Isn't it fun to know that a company took your contact data and now considers it THEY have more right to the people you link to than YOU do?
Perhaps Linked-IN considers me a data hoarding parasite, trying to beg for jobs while they do the important work of spamming everybody I will potentially know 20 years in the future.
I've currently got a junk email account I used to register with LinkedIN and I've received job offers to repackage packages from the year 2044.
"the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech" -- that is true about THEIR property, but this is the PUBLIC's property, and your use of the term "exclusion" means that other people can't use the park on another day. Every gathering is a temporary exclusion -- so by this logic NOBODY could have any event, of any kind, in a public park. Since this events obviously take place -- your point is moot. They could have a Klan rally -- they wouldn't need to exclude me because this white boy wouldn't want to hang with those dudes.
It's a public park. It's not a private institution - so it is CLEARLY in the realm of public expression. Even for fascist, racist, fans of Ted Nugent who really, really want to shoot bears.
The criminal status of an individual should have no bearing here. Personally, I believe everyone should be REQUIRED to vote, and that a felony conviction should not end the right to vote -- because it would be too easy to arrest everyone of a certain ethnic group to marginalize their vote... which I think has been done to communities of a certain hue. Especially where we repealed Jim Crowe laws and they immediately started putting up hindrances to voting -- even after they PROMISED that they wouldn't be making barriers to voting.
So the PROMISE that this is about public safety, and that they REALLY CARE about not giving a mic to criminals, means that Oliver North has to give back all of his air time -- well, if he were a rapper I mean.
All civil rights marches that could actually make a difference would be illegal by the standards of today's Supreme Court. We have "Free Speech Zones" today --- meaning; as long as you don't inconvenience anyone, and nobody sees you, you can protest.
If you have a "low tax, pro corporate" message like the Tea Baggers, you get CNN coverage and can even carry around guns to protect some tax cheat rancher (not a hypothetical).
Something tells me if this were a corporation that is resisting charges of human rights violations, they could still get a video through to a large audience.
"The community has a right not to feel threatened" -- please, that would mean that my right to not be offended means I could forever hold hostage ANY large gathering. No one has a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe at all times." The police even organize in communities that feel threatened by them. When about 25% of the males in Ferguson have conviction records -- you think that MOST people want them around?
This is about institutional acceptable vs. something the marginalized people want.
" The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform." That seems pretty specific. The city of Hammond -- or at least, the white people in power in Hammond, don't like the message of Keef. Maybe they think he's a criminal and shouldn't have the RIGHT to talk to people.
There were many people in the Bush administration who were avoiding the warrants of other countries and even US counties, and yet, they get speaker fees and engagements.
I have no clue what Keef is promoting. He could be a wacko. But to me, this is a clear violation of freedom of assembly and speech and it's the Haves vs. the Have nots. The people with money just show their messages on the TV -- and now they won't even let someone put up a projector in a park.
Yeah, and the rocks won't care if we are here or not.
"She has this sense of entitlement that wreaks. "
As compared to rich boys like Mitt or Trump or Bush? Is she LESS political or just less entitled? Which of the 4 of them would make their own coffee -- do you even know the answer or is this an opinion?
I'm not a fan of Hillary or ANY of the Republican candidates, but what has that to do with Climate change? Isn't it hard enough to get one point across without lumping in others?
And why can't we deal with the environment AND trading partners who happen to point weapons at us? There are certainly more than a few jobs in America -- some people even flip burgers while we worry about Russia and fuel efficiency standards.
A lot of the sub-prime loans went to people with the credit to allow them to get LOWER interest loans. People don't remember that the Republicans partially privatized Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae and that made them profit-oriented.
You know what happens to mortgagers who get higher interest? It's harder to pay off the loan.
The "leveraging" -- was mostly from the financial institutions who bundled the sub prime loans with insurance and traded it, sometimes as much as 20x the value of the "deposit" because they could say it was based on a mortgage. Did anyone hold a gun to the financial institutions head and force them to end Glass Stegal (which prevented such investments)?
Of course, the poor was hurt and the wealthy -- not at all.
So "personal responsibility" seems voided when ".inc" comes after the name.
While I can see the advantage for Soldiers -- we have already made war TOO EASY.
