Man...there wasn't even a linked article for yall not to read. He's sharing the whole thing with his family and prolly wants to KISS. Not everybody wants to learn how to do things, especially as compared to "me put CD in drive".
Not to burst any bubbles, but Outlook is quite safe once you've got the security update, which has been out for some time now. Of course this does nothing for the installed base that have never been updated, but I suppose that's why MS is trying to buildup the autoupdate features more. (Moreso for the OS than Office, but still...)
Given that there is no objective standard, I suppose you have to go with a best guess average. It's not as if there's any single agreed upon standard of what God decrees -- given that at least 3 of the major religions consider themselves to have the same God (not counting many of the smaller religions) but have differing ideas on what it all means. These differeing standards do not make life meaningless. How can life be meaningless if someone doesn't agree with you? That's a silly assertion to make. It's rhetoric with no basis.
You picked a poor example for closed mindedness. Is it accurate to define daytime as when the sun is visible? There can be entire days when the sun is not visible. Does that make it no longer daytime? In either case, silly questions with meaningless answers don't demonstrate anything, and analogies make poor arguments.:)
If it isn't illegal, it must therefore be legal. What logic do you have disputing this? Your stand makes entirely no sense.
I don't know shit about Canadian traffic laws, but if you are required not to pass, then I would assume it would HAVE to be specifically defined. Whether or not the road is covered in snow wouldn't have anything to do with it -- but if it was covered in snow and you couldn't have known then I imagine you wouldn't worry so much about prosecution, since that would obviously be a case with a large potential hole. Also, you wouldn't necessarily be perfectly legal to pass if there might be some other law you'd be breaking like those pertaining to reckless driving or things like that.
The constitution does give individuals the right to bear arms. That has been affirmed over and over. My reading sees that militias are mentioned, but the "right of the people" is specifically enumerated. It is clearly not referring to a standing army. It does not seem to require membership in a militia. It leaves open the possbilibty that these people could be militia members, or they might form one as needed. Of course, I am not a legal scholar, so I am not fully aware of the various schools of thought but you could read up on the various legal decisions of the Supreme Court. In either case (and DMCA included) until it is struck down as unconstitutional then it is constitutional. It's sort of like the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you know?
Ah, to further add a situation where this would apply, since it wouldn't neccesarily be the states. The constitution could have said something like this, which would outlaw guns outside the militia context (notwithstanding the current legal findings of the Supreme Court over an extended period of time saying that this right does NOT exclusively belong to militias, but also the ordinary people):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Otherwise, there is no right to bear arms."
Pay closer attention. Declaring something to be legal in a particular circumstance by no means indicates it is outlawed in all other circumstances. Maybe YOU should read the goddamn constitution? You could only be correct if per the "rights not enumerated going to the states" clause (which would not apply given it IS enumerated in the constitution) that guns were outlawed by the states. I am aware of no such action having taken place (IANAL, but I think the NRA would have made some kind of public mention of this.) The shitty logic I was referring to was yours, not that of the constitution. BTW, I didn't see that the DMCA is actually in the constitution, so I can only assume it is your shitty logic at play again. I assume you were referring to it not having been challenged on constitutional grounds yet, but were unable to present your thoughts in a well-communicated manner.
I say your position is bad. It's been the whole thrust of my argument that you shouldn't say there is ONLY one way. However, that seems to be what you insist on doing. If you misunderstood, I meant that you are entitled to your opinion but acting like anyone elses is invalid if it does not agree with yours is silly. It denies you credibility and makes you look closed-minded.
You've missed out on the facts of course. Didn't say there couldn't be an emotional component nor that I was unfamiliar with or against it. I just said that didn't have to be the only way to do it. Additionally, your sundae analogy is nonsensical.
Your ad hominem attack at the end doesn't do your argument any justice, either. There are several websites that address that logical fallacy that you might want to look into. Since you couldn't possibly have any idea what my situation is your comments there have no validity.
You're assuming that for some reason sex must have an emotional component. That is by no means true. To be crude about it, making love and fucking are both sex, but not necessarily the same thing. Both can be quite fulfilling in their own ways.
Good for you for having a loving sexual relationship with your wife. Bad for you for assuming there isn't any other way, or that yours is the only way to go.
Right, my question is more on what are the capability differences. I think widespread use will not be so much a factor because the usage will not be totally practical -- some areas, sure, but others, why?
No, you aren't the only one to think that. There must be thousands of people who didn't read (understand?) the article who think exactly the same thing.
Well, unless you are homeless and living in that Dodge Stealth, they're gonna get you at some point.:)
Re:Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen.
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I agree. But when somebody scrapes my bird with theirs, there is a helluva lot more expense of potential danger, too.:)
Hmm...wonder if that could lead to more safety in general by burying all the above-ground cables. Less plane strikes, maybe less electrical danger to people, directly and indirectly.
However there are quite a few people who would like not to have to cook, so they can spend their time with their hobby, instead...
Stay out of the "well, this is what I want" trap.:)
Re:Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen.
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 1
Ever been in a helicopter with wheels? They most certainly DO taxi. Even those that don't could be considered to as you might see them hover a few feet and fly slowly and carefully out of the "parking lot."
Slashdot Mirror
Man...there wasn't even a linked article for yall not to read. He's sharing the whole thing with his family and prolly wants to KISS. Not everybody wants to learn how to do things, especially as compared to "me put CD in drive".
Not to burst any bubbles, but Outlook is quite safe once you've got the security update, which has been out for some time now. Of course this does nothing for the installed base that have never been updated, but I suppose that's why MS is trying to buildup the autoupdate features more. (Moreso for the OS than Office, but still...)
