....or they could fund some real research. I don't think there's anything in NASA's charter that says they can only engage in showboating. I love the idea of space travel as much as the next guy, but the only reasons I've heard for doing this is:
because we haven't done it in a while
because its hard so we'll learn lots of stuff trying
because we want to relive the glory days of the early space program
If there's a better reason, I'd like to hear it. If not, I'm inclinded to see this as another example of putting appearances ahead of real results.
Lol, the GP comments on the moderation and gets an 'insightful', while the parent does the same and gets 'offtopic', although he was on-topic to the post he was replying to. Meanwhile, the OP is now 'informative', presumably because he informed us of his opinion.
BTW, the only reason I posted this is to see the next step in the sequence. Maybe there will be a pattern;)
Considering that taking a job working for Microsoft would pretty much end any possibility of returning to his previous career, I doubt the offer was that tempting.
I'm going to buy the right tool for the job. This isn't a popularity contest.
Part of being the right tool is being one that the IT staff knows how to use, or that you can easily hire staff to use. So in a way it is a popularity contest. And while it may be cool among CTOs to have comtempt for the opinions of your IT staff, it might be that they actually have a good reason for liking what they do.
And how annoyed would they be when they had gone through all that effort to find completely pointless information? This gets you roughly the same kind of fame as carving your initials on a tree. Even if somebody sees it, the only thing they are going to think is "dumbass!"
You watch it and you're 'ok', right? Why shouldn't they be?
Jesus what's with your double-standard.
Of course there's a double standard. Kids are not just tiny adults who haven't finished school. They are not physically, intellecually or emotionally developed so you need to treat them differently. You may think its just a matter of explaining whats real and whats not, but if you've ever tried to convince a child that there are no monsters under their bed or in their closet, you know thats only going to go so far. They nod, say yes they understand that monsters aren't real...but still, could you leave the light on please?
Really? Thats one of those things people say a lot, but which is clearly not true. I can think of plenty ofinstances where publicity has been a bad thing.
The important parts of a person are not YET there which is a point worth mentioning.
Granted, a fertalized egg is special. But it is not a person. A block of stone is not a statue. A stream running over a plane is not a canyon. Potential is not the same as existant.
Another potential problem w/ abortion is that even when the important parts of a person are there it is still legal to have an abortion.
Unfortunately, it seems politically impossible to craft laws sophisticated enough to address this problem when people (on both sides) cling to simplistic views. If its always murder, there's no point in drawing the line at any point beyond conception. If its always just the mother's body, there's no room for any law to interfere. Too bad life is more complicated than this.
Enlighten me then, if the pro-choice movement largely does not count birth as making a baby a person then when do they feel that such a thing takes place and what is the justification for then ending the life of a person?
There is no concensus. Although fertilization and birth are two conventiently recognizable events to hang a definition on, one is clearly too late, and the other, according to many, is too early.
You have merely attempted to use the old trick of framing my argument as a strawman argument w/o backing up yours. How about you convince people that a fertilized egg is NOT a person. Such a thing goes both ways.
I haven't made an argument. I was just pointing out that you are mischaracterizing your oponents' opinion and suggesting that it is a copout for trying to prove your own.
Here's what I do think: I don't believe that a fertalized egg deserves the same legal status as a person for the same reason that a bag of blood cells or a skin graft doesn't. Genetic composition is beside the point - the important parts of the person are not there. I don't know when a cluster of cells should be treated as a human, so I regard abortions as a very serious matter that should not be chosen lightly. I think this is a fairly typical view for people who support choice.
Why would anyone mod this as insightful? An explanation of the reason for this condition would be more insightful. The major cause is rank and seniority. When these are factored in, most of the differences disappear.
You say this with great assurance. Can you site a study on this? Usupported by facts, your post is no better than the parent post you are attacking. And the ranting about lefties makes you look like an idealogue rather than someone who weighs evidence carefully. But don't listen to me, I'm just a criminal loving, family-hating, causality avoiding bleeding heart lefty.
First, pointing out an inconsistency in the law does not prove that a fetus is a person. Second, almost everyone concedes that it is not birth that makes a baby a person. To frame the pro-choice movement as holding that position is a strawman argument. And a convenient way to avoid having to try and convince people that a fertalized egg is a person.