Do you know about all the wars or "hostile engagements" the US is already in? We hear about Iraq and Afghanistan because of a lot of troops -- especially people coming home injured. But most Americans don't know we have a lot of drones in Yemen -- and have for a few years now.
The only thing that really stops wars right now is soldiers. Not the Airforce who get to fly over and drop bombs -- no, it's the men and women been the ground who suffer.
That's why people who want LESS wars are for a draft or shared sacrifice. Without sacrifice of some kind, asymmetrical warfare (where one side is a lot more powerful than the other) can go on forever. The military industry and the multinationals benefit -- and we get shocked and surprised by people who hate us for our freedoms. As if drones were less of a terrorist weapon than homemade bombs. ALL weapons cause fear.
I too think it's insane to link a "real" account to a forum for exchanging my "opinion."
If Slashdot only allowed FaceBook logins, I'd either censor my opinions and keep it professional (which MIGHT be good for the quality and decorum of discussion) or I'd not use Slashdot.
When FaceBook logins were required for Huffingtonpost.com and Digg.com -- I quickly left. It's one thing to voice a political opinion -- it's another thing to become permanently unemployable.
More and more, I believe, companies will use social media to do background checks, and if your Facebook doesn't look like a Sears & Roebuck catalog and your political opinions aren't supporting Bernie Sanders -- you are in luck!
I also figure that you will soon have an "employment score" just like you have a credit score. Free speech doesn't mean much without employment.
I really think you are onto something with that combination Refrigerator + Toaster idea. There's heat being pushed out and wasted already, and that could be concentrated and used to brown bread, or at least warm some water.
Samsung makes appliances like these, and should really jump on the Chimera appliance bandwagon. Curved screens, Toaster + Phones, Toasters + WiFi. The marketing is easy; "We only sell hot stuff."
So lesson learned; from now on I'm going to use an alias for my pets.... Kidding aside, Google+ might be attached to doing real business, and then suddenly you might comment on a pet shaming video saying; "That is completely gay." Which can haunt you, and your gay cat forever.
I'd think ten days in jail would be enough punishment. Has anyone gone through the court system who suggests "throw away the key" type punishments?
With ADD, I'd think the sentence is also 7 times longer than for normal humans.
But when we look at the influence of monied interests -- well, the Royals can't punish hard enough. When the economic royalists do get punished for crimes (if ever) it's a hand slap, or the blame it all on some subordinate, as if that person made decisions.
I'm a dude, on a Mac, using plugins to control JavaScript and social networking. My advertisements are 90% for some Mac cleansing product that is 10% worse than paying for a virus.
So not only am I not being targeted by high paying jobs, I'm being profiled as an idiot. I'm tempted to burn my digital jock strap.
It's legal for bankers to take mortgage loans, bundle with insurance and then speculate on a private market with little to no oversight, meanwhile they can print money.
Get back to me when a white hat hacker trying to blow the whistle or a script kid defacing a website reach this level of impact on our lives.
"Oh it's CRIMINAL behavior!" What's the going rate to pass legislation making bad things legal and good things illegal these days?
They will probably have limits on the "commercial" 3D printers that consumers purchase. So it will be a hindrance for the Average Joe but not for the geek or committed bad guy.
If you ever noticed, you can't scan in the images of money into Adobe PhotoShop either. Well, that is -- an ENTIRE bill cannot be scanned. You can however, scan it in two parts, and then assemble them in PhotoShop.
So it may be that nobody in the future will be able to print a gun (with off the rack 3D printers) but they'll print out a pipe that seems suspiciously like a muzzle, they'll print out a "spring-loaded-dispenser" that's a lot like a magazine, they'll print out a "striking compartment" that is a lot like a gun chamber, and two more parts added on -- with 5 minutes of assembly, and you've got a gun.
Gun's will be stopped! But not gun-like parts. Or sprinkler systems with that ability to handle explosive rounds.
We protest stuff in "free speech zones" and our media ignores the people who are championing the average Joe unless someone walks buy in a sequin dress and clown make-up -- THAT GUY they interview. Ratings magic!
The French kidnap a CEO and nobody goes to jail. Maybe instead of making fun of them, we are the suckers, because we go for decade to decade with our prospects and power diminishing, and eventually we wake up being greeters at WalMart with no retirement savings.
We'll be complaining about the same things in a decade, likely.
