Would you mind taking another look at the statement "parenting isn't always a full-time job" in the first sentence? I included (and italicized) the word "always" on purpose – instead of writing "isn't ever a full-time job" or simply "isn't a full-time job" – because that word changes the meaning of the sentence to acknowledge that sometimes it is a full-time job. It goes without saying that there are exceptions, such as children with special needs who can require full-time parenting no matter how old they are. Do you really think anyone here needs that explained to them? Do you know how insulting that is?
A generalization is merely that: a statement that is generally true. If I say "Americans need to get off their asses and walk more," my friend with cerebral palsy who has never been able to walk doesn't get offended; he understands that there are extenuating circumstances in his case, and I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about Americans in general. If you get this overwrought just because someone made a generalization that didn't specifically call out your sister's situation as an exception... well, best of luck with that.
Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?
I won't call you chauvinistic and old-fashioned (though I'm sure you are), but I'll point out that parenting isn't always an around-the-clock job. With a responsible spouse who does his (or her) part, it damn well shouldn't be. Infants sleep. Older children go to school. Teens make themselves scarce. If your children require as much care when they're 12 years old as they did when they were 12 weeks old, you're doing it wrong. During those times when children don't need attention, a parent can (and should) pursue other things (and not just housecleaning and cooking), such as hobbies, volunteering, athletics... or part-time freelance work. Sounds like the submitter knows what she has time and energy for... and you don't.
Since you seem to have completely missed my point, I'll clarify it: I don't think Jobs would have outlived his obsession with Apple even if he'd lived to be 90. Like I said: Gates retired; Jobs refused to. But hypothetically if he had ever decided he was done with Apple, I think there's a good chance he would have created a foundation which he would have micromanaged with the same level of obsession and intensity. Gates runs the Gates Foundation much the same way he ran Microsoft; Jobs would have run his the same way he ran Apple.
You (and the dork who modded by comment "troll") seem to be suffering the misconception that I was praising or justifying Jobs. I was just pointing out a difference in Jobs' and Gates' personalities and life choices, and how that led to one becoming a life-saving philanthropist and the other... not. Jobs clearly believed that what he was doing and planning to do with Apple was the best thing he could do to make the world a better place. I wasn't trying to evaluate whether he was right.
One of the key differences between Jobs and Gates is that Gates retired. Granted, he started his philanthropy before he stepped down from Microsoft, but that was because he saw a day coming when he wasn't going to be running Microsoft and turned his attention to something else. Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about philanthropy. If he had lived to a point where he was ready to move on from Apple, he probably would have turned to "putting a dent in the universe" in some other way, with the same intensity.
One does have to be a bit brain-damaged to confuse the statistically small number of devices which fail upon first use with the overall population in which the vast majority last the full warranty period, and a smaller majority last twice that period or longer.
While I don't own anything manufactured since 2000 which has more than a dozen years of use behind it, that's due to temporal mathematics, not engineering shortcuts.
Gingrich has been emphasizing that his moon base will be American. Which, in addition to being red meat for the xenophobic nationalists in his party, is incredibly short-sighted. One of the things that has literally saved the ISS from being closed up and de-orbitted has been the fact that there are multiple space agencies able to transport crew and/or supplies, in addition to multiple countries chipping in to pay for it.
Ksanfomaliti cautioned that the objects he wrote about seem to “emerge, fluctuate and disappear” in different photographs taken from a variety of vantage points.
Translation: They're tricks of the light or other optical illustions.
It's not connected in the same way that the Jimi Hendrix album Electric Ladyland is not connected. By being about something completely different, but it just happens to start with the same word.:)
I don't know why they're calling it a "protection plan", when it's really just "overclocking insurance". Everybody pays into the pool, and the people who get "injured" get payouts.
There are all sorts of "secession" pressures, in every direction. I'd rather just see the country broken up into several smaller countries, like the old Bell System was. Here's one plan for it that makes some sense: Dividing Up the States
Slashdot Mirror
Posting another piece published by people with the same self-serving agenda doesn't exactly prove their point.
Would you mind taking another look at the statement "parenting isn't always a full-time job" in the first sentence? I included (and italicized) the word "always" on purpose – instead of writing "isn't ever a full-time job" or simply "isn't a full-time job" – because that word changes the meaning of the sentence to acknowledge that sometimes it is a full-time job. It goes without saying that there are exceptions, such as children with special needs who can require full-time parenting no matter how old they are. Do you really think anyone here needs that explained to them? Do you know how insulting that is?