I *do* object to essentially providing educational curriculum that indicates that hitting one's thumb with a hammer is an equal choice to not doing the same, and then making it hate speech to indicate that hammering thumbs is a bad idea.
The flaw in that analogy is that there is no demonstrable harm in homosexual behavior beyond that imposed by those who dislike it. Its more akin to teaching that eating pork is an equal choice to eating beef. I have no trouble with you sticking with your beliefs, but don't expect those beliefs to be taught in the classroom when they are not supported by external facts.
Nobody is at this time limiting your rights, your privacy or your liberty if you are a normal plain old citizen with no malicious intent.
And how would they determine that?
The fact that the Patriot Act got pretty much unanimous reapproval in the House and Sentate says it not a bad deal on the whole.
Wow. The 1950s called...they want their naivete back. I'd site another instance of everyone going along with something that clearly wan't right, but I don't want to run afowl of Godwin's Law.
I don't see why he needs to know, I don't fit the Terrorist Profile,
Meaning what, you're not a brown skinned Muslim?
but I really don't care as I'm not going to do something to bring himm down on me.
Which policies are you referring to? I've never heard that theory before, and I have to say I'm pretty sceptical. Here in New York many Catholic schools are closing because the communities which relied on them are breaking up as families move to the suburbs. As for the migration from Catholic to Protestant churches, I'd guess that has more due to the church's stance on divorce and birth control than a poor education.
Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees."
That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with union organizing, does it?
In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations...and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..."
So the union protested the ruling precisely because it did interfere with the ability to recruit for unions, which is a protected right.
On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardsmark's fraternization rule was lawful.1 The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section
So in other words, they upheld the rule because they felt workers would know it didn't apply to union activities. What occured is exactly the opposite of what you stated in your post. Now how do you feel about the ruling?
I don't mean to take away from your rant, but I did NOT say the whole idea was worthless. I simply pointed out that the "go to the cleaner" button could be abused. I'd also like to point out that you aren't going to convince a lot of people that its a good idea by flying off the handle whenever someone questions any aspect of it.
I'm picturing a taxi stand with a row of taxis. One malicious guy rejects every taxi then takes the last one. I suppose if they don't queue up like regular taxis that wouldn't be a problem.
Anyone can cause a taxi to go the cleaners with a push of a button? Have you ever gotten into an elevator after some asshat has pushed the button for every floor before he got out?
This is a poorly thought out non-solution to a problem that offers nothing but a pretty transition effect and a small nod to the mouse-gesture crazies.
A pithy response, but I don't see a lot of substance in your criticism. While I also thought the demo was a bit clunky, I found absolutely nothing jarring or confusing about the animation. I really don't see how you could loose track of the window you were looking at - its goes right back where it was and it is still selected. Minimize on complete fold is a litte suprising the first time it happens but it seems prefectly reasonable to me. The fact that you see people who like mouse gestures as crazies makes it pretty clear where you are coming from. There really wasn't much chance that you would like it, was there? For those who don't have such strange hangups, this would probably prove useful.
"In the absence of any real evidence, I choose to believe my president over a former ambassador."
The absence of evidence is in itself a form of evidence. And there is a biiiiig absence of evidence. An entire country's worth. No evidence of any weapon program, any attempt to obtain WMAs or anything beyond what the UN inspectors knew about was found after a drawn out painstaking search. The only public evidence for the uranium buy attempt was a clumsy forgery. Rice and Fleischer have said it shouldn't have been mentioned in the speech, and Tenet publicly apologized for allowing him to make the claim. If you think the only reason to doubt the veracity of the uranium purchase story is Williams' claims, your critical facilities are seriously impaired.
With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.
You are comparing installing a packaged Debian application against unpackaged or poorly packaged Windows and OS X applications. A properly packaged OS X application does not need to be installed at all as long as its on your computer. You can run it from anywhere and uninstall it by throwing it in the trash. Windows installs are a bit more complicated, but they often have all their dependencies packed with them so its usually just a matter of launching the installer and specifying where you want it. It might be more difficult to find the app on the internet than just typing install but IMO finding which package to install is usually harder than finding the actual package. Admittedly I'm no Apt-get expert. I haven't used my Debian system much since I rendered it unbootable while trying to install Mono;)
Read the finding of fact again. It does not say that cpu differences are what prevent Apple from being considered a competitor:
47. The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. The absence of a large installed base, in turn, reinforces the disparity between the applications made available for the Mac OS and those made available for Windows, further inhibiting Apple's sales. The applications barrier thus prevents the Mac OS from hindering Microsoft's ability to control price, regardless of whether the Mac OS is regarded as being in the relevant market or not.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's a better reason, I'd like to hear it. If not, I'm inclinded to see this as another example of putting appearances ahead of real results.