No need to be insulting. He's a priest. It's his job.
Maybe you should stop going to movies with that person. :P
You mean he DID underestimate the power of the single vote I assume?
Given that there is no objective standard, I suppose you have to go with a best guess average. It's not as if there's any single agreed upon standard of what God decrees -- given that at least 3 of the major religions consider themselves to have the same God (not counting many of the smaller religions) but have differing ideas on what it all means. These differeing standards do not make life meaningless. How can life be meaningless if someone doesn't agree with you? That's a silly assertion to make. It's rhetoric with no basis.
:)
You picked a poor example for closed mindedness. Is it accurate to define daytime as when the sun is visible? There can be entire days when the sun is not visible. Does that make it no longer daytime? In either case, silly questions with meaningless answers don't demonstrate anything, and analogies make poor arguments.
If it isn't illegal, it must therefore be legal. What logic do you have disputing this? Your stand makes entirely no sense.
I don't know shit about Canadian traffic laws, but if you are required not to pass, then I would assume it would HAVE to be specifically defined. Whether or not the road is covered in snow wouldn't have anything to do with it -- but if it was covered in snow and you couldn't have known then I imagine you wouldn't worry so much about prosecution, since that would obviously be a case with a large potential hole. Also, you wouldn't necessarily be perfectly legal to pass if there might be some other law you'd be breaking like those pertaining to reckless driving or things like that.
The constitution does give individuals the right to bear arms. That has been affirmed over and over. My reading sees that militias are mentioned, but the "right of the people" is specifically enumerated. It is clearly not referring to a standing army. It does not seem to require membership in a militia. It leaves open the possbilibty that these people could be militia members, or they might form one as needed. Of course, I am not a legal scholar, so I am not fully aware of the various schools of thought but you could read up on the various legal decisions of the Supreme Court. In either case (and DMCA included) until it is struck down as unconstitutional then it is constitutional. It's sort of like the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you know?
Ah, to further add a situation where this would apply, since it wouldn't neccesarily be the states. The constitution could have said something like this, which would outlaw guns outside the militia context (notwithstanding the current legal findings of the Supreme Court over an extended period of time saying that this right does NOT exclusively belong to militias, but also the ordinary people):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Otherwise, there is no right to bear arms."
Pay closer attention. Declaring something to be legal in a particular circumstance by no means indicates it is outlawed in all other circumstances. Maybe YOU should read the goddamn constitution? You could only be correct if per the "rights not enumerated going to the states" clause (which would not apply given it IS enumerated in the constitution) that guns were outlawed by the states. I am aware of no such action having taken place (IANAL, but I think the NRA would have made some kind of public mention of this.) The shitty logic I was referring to was yours, not that of the constitution. BTW, I didn't see that the DMCA is actually in the constitution, so I can only assume it is your shitty logic at play again. I assume you were referring to it not having been challenged on constitutional grounds yet, but were unable to present your thoughts in a well-communicated manner.
I say your position is bad. It's been the whole thrust of my argument that you shouldn't say there is ONLY one way. However, that seems to be what you insist on doing. If you misunderstood, I meant that you are entitled to your opinion but acting like anyone elses is invalid if it does not agree with yours is silly. It denies you credibility and makes you look closed-minded.
You've missed out on the facts of course. Didn't say there couldn't be an emotional component nor that I was unfamiliar with or against it. I just said that didn't have to be the only way to do it. Additionally, your sundae analogy is nonsensical.
Your ad hominem attack at the end doesn't do your argument any justice, either. There are several websites that address that logical fallacy that you might want to look into. Since you couldn't possibly have any idea what my situation is your comments there have no validity.
You're assuming that for some reason sex must have an emotional component. That is by no means true. To be crude about it, making love and fucking are both sex, but not necessarily the same thing. Both can be quite fulfilling in their own ways.
Good for you for having a loving sexual relationship with your wife. Bad for you for assuming there isn't any other way, or that yours is the only way to go.
How does mentioning an acceptable right to bear arms constitute any idea that guns are otherwise outlawed?
Misquotes, shitty logic -- what's the difference? You don't know any more what you are talking about than the people you are so in awe of.
The right to remain silent was already there. It was the idea that you need to be made aware of your rights that the case brought to light.
So....hopefully he'll bite off someone's finger and fall into a volcano?
Right, my question is more on what are the capability differences. I think widespread use will not be so much a factor because the usage will not be totally practical -- some areas, sure, but others, why?
Most people, after some small period of time dealing with the Internet, ought to be more familiar with dick than Jefferson.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
No, you aren't the only one to think that. There must be thousands of people who didn't read (understand?) the article who think exactly the same thing.
Is this somehow better than the currently available Ground Surveillance Radar?
Well, unless you are homeless and living in that Dodge Stealth, they're gonna get you at some point. :)
Yeah, I agree. But when somebody scrapes my bird with theirs, there is a helluva lot more expense of potential danger, too. :)
Hmm...wonder if that could lead to more safety in general by burying all the above-ground cables. Less plane strikes, maybe less electrical danger to people, directly and indirectly.
However there are quite a few people who would like not to have to cook, so they can spend their time with their hobby, instead...
:)
Stay out of the "well, this is what I want" trap.
Ever been in a helicopter with wheels? They most certainly DO taxi. Even those that don't could be considered to as you might see them hover a few feet and fly slowly and carefully out of the "parking lot."
Right. I'll have the chicken, then.