of our worldly possessions and sending all of our wealth to NK; in fact I specifically said that *material support* should obviously be prohibited. What I said is that information (which would especially cover works in the public domain) is not effectively restricted by ITAR, and it's ridiculous to even pretend that it is.
Sorry, no. The recent discovery of endogenous opioid peptides and their receptor sites in various invertebrates (including insects) may encourage the belief that these animals can experience pain in view of the analgesic role of opioid peptides in mammals. However, the various functions, unrelated to pain experience, which are mediated by opioids in mammals, as well as the known occurrence of two such compounds in a protozoan, suggest that the endogenous opioids of invertebrates may function in regulating physiological or behavioral activities unconnected with pain phenomena. The presence of opioids can therefore not be taken as necessarily indicating a capacity for pain perception in an animal. http://www.ganima.info/docs/pain/65.pdf
The best indicator is behavior, and insects do not behave differently when injured, aside from any physical limitations the injury may cause. Personally I think it's unethical to cut off insect limbs for entertainment whether or not it causes pain; I just think the "anesthesia" angle is bunk and used in a weak attempt to circumvent any ethical criticism.
Well, believing that ITAR has any effect when it comes to the flow of information is rather Pollyanna to begin with. And sure, we don't want to supply material support to the governments of NK or Iran, but the free flow of information helps the people more than it does their oppressive regimes. Of course that's not necessarily applicable to the software in question, but I'm speaking to the larger issue of ineffective, and potentially counter-productive, trade restrictions on intellectual works.
Slashdot Mirror
The upper management are really clueless and they make sure all mice and keyboards are wireless only because they can then bundle geeksquad protection plans. IT is just an insane customer experience when you want a wired gaming mouse and they can not even carry it.
You mean like this, which shows as in-stock at every one of 10 stores near me? Or this or this?
And what the hell does being wireless have to do with anything? They try to sell protection plans on everything. I'm not defending BB, but your arguments are the ravings of a madman.
Anyone who cared about a given feature knew where it was. Lack of understanding on the part of the lazy and stupid doesn't constitute a valid reason for a UI redesign for everyone. It's like printing every commonly used shell command before each new prompt, but then renaming them all at the same time to instantly transform your power users into newbs. And then renaming them again based on what folder you're in.
You cannot fix stupid, and usually not lazy either. The same people who ignored your feature when it was hidden behind a menu (and rightly so) will *continue* to ignore it when it's in plain sight.
Adult themed Star Wars games? Meesa can't wait!
Unless you're a CTO or someone making major purchasing decisions for a large corporation or government entity that buys PCs, quite literally, by the truckload, then good luck with that. And those people are the target demographic, because they have a vested interest in locking down their systems as much as possible. The ability to absolutely prevent the installation of unauthorized software (and especially to prevent booting into something like BackTrack linux) is the wet dream of almost any IT manager.
I haven't read it, and so I'm not making an argument about the book itself, but once created, art has a life beyond its creator and its meaning is subjective. If one sees happiness in a Jackson Pollock, say, then the painting means happiness to them. If another person sees a mess, then to them it's a mess. The artist himself may have been expressing anger or remorse, but it's other people's interpretations that give it meaning. This is no less true for written works of art than other media. I may write a story about how I lost my dog and felt both remorse for not having better prevented this situation, and relief that I would no longer have to care for him. To me, it may have been a literal story. To someone else it could be a metaphor for losing a parent. None of this is to dismiss the importance of reading comprehension, but the idea that there is but one correct answer for the meaning of a work is simply a childish desire for order and absolute truth.
That's not to say that people haven't just read the cliffnotes, but that the author of said summary's interpretation isn't inherently wrong just because it wasn't what Bradbury was thinking of when he wrote it.
I'm not suggesting that; just that the current system is more than sufficient.
Exactly. It's not as if diversity of TLDs allows for diversity of offerings. Do you think there's competition from Google.com at Google.net or Google.info? Or (would be) at Google.search? No! The same companies are going to register the same fucking names on all TLDs. Smaller players are (possibly) going to quibble over who has rights to a given name across all TLDs, and any established company will get handed the rights to their names. In other words, this is all a bunch of hand-waving, and nothing will change.