Lol, the GP comments on the moderation and gets an 'insightful', while the parent does the same and gets 'offtopic', although he was on-topic to the post he was replying to. Meanwhile, the OP is now 'informative', presumably because he informed us of his opinion.
;)
BTW, the only reason I posted this is to see the next step in the sequence. Maybe there will be a pattern
Considering that taking a job working for Microsoft would pretty much end any possibility of returning to his previous career, I doubt the offer was that tempting.
I'm going to buy the right tool for the job. This isn't a popularity contest.
Part of being the right tool is being one that the IT staff knows how to use, or that you can easily hire staff to use. So in a way it is a popularity contest. And while it may be cool among CTOs to have comtempt for the opinions of your IT staff, it might be that they actually have a good reason for liking what they do.
And how annoyed would they be when they had gone through all that effort to find completely pointless information? This gets you roughly the same kind of fame as carving your initials on a tree. Even if somebody sees it, the only thing they are going to think is "dumbass!"
Funny or not, its true. People in New York know how to tolerate others. Those who can't leave.
You watch it and you're 'ok', right? Why shouldn't they be?
Jesus what's with your double-standard.
Of course there's a double standard. Kids are not just tiny adults who haven't finished school. They are not physically, intellecually or emotionally developed so you need to treat them differently. You may think its just a matter of explaining whats real and whats not, but if you've ever tried to convince a child that there are no monsters under their bed or in their closet, you know thats only going to go so far. They nod, say yes they understand that monsters aren't real...but still, could you leave the light on please?
Really? Thats one of those things people say a lot, but which is clearly not true. I can think of plenty of instances where publicity has been a bad thing.
The important parts of a person are not YET there which is a point worth mentioning.
Granted, a fertalized egg is special. But it is not a person. A block of stone is not a statue. A stream running over a plane is not a canyon. Potential is not the same as existant.
Another potential problem w/ abortion is that even when the important parts of a person are there it is still legal to have an abortion.
Unfortunately, it seems politically impossible to craft laws sophisticated enough to address this problem when people (on both sides) cling to simplistic views. If its always murder, there's no point in drawing the line at any point beyond conception. If its always just the mother's body, there's no room for any law to interfere. Too bad life is more complicated than this.
What does it prove then?
It proves nothing.
Enlighten me then, if the pro-choice movement largely does not count birth as making a baby a person then when do they feel that such a thing takes place and what is the justification for then ending the life of a person?
There is no concensus. Although fertilization and birth are two conventiently recognizable events to hang a definition on, one is clearly too late, and the other, according to many, is too early.
You have merely attempted to use the old trick of framing my argument as a strawman argument w/o backing up yours. How about you convince people that a fertilized egg is NOT a person. Such a thing goes both ways.
I haven't made an argument. I was just pointing out that you are mischaracterizing your oponents' opinion and suggesting that it is a copout for trying to prove your own.
Here's what I do think: I don't believe that a fertalized egg deserves the same legal status as a person for the same reason that a bag of blood cells or a skin graft doesn't. Genetic composition is beside the point - the important parts of the person are not there. I don't know when a cluster of cells should be treated as a human, so I regard abortions as a very serious matter that should not be chosen lightly. I think this is a fairly typical view for people who support choice.
Why would anyone mod this as insightful? An explanation of the reason for this condition would be more insightful. The major cause is rank and seniority. When these are factored in, most of the differences disappear.
You say this with great assurance. Can you site a study on this? Usupported by facts, your post is no better than the parent post you are attacking. And the ranting about lefties makes you look like an idealogue rather than someone who weighs evidence carefully. But don't listen to me, I'm just a criminal loving, family-hating, causality avoiding bleeding heart lefty.
First, pointing out an inconsistency in the law does not prove that a fetus is a person. Second, almost everyone concedes that it is not birth that makes a baby a person. To frame the pro-choice movement as holding that position is a strawman argument. And a convenient way to avoid having to try and convince people that a fertalized egg is a person.