In 5 years, there will be self-driving cars replacing the Uber AND the Taxi drivers.
Does anyone have a plan for this?
It's fine to say; "Well, just learn something new" when it's not you with a family and a tight budget having to jump into the marketplace and retrain while competing with people who've done that task their entire life -- but not everyone is as superior as the average person on Slashdot.
What do we do for the 'average person' when there isn't an easy alternative?
If they had the South on their side, that number changes.
Also, they controlled India with a larger population, estimated as being around 100 million for 1600 to 1881; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Brits were supporting the South for their financial and political gain -- so basically, they would be handing us back over to British rule because they didn't like the system they were in.
I think this is revisionist history as seen through the lens of the.1% and I figure the Tea Baggers of today will tell the same story about the poor billionaires trying to make a global market and do-gooders and environmentalists stopping them from creating a paradise one banking collapse after another.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems to twist and turn history to make the plantation owners look like the heroes. The KKK probably couldn't invent better "lenses to see the world."
"It was fought to keep Brittan from reconquering the US." Well, if the South had won, that would have been possible, because they'd be in debt to Britain and annexed. The Southern elite were throwing their lot in with the Crown. So are you saying they SHOULD have become part of Britain?
"Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he's a nice guy. Lincoln proclaimed emancipation to make the British government's support of slave-owning confederates EXTREMELY unpopular with the British people," Economically, today as it was back then, it's cheaper to use Capitalism to keep people poor -- rather than slavery. THEY have to go about feeding themselves anyway, and housing, and you don't have to guard people. Irish were probably cheaper in the North than slaves in the South -- I'll agree with that. But emancipation happened. If the South was unpopular for slavery and it wasn't that great an economic engine -- why the Hell did they keep people in slavery? The people who tried to abolish slavery did so at great risk. Whether you think Lincoln was a "nice guy" or not -- this is a self inflicted wound of the South.
The fact is; the Southern plantations had slaves. It had to have an economic or social reason so they were either profiting or being a bunch of dicks. I'm not seeing the nobility just based on the broad, inconvertible facts of history.
The UK didn't abandon the South because of the slavery issue -- they were blockaded and their ships kept from bringing in supplies. Whether or not it was popular, the crown had all kinds of operations around the world exploiting people. Local opinions didn't seem to matter when it came to making money.
"There were white people working the fields right next to the slaves" -- I never heard that before.
I had been confused on this very topic by learning that people of means in the South were claiming their issue was with imports; they wanted to import goods from anyone they wanted to, and not pay taxes. On recent re-examination with the Tea Party having such a strong correlation to so much of the complaints of the "owner class" of the South. I think I finally understood; the South wanted to get cheaper goods and not pay what would be required to employ FREE CITIZENS of the USA.
And think about it; why would the average, non-rich Southerner have to gain from slavery or cheap imports other than a WalMart discount? Their labor would be undermined while the profits of the wealthy maintained.
So when you look at the Southern argument as an issue of "free trade" -- it was really all about economic slavery all over again. And Tea Baggers today are just as in the dark as the average Southerner fighting to make sure the estate owners got to live like kings.
People should be able to fly the "protest flag" of the South, but they should have to give up 20% of all income to education for someone else's kid for the privilege -- because the education would be wasted on them.
"Freedom of Speech" is nothing without access to information. If a person cannot get to the Internet, they are confined to commercial forms of information.
In my opinion, if a person could only be informed by CNN, Fox and a Newspaper, they'd be better off not having an opinion at all.
And have you TRIED dealing with any kind of public service or support system without the Internet these days? Paying utility bills?
I think the concept some people have about going without the Internet is pretty old fashioned. You are shut out of a good portion of opportunity, access and "reality."
The algorithm doesn't need "fixing" -- it works perfectly.
Computers are constantly animating objects based on the position of the mouse -- there are 4 points crossing the cartesian axis (immediately right or left, up or down), and we USED to, add a small value to the Zero figure and test if it's in quadrant [1,1 ; 1,-1 ; -1,-1; -1, 1] -- now it's automatic in a lot of programming languages -- at least as far as animation goes.
The problem I'm seeing here is people who know a lot of math theories, but aren't seeing that Divide by Zero comes up a lot in the real world and we deal with it -- it used to be with error handling, but now it might be with a min/max limiter and store the negative and positive. Or with a test of ranges above and below the value.