I've never had a hobo look down at me.
Wouldn't the more realistic scenario involve her yelling "Fuck yeah, I'm in heaven!! Who cares why I died!"?
I'd love to see a version with it baring its teeth. Something like this.
You may know him as Barney Stinson, or possibly Neil Patrick Harris.
Someone clearly didn't work in tech support when he/she was younger...stupid people are very likely to call tech support
Selection bias. You may believe there are more stupid people than there are simply because a disproportionate amount of your interactions have been with stupid people. Additionally, stupidity, ignorance, and laziness all have similar symptoms, so it's easy to mix them up.
That's not a bad idea. P=M/A, so if we dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air to increase the mass of the atmosphere, the pressure will naturally increase. Brilliant!
Increased odds doesn't mean something *will* happen, just that it's more likely to happen. Wearing a seatbelt increases your odds of surviving an accident. That doesn't mean people who wear seatbelts will always live, nor that people who don't will always die. The seatbelt wearers are simply more likely to survive.
Seven events where outcomes are random (or at least chaotic) are not sufficient to extrapolate whether predictions were correct or not. One hundred years may not be enough. In traffic, there are tens of thousands of events from which to gather data in a given year. Not so much for hurricanes. Just because storm intensity and/or count hasn't increased in the years we've seen doesn't mean it won't. Nor does it mean that it will. But the prudent course is to err on the side of caution.
So we push some glaciers into the ocean to cool it off. Problem solved!
Yes, that's the old way of doing it. Back in the day, mostly before radar became common (and radar detectors banned in Virginia) they would watch from the air and time how long it took a car to get from one point to the next and then radio the vehicle to units on the ground. That's why you see seemingly random white lines across the highway. Probably save a couple bucks by removing the signs and not painting the new lines.
Virginia is probably the worst state in the union to drive in. But it's all in the name of safety, right? At least their draconian enforcement measures have eliminated speeding and accidents, so there's that. Oh wait, I'm thinking of their draconian penalties for possession of marijuana. Oh wait, not cannabis; I meant moonshine. Ok, ok, I'll stop. Your turn, Virginia.
Why bother? They're well within reach.
VA is to civil rights what CA is to vehicle emissions.
"Science" is using the wrong baseline. The baseline for productivity is not how well you remember objects on a table or answer math problems in a lab; it's how well you endure the tedium of showing up every day, after day, after day, after day, and what you would be doing if you *weren't* plugging in and listening to music. Such as arguing about productivity on Slashdot.
I'm sorry, who the fuck are you replying to? I didn't say anything about giving up all of our worldly possessions and sending all of our wealth to NK; in fact I specifically said that *material support* should obviously be prohibited. What I said is that information (which would especially cover works in the public domain) is not effectively restricted by ITAR, and it's ridiculous to even pretend that it is.
Sorry, no. The recent discovery of endogenous opioid peptides and their receptor sites in various invertebrates (including insects) may encourage the belief that these animals can experience pain in view of the analgesic role of opioid peptides in mammals. However, the various functions, unrelated to pain experience, which are mediated by opioids in mammals, as well as the known occurrence of two such compounds in a protozoan, suggest that the endogenous opioids of invertebrates may function in regulating physiological or behavioral activities unconnected with pain phenomena. The presence of opioids can therefore not be taken as necessarily indicating a capacity for pain perception in an animal. http://www.ganima.info/docs/pain/65.pdf
The best indicator is behavior, and insects do not behave differently when injured, aside from any physical limitations the injury may cause. Personally I think it's unethical to cut off insect limbs for entertainment whether or not it causes pain; I just think the "anesthesia" angle is bunk and used in a weak attempt to circumvent any ethical criticism.
Wow, two in a row!
So many winners, so little time to recognize them all.
Noted, Gary Larson.
Well, believing that ITAR has any effect when it comes to the flow of information is rather Pollyanna to begin with. And sure, we don't want to supply material support to the governments of NK or Iran, but the free flow of information helps the people more than it does their oppressive regimes. Of course that's not necessarily applicable to the software in question, but I'm speaking to the larger issue of ineffective, and potentially counter-productive, trade restrictions on intellectual works.
Government and corporations. But I repeat myself.