I *do* object to essentially providing educational curriculum that indicates that hitting one's thumb with a hammer is an equal choice to not doing the same, and then making it hate speech to indicate that hammering thumbs is a bad idea.
The flaw in that analogy is that there is no demonstrable harm in homosexual behavior beyond that imposed by those who dislike it. Its more akin to teaching that eating pork is an equal choice to eating beef. I have no trouble with you sticking with your beliefs, but don't expect those beliefs to be taught in the classroom when they are not supported by external facts.
Nobody is at this time limiting your rights, your privacy or your liberty if you are a normal plain old citizen with no malicious intent.
And how would they determine that?
The fact that the Patriot Act got pretty much unanimous reapproval in the House and Sentate says it not a bad deal on the whole.
Wow. The 1950s called...they want their naivete back. I'd site another instance of everyone going along with something that clearly wan't right, but I don't want to run afowl of Godwin's Law.
I don't see why he needs to know, I don't fit the Terrorist Profile,
Meaning what, you're not a brown skinned Muslim?
but I really don't care as I'm not going to do something to bring himm down on me.
Have I just been trolled?
Which policies are you referring to? I've never heard that theory before, and I have to say I'm pretty sceptical. Here in New York many Catholic schools are closing because the communities which relied on them are breaking up as families move to the suburbs. As for the migration from Catholic to Protestant churches, I'd guess that has more due to the church's stance on divorce and birth control than a poor education.
That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with union organizing, does it?
So the union protested the ruling precisely because it did interfere with the ability to recruit for unions, which is a protected right.
So in other words, they upheld the rule because they felt workers would know it didn't apply to union activities. What occured is exactly the opposite of what you stated in your post. Now how do you feel about the ruling?
For the first time ever, the post "If I had mod points I'd mod you up" seems actually appropriate and on-topic.
I don't mean to take away from your rant, but I did NOT say the whole idea was worthless. I simply pointed out that the "go to the cleaner" button could be abused. I'd also like to point out that you aren't going to convince a lot of people that its a good idea by flying off the handle whenever someone questions any aspect of it.
I'm picturing a taxi stand with a row of taxis. One malicious guy rejects every taxi then takes the last one. I suppose if they don't queue up like regular taxis that wouldn't be a problem.
Care to highlight where the GP talks about the future? I'm just not seeing it.
Anyone can cause a taxi to go the cleaners with a push of a button? Have you ever gotten into an elevator after some asshat has pushed the button for every floor before he got out?
This is a poorly thought out non-solution to a problem that offers nothing but a pretty transition effect and a small nod to the mouse-gesture crazies.
A pithy response, but I don't see a lot of substance in your criticism. While I also thought the demo was a bit clunky, I found absolutely nothing jarring or confusing about the animation. I really don't see how you could loose track of the window you were looking at - its goes right back where it was and it is still selected. Minimize on complete fold is a litte suprising the first time it happens but it seems prefectly reasonable to me. The fact that you see people who like mouse gestures as crazies makes it pretty clear where you are coming from. There really wasn't much chance that you would like it, was there? For those who don't have such strange hangups, this would probably prove useful.
"In the absence of any real evidence, I choose to believe my president over a former ambassador."
The absence of evidence is in itself a form of evidence. And there is a biiiiig absence of evidence. An entire country's worth. No evidence of any weapon program, any attempt to obtain WMAs or anything beyond what the UN inspectors knew about was found after a drawn out painstaking search. The only public evidence for the uranium buy attempt was a clumsy forgery. Rice and Fleischer have said it shouldn't have been mentioned in the speech, and Tenet publicly apologized for allowing him to make the claim. If you think the only reason to doubt the veracity of the uranium purchase story is Williams' claims, your critical facilities are seriously impaired.
With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.
;)
You are comparing installing a packaged Debian application against unpackaged or poorly packaged Windows and OS X applications. A properly packaged OS X application does not need to be installed at all as long as its on your computer. You can run it from anywhere and uninstall it by throwing it in the trash. Windows installs are a bit more complicated, but they often have all their dependencies packed with them so its usually just a matter of launching the installer and specifying where you want it. It might be more difficult to find the app on the internet than just typing install but IMO finding which package to install is usually harder than finding the actual package. Admittedly I'm no Apt-get expert. I haven't used my Debian system much since I rendered it unbootable while trying to install Mono