I wanted some input if "this was correct" from programmers.
You are technically correct but IMHO practically wrong. I'm talking about "real use" such as in animation, graphing and financial.
An equation that uses Divide by zero might go to "max limit" or to zero (in practical terms), based on preceding values. It will not suddenly say; "Sorry, the resultant value is indeterminable".
Graphs pass the zero mark all the time without a "NAN".
We just run to the limits of Math as an abstract concept but we do indeed KNOW that the value is either really big or really small -- we just lack the mathematical proof.
Until then, a lot of us are going to have to use a handler for divide by zero -- but a lot of scripts and programs already allow for it.
I think the people who suggest Russia or China has somehow gotten some "amazing secrets" from Snowden need to check some Wikileaks document dumps about how the 3rd party contractors are selling this data.
I was going to make a great quip with the name of the company, but Google is giving me nothing but popular results right now. Couldn't find the right terms to "NSA independent contractor." It told me the wages were up 25% however, so now is the time to sell out -- but with Patriotism.
Actually, I'd say I prefer the MS Office Suite from a decade ago.
I too hate the ribbon. And I'm thinking hate is not strong enough of a word. I use this UI device as a handy example of what you should not do in a User Interface -- but likely, now that UI is a "professional field" nobody with common sense or aesthetics need apply. The interface is more important than your content, and you'd understand that if you were TRAINED.
But we have to use the current MS Office, just like we have to use the current Adobe Edge, and Google Libraries in our web code.
I can just imagine saving a web page today, and trying to look at it in ten years. It's going to be like a Rubik's cube of long-dead self-organizing links.
"The JavaScript Lib you are trying to reach has collapsed into a dimensional rift. Would you like to use MS-Doc View? MS-Doc View no longer exists,"
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it fun to know that a company took your contact data and now considers it THEY have more right to the people you link to than YOU do?
Perhaps Linked-IN considers me a data hoarding parasite, trying to beg for jobs while they do the important work of spamming everybody I will potentially know 20 years in the future.
I've currently got a junk email account I used to register with LinkedIN and I've received job offers to repackage packages from the year 2044.
"the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech" -- that is true about THEIR property, but this is the PUBLIC's property, and your use of the term "exclusion" means that other people can't use the park on another day. Every gathering is a temporary exclusion -- so by this logic NOBODY could have any event, of any kind, in a public park. Since this events obviously take place -- your point is moot. They could have a Klan rally -- they wouldn't need to exclude me because this white boy wouldn't want to hang with those dudes.
It's a public park. It's not a private institution - so it is CLEARLY in the realm of public expression. Even for fascist, racist, fans of Ted Nugent who really, really want to shoot bears.
The criminal status of an individual should have no bearing here. Personally, I believe everyone should be REQUIRED to vote, and that a felony conviction should not end the right to vote -- because it would be too easy to arrest everyone of a certain ethnic group to marginalize their vote ... which I think has been done to communities of a certain hue. Especially where we repealed Jim Crowe laws and they immediately started putting up hindrances to voting -- even after they PROMISED that they wouldn't be making barriers to voting.
So the PROMISE that this is about public safety, and that they REALLY CARE about not giving a mic to criminals, means that Oliver North has to give back all of his air time -- well, if he were a rapper I mean.
All civil rights marches that could actually make a difference would be illegal by the standards of today's Supreme Court. We have "Free Speech Zones" today --- meaning; as long as you don't inconvenience anyone, and nobody sees you, you can protest.
If you have a "low tax, pro corporate" message like the Tea Baggers, you get CNN coverage and can even carry around guns to protect some tax cheat rancher (not a hypothetical).
Something tells me if this were a corporation that is resisting charges of human rights violations, they could still get a video through to a large audience.
"The community has a right not to feel threatened" -- please, that would mean that my right to not be offended means I could forever hold hostage ANY large gathering. No one has a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe at all times." The police even organize in communities that feel threatened by them. When about 25% of the males in Ferguson have conviction records -- you think that MOST people want them around?
This is about institutional acceptable vs. something the marginalized people want.
" The city of Hammond refused to let promoters hold the event unless they agreed that Chief Keef would not be allowed to perform."