A generalization is merely that: a statement that is generally true. If I say "Americans need to get off their asses and walk more," my friend with cerebral palsy who has never been able to walk doesn't get offended; he understands that there are extenuating circumstances in his case, and I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about Americans in general. If you get this overwrought just because someone made a generalization that didn't specifically call out your sister's situation as an exception... well, best of luck with that.
Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?
I won't call you chauvinistic and old-fashioned (though I'm sure you are), but I'll point out that parenting isn't always an around-the-clock job. With a responsible spouse who does his (or her) part, it damn well shouldn't be. Infants sleep. Older children go to school. Teens make themselves scarce. If your children require as much care when they're 12 years old as they did when they were 12 weeks old, you're doing it wrong. During those times when children don't need attention, a parent can (and should) pursue other things (and not just housecleaning and cooking), such as hobbies, volunteering, athletics... or part-time freelance work. Sounds like the submitter knows what she has time and energy for... and you don't.
Lotus Notes is the worst pile of legacy cruft left over from the 1990s that I have displeasure of being forced to work with.
So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?
Since you seem to have completely missed my point, I'll clarify it: I don't think Jobs would have outlived his obsession with Apple even if he'd lived to be 90. Like I said: Gates retired; Jobs refused to. But hypothetically if he had ever decided he was done with Apple, I think there's a good chance he would have created a foundation which he would have micromanaged with the same level of obsession and intensity. Gates runs the Gates Foundation much the same way he ran Microsoft; Jobs would have run his the same way he ran Apple.
I didn't say it justified it. I swear, the superficial level of reading comprehension here....
You (and the dork who modded by comment "troll") seem to be suffering the misconception that I was praising or justifying Jobs. I was just pointing out a difference in Jobs' and Gates' personalities and life choices, and how that led to one becoming a life-saving philanthropist and the other... not. Jobs clearly believed that what he was doing and planning to do with Apple was the best thing he could do to make the world a better place. I wasn't trying to evaluate whether he was right.
One of the key differences between Jobs and Gates is that Gates retired. Granted, he started his philanthropy before he stepped down from Microsoft, but that was because he saw a day coming when he wasn't going to be running Microsoft and turned his attention to something else. Jobs was too driven by his focus on Apple to think about philanthropy. If he had lived to a point where he was ready to move on from Apple, he probably would have turned to "putting a dent in the universe" in some other way, with the same intensity.
You're a fucking idiot who knows nothing about how pervasive HIV is in parts of the Third World.
One does have to be a bit brain-damaged to confuse the statistically small number of devices which fail upon first use with the overall population in which the vast majority last the full warranty period, and a smaller majority last twice that period or longer.
While I don't own anything manufactured since 2000 which has more than a dozen years of use behind it, that's due to temporal mathematics, not engineering shortcuts.
But can it be used as a dessert topping?
The picture was taken a few weeks ago. The high-latitude and high-altitude parts of North America aren't very verdant this time of year.
I can see my house!
Gingrich has been emphasizing that his moon base will be American. Which, in addition to being red meat for the xenophobic nationalists in his party, is incredibly short-sighted. One of the things that has literally saved the ISS from being closed up and de-orbitted has been the fact that there are multiple space agencies able to transport crew and/or supplies, in addition to multiple countries chipping in to pay for it.
Translation: They're tricks of the light or other optical illustions.
It's not connected in the same way that the Jimi Hendrix album Electric Ladyland is not connected. By being about something completely different, but it just happens to start with the same word. :)
Not to be confused with the Electric Universe Theory.
I don't know why they're calling it a "protection plan", when it's really just "overclocking insurance". Everybody pays into the pool, and the people who get "injured" get payouts.
This makes me so very glad I didn't go into this field for a profession.
As a matter of fact, Grand Rapids MI (which was one of the top contenders) is still very much interested and available.
It's official: oenology has veered off into gimmicky homeopathy.
There are all sorts of "secession" pressures, in every direction. I'd rather just see the country broken up into several smaller countries, like the old Bell System was. Here's one plan for it that makes some sense: Dividing Up the States
Sounds like job security for those of us who reset passwords for a living.
Drat.