That seems pretty specific. The city of Hammond -- or at least, the white people in power in Hammond, don't like the message of Keef. Maybe they think he's a criminal and shouldn't have the RIGHT to talk to people.
There were many people in the Bush administration who were avoiding the warrants of other countries and even US counties, and yet, they get speaker fees and engagements.
I have no clue what Keef is promoting. He could be a wacko. But to me, this is a clear violation of freedom of assembly and speech and it's the Haves vs. the Have nots. The people with money just show their messages on the TV -- and now they won't even let someone put up a projector in a park.
"Mother earth will take care of herself."
Yeah, and the rocks won't care if we are here or not.
"She has this sense of entitlement that wreaks. "
As compared to rich boys like Mitt or Trump or Bush? Is she LESS political or just less entitled? Which of the 4 of them would make their own coffee -- do you even know the answer or is this an opinion?
I'm not a fan of Hillary or ANY of the Republican candidates, but what has that to do with Climate change? Isn't it hard enough to get one point across without lumping in others?
And why can't we deal with the environment AND trading partners who happen to point weapons at us? There are certainly more than a few jobs in America -- some people even flip burgers while we worry about Russia and fuel efficiency standards.
A lot of the sub-prime loans went to people with the credit to allow them to get LOWER interest loans. People don't remember that the Republicans partially privatized Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae and that made them profit-oriented.
You know what happens to mortgagers who get higher interest? It's harder to pay off the loan.
The "leveraging" -- was mostly from the financial institutions who bundled the sub prime loans with insurance and traded it, sometimes as much as 20x the value of the "deposit" because they could say it was based on a mortgage. Did anyone hold a gun to the financial institutions head and force them to end Glass Stegal (which prevented such investments)?
Of course, the poor was hurt and the wealthy -- not at all.
So "personal responsibility" seems voided when ".inc" comes after the name.
While I can see the advantage for Soldiers -- we have already made war TOO EASY.
Do you know about all the wars or "hostile engagements" the US is already in? We hear about Iraq and Afghanistan because of a lot of troops -- especially people coming home injured. But most Americans don't know we have a lot of drones in Yemen -- and have for a few years now.
The only thing that really stops wars right now is soldiers. Not the Airforce who get to fly over and drop bombs -- no, it's the men and women been the ground who suffer.
That's why people who want LESS wars are for a draft or shared sacrifice. Without sacrifice of some kind, asymmetrical warfare (where one side is a lot more powerful than the other) can go on forever. The military industry and the multinationals benefit -- and we get shocked and surprised by people who hate us for our freedoms. As if drones were less of a terrorist weapon than homemade bombs. ALL weapons cause fear.
they are simply SOL until they purchase an iPhone.
I seem to remember reading that in the Android support manual.
I too think it's insane to link a "real" account to a forum for exchanging my "opinion."
If Slashdot only allowed FaceBook logins, I'd either censor my opinions and keep it professional (which MIGHT be good for the quality and decorum of discussion) or I'd not use Slashdot.
When FaceBook logins were required for Huffingtonpost.com and Digg.com -- I quickly left. It's one thing to voice a political opinion -- it's another thing to become permanently unemployable.
More and more, I believe, companies will use social media to do background checks, and if your Facebook doesn't look like a Sears & Roebuck catalog and your political opinions aren't supporting Bernie Sanders -- you are in luck!
I also figure that you will soon have an "employment score" just like you have a credit score. Free speech doesn't mean much without employment.
I really think you are onto something with that combination Refrigerator + Toaster idea. There's heat being pushed out and wasted already, and that could be concentrated and used to brown bread, or at least warm some water.
Samsung makes appliances like these, and should really jump on the Chimera appliance bandwagon. Curved screens, Toaster + Phones, Toasters + WiFi. The marketing is easy; "We only sell hot stuff."
So lesson learned; from now on I'm going to use an alias for my pets. ... Kidding aside, Google+ might be attached to doing real business, and then suddenly you might comment on a pet shaming video saying; "That is completely gay." Which can haunt you, and your gay cat forever.
I'd think ten days in jail would be enough punishment. Has anyone gone through the court system who suggests "throw away the key" type punishments?
With ADD, I'd think the sentence is also 7 times longer than for normal humans.
But when we look at the influence of monied interests -- well, the Royals can't punish hard enough. When the economic royalists do get punished for crimes (if ever) it's a hand slap, or the blame it all on some subordinate, as if that person made decisions.
I'm a dude, on a Mac, using plugins to control JavaScript and social networking. My advertisements are 90% for some Mac cleansing product that is 10% worse than paying for a virus.
So not only am I not being targeted by high paying jobs, I'm being profiled as an idiot. I'm tempted to burn my digital jock strap.
It's legal for bankers to take mortgage loans, bundle with insurance and then speculate on a private market with little to no oversight, meanwhile they can print money.
Get back to me when a white hat hacker trying to blow the whistle or a script kid defacing a website reach this level of impact on our lives.
"Oh it's CRIMINAL behavior!" What's the going rate to pass legislation making bad things legal and good things illegal these days?
They will probably have limits on the "commercial" 3D printers that consumers purchase. So it will be a hindrance for the Average Joe but not for the geek or committed bad guy.
If you ever noticed, you can't scan in the images of money into Adobe PhotoShop either. Well, that is -- an ENTIRE bill cannot be scanned. You can however, scan it in two parts, and then assemble them in PhotoShop.
So it may be that nobody in the future will be able to print a gun (with off the rack 3D printers) but they'll print out a pipe that seems suspiciously like a muzzle, they'll print out a "spring-loaded-dispenser" that's a lot like a magazine, they'll print out a "striking compartment" that is a lot like a gun chamber, and two more parts added on -- with 5 minutes of assembly, and you've got a gun.
Gun's will be stopped! But not gun-like parts. Or sprinkler systems with that ability to handle explosive rounds.
Good on the French - they are doing it right!
We protest stuff in "free speech zones" and our media ignores the people who are championing the average Joe unless someone walks buy in a sequin dress and clown make-up -- THAT GUY they interview. Ratings magic!
The French kidnap a CEO and nobody goes to jail. Maybe instead of making fun of them, we are the suckers, because we go for decade to decade with our prospects and power diminishing, and eventually we wake up being greeters at WalMart with no retirement savings.
We'll be complaining about the same things in a decade, likely.
In 5 years, there will be self-driving cars replacing the Uber AND the Taxi drivers.
Does anyone have a plan for this?
It's fine to say; "Well, just learn something new" when it's not you with a family and a tight budget having to jump into the marketplace and retrain while competing with people who've done that task their entire life -- but not everyone is as superior as the average person on Slashdot.
What do we do for the 'average person' when there isn't an easy alternative?
If they had the South on their side, that number changes.
Also, they controlled India with a larger population, estimated as being around 100 million for 1600 to 1881; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Brits were supporting the South for their financial and political gain -- so basically, they would be handing us back over to British rule because they didn't like the system they were in.
I think this is revisionist history as seen through the lens of the .1% and I figure the Tea Baggers of today will tell the same story about the poor billionaires trying to make a global market and do-gooders and environmentalists stopping them from creating a paradise one banking collapse after another.
OK, you are going to need to have citations here.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems to twist and turn history to make the plantation owners look like the heroes. The KKK probably couldn't invent better "lenses to see the world."
"It was fought to keep Brittan from reconquering the US."
Well, if the South had won, that would have been possible, because they'd be in debt to Britain and annexed. The Southern elite were throwing their lot in with the Crown. So are you saying they SHOULD have become part of Britain?
"Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he's a nice guy. Lincoln proclaimed emancipation to make the British government's support of slave-owning confederates EXTREMELY unpopular with the British people,"
Economically, today as it was back then, it's cheaper to use Capitalism to keep people poor -- rather than slavery. THEY have to go about feeding themselves anyway, and housing, and you don't have to guard people. Irish were probably cheaper in the North than slaves in the South -- I'll agree with that. But emancipation happened. If the South was unpopular for slavery and it wasn't that great an economic engine -- why the Hell did they keep people in slavery? The people who tried to abolish slavery did so at great risk. Whether you think Lincoln was a "nice guy" or not -- this is a self inflicted wound of the South.
The fact is; the Southern plantations had slaves. It had to have an economic or social reason so they were either profiting or being a bunch of dicks. I'm not seeing the nobility just based on the broad, inconvertible facts of history.
The UK didn't abandon the South because of the slavery issue -- they were blockaded and their ships kept from bringing in supplies. Whether or not it was popular, the crown had all kinds of operations around the world exploiting people. Local opinions didn't seem to matter when it came to making money.
"There were white people working the fields right next to the slaves" -- I never heard that before.
I had been confused on this very topic by learning that people of means in the South were claiming their issue was with imports; they wanted to import goods from anyone they wanted to, and not pay taxes. On recent re-examination with the Tea Party having such a strong correlation to so much of the complaints of the "owner class" of the South. I think I finally understood; the South wanted to get cheaper goods and not pay what would be required to employ FREE CITIZENS of the USA.
And think about it; why would the average, non-rich Southerner have to gain from slavery or cheap imports other than a WalMart discount? Their labor would be undermined while the profits of the wealthy maintained.
So when you look at the Southern argument as an issue of "free trade" -- it was really all about economic slavery all over again. And Tea Baggers today are just as in the dark as the average Southerner fighting to make sure the estate owners got to live like kings.
People should be able to fly the "protest flag" of the South, but they should have to give up 20% of all income to education for someone else's kid for the privilege -- because the education would be wasted on them.
The Civil war was fought for the .1% of the South.
I'm just wondering if "Gender Reassignment" would count for the access to programming?
I can understand "Ladies Night" at a bar, because men will spend to get access to the ladies.
But what happens when people get gender reassignment for "the opportunities"? It might also be convenient for ladies night. Don't be judging.
"Freedom of Speech" is nothing without access to information. If a person cannot get to the Internet, they are confined to commercial forms of information.
In my opinion, if a person could only be informed by CNN, Fox and a Newspaper, they'd be better off not having an opinion at all.
And have you TRIED dealing with any kind of public service or support system without the Internet these days? Paying utility bills?
I think the concept some people have about going without the Internet is pretty old fashioned. You are shut out of a good portion of opportunity, access and "reality."
The algorithm doesn't need "fixing" -- it works perfectly.
Computers are constantly animating objects based on the position of the mouse -- there are 4 points crossing the cartesian axis (immediately right or left, up or down), and we USED to, add a small value to the Zero figure and test if it's in quadrant [1,1 ; 1,-1 ; -1,-1; -1, 1] -- now it's automatic in a lot of programming languages -- at least as far as animation goes.
The problem I'm seeing here is people who know a lot of math theories, but aren't seeing that Divide by Zero comes up a lot in the real world and we deal with it -- it used to be with error handling, but now it might be with a min/max limiter and store the negative and positive. Or with a test of ranges above and below the value.
I wanted some input if "this was correct" from programmers.
You are technically correct but IMHO practically wrong. I'm talking about "real use" such as in animation, graphing and financial.
An equation that uses Divide by zero might go to "max limit" or to zero (in practical terms), based on preceding values. It will not suddenly say; "Sorry, the resultant value is indeterminable".
Graphs pass the zero mark all the time without a "NAN".
We just run to the limits of Math as an abstract concept but we do indeed KNOW that the value is either really big or really small -- we just lack the mathematical proof.
Until then, a lot of us are going to have to use a handler for divide by zero -- but a lot of scripts and programs already allow for it.
I think the people who suggest Russia or China has somehow gotten some "amazing secrets" from Snowden need to check some Wikileaks document dumps about how the 3rd party contractors are selling this data.
I was going to make a great quip with the name of the company, but Google is giving me nothing but popular results right now. Couldn't find the right terms to "NSA independent contractor." It told me the wages were up 25% however, so now is the time to sell out -- but with Patriotism.
Actually, I'd say I prefer the MS Office Suite from a decade ago.
I too hate the ribbon. And I'm thinking hate is not strong enough of a word. I use this UI device as a handy example of what you should not do in a User Interface -- but likely, now that UI is a "professional field" nobody with common sense or aesthetics need apply. The interface is more important than your content, and you'd understand that if you were TRAINED.
But we have to use the current MS Office, just like we have to use the current Adobe Edge, and Google Libraries in our web code.
I can just imagine saving a web page today, and trying to look at it in ten years. It's going to be like a Rubik's cube of long-dead self-organizing links.
"The JavaScript Lib you are trying to reach has collapsed into a dimensional rift. Would you like to use MS-Doc View? MS-Doc View no longer exists,"