The equality that people want in marriage is in regards to civil equality for the most part. Ie, issues in regards to adoptions, death benefits, hospital visitations, joint property ownership, tax benefits (or penalties), and so forth
Not really. Here in Australia, all those things aren't determined by an official marriage, but whether the law considers you partners. Marriage makes your partners, but so does sexual cohabitation, and the rules are applied equally to homo and heterosexual couples. The marriage rules were changed a while back to deal with the increase in cohabitation without marriage.
But even so, there's still a big push for allowing homosexual marriage, despite it not offering any legal or technical advantages.
When your IT guys move to Windows 7 for the central system, you better hope it can connect to it to store the images. You can't virtualise it because the DRM on the interface cost the manufacturer at least £10,000 to implement to stop you doing precisely that.
Sooner or later, you develop institutional memory, and every hospital in Britain refuses to buy any medical device that implements DRM, so you never get into that situation again.
Or at least, that's what would happen in a sane world, where technical decisions were made by technical people.
I agree with you; the issue isn't free speech. Like you say, there's no legal problem with what people protesting against Eich have done. The ironic thing, though, is that most of these people are crusading on a platform of "tolerance", while their behaviours contradict the meaning of the word; they're redefining "tolerance" to mean, "agreeing with what I think", and becoming intolerant in the process.
I'm not sure whether that's sad, amusing, annoying, or all three.
* Disclaimer: I'm straight, believe homosexuality is immoral, and am paid-up member of a political party that has legitimising homosexual marriage as one of its policies, because I don't think government should be in the business of morality.
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
Been there, done that.. If you're anything like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you'll just re-do the models, and claim you need another 15 years to falsify the new ones - which we should accept until they are proven wrong.
I remember day-dreaming about an MMO like this ages ago when they were just coming into the mainstream. I was thinking one based on Feist's "Hall of Worlds" concept. Each player would start on a pre-fabbed world, and after levelling a bit, make their way into the Hall, where they could connect to player-generated worlds which served as dungeons against which to test their skill. After progressing sufficiently, they could gain control of their own world, and create another dungeon to add to the Hall of Worlds.
Still think it'd be a good game; I'd like to play it.
That article's a strawman - it's debunking a claim that nobody made.
North Korea has a restricted number of haircuts that barbers are allowed to perform - 10 for men, and 18 for women. That's not in doubt, that article even referenced the fact.
The new claim was that the number of allowed haircuts for men was being reduced to 1. That doesn't mean the everyone in the country had to rush out and get their hair cut, it means that the next time they get their haircut, they will be forced to take a Kim Jong-un cut.
So the fact that a bunch of visitors haven't seen a sudden growth in Jong-un-style haircuts neither proves nor disproves the original claim.
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
No, it's because "Arrgh! We're all going to die!" sells more newspapers than "Nothing's happening here, folks".
He "hesitated", and then (according to her) started abusing her on commit messages, and pulling her code out. It was the that, not the "hesitation" that I was labelling as "not handling it well".
It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.
Of the other issues she raised: * Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will. * Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them
The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.
Nobody said abolish; they said limit their powers. And yes, states government's powers should be more limited than their constituent cities, for precisely the reasons you list.
It's not that state politicians are more moral; it's that their power is more limited. Less power = less corruption - and they have 49 competitors, which are relatively trivial to move between (compared to moving to a different country, anyway).
That statement is beyond dim, do you not understand what the definition of inequality is?
I'm the dim one, when apparently you cannot perform basic comprehension. I was questioning why 50 poor people getting rich was considered a bad thing, not why it was considered inequality.
How many decades of there being no "trickle-down effect"....profits get paid to rich shareholders and directors.
Blah, blah, blah, off-topic ranting on "trickle-down" economics that has nothing to do with what I posted. I guess a keyword in my post must have tripped a spinal reflex, or something.
When interviewer Steven Levy noted 'gazelles' like the 50-employee WhatsApp which was acquired by Facebook for a reported $19 billion seem to lead to more inequality, Schmidt brushed aside the apparent contradiction.
50 people getting a split of $19b is seen as a bad thing because it "increases inequality". Why? Would the rest of the area be better off if those 50 people were still poor? It was a transfer of wealth from Facebook's war chest to 50 individuals - the money wasn't taken from the rest of the population. Surely the measure of increasing prosperity should be how much your buying power has grown, rather than the fact that someone down the street's buying power increased more than yours.
Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.
They are unsafe because of poor schools, poor policing, the wage freeze, and the drug war.
Good, so you agree with me.
When rich assholes...snip snip snip, rant rant rant....you're exactly the person that Jesus of Nazareth said wouldn't get into heaven.
All I said was that saying "slums are not safe" does not imply "slum-dwellers are subhuman". All the rest was you projecting, and a mighty fine job you did of it, too.
No, you re-wrote what the OP said. He didn't say "unfit for human habitation" he implied that they were living in a place unsafe for human habitation.
That doesn't mean the occupants aren't human - it means that they're living a place that isn't safe. This is fairly basic English language comprehension.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference that addressed recent rumors.
Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference? Did the Dollar and the Peso attend as well?
Oh, you mean Mt. Gox held an impromptu press conference. Yeah, well, whoever trusted an online card trading portal as if it were a bank deserves whatever they got, IMO.
Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.
Fiat currency and backing are different things. All fiat currency is unbacked, but just because a currency is unbacked, doesn't make it fiat.
Backed currency relies on the physical properties of the universe to create scarcity (i.e. anything backed by a physical thing is inherently limited). Fiat currency relies on the authority of the state to create scarcity (i.e. only the state is allowed to print money). Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin rely on mathematical principles to create scarcity. Bitcoin is not backed; it's also not a fiat currency.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's suggesting the summary doesn't reproduce every *crucial* detail of the thing it's summarizing, making it a poor summary.
The equality that people want in marriage is in regards to civil equality for the most part. Ie, issues in regards to adoptions, death benefits, hospital visitations, joint property ownership, tax benefits (or penalties), and so forth
Not really. Here in Australia, all those things aren't determined by an official marriage, but whether the law considers you partners. Marriage makes your partners, but so does sexual cohabitation, and the rules are applied equally to homo and heterosexual couples. The marriage rules were changed a while back to deal with the increase in cohabitation without marriage.
But even so, there's still a big push for allowing homosexual marriage, despite it not offering any legal or technical advantages.
When your IT guys move to Windows 7 for the central system, you better hope it can connect to it to store the images. You can't virtualise it because the DRM on the interface cost the manufacturer at least £10,000 to implement to stop you doing precisely that.
Sooner or later, you develop institutional memory, and every hospital in Britain refuses to buy any medical device that implements DRM, so you never get into that situation again.
Or at least, that's what would happen in a sane world, where technical decisions were made by technical people.
I agree with you; the issue isn't free speech. Like you say, there's no legal problem with what people protesting against Eich have done. The ironic thing, though, is that most of these people are crusading on a platform of "tolerance", while their behaviours contradict the meaning of the word; they're redefining "tolerance" to mean, "agreeing with what I think", and becoming intolerant in the process.
I'm not sure whether that's sad, amusing, annoying, or all three.
* Disclaimer: I'm straight, believe homosexuality is immoral, and am paid-up member of a political party that has legitimising homosexual marriage as one of its policies, because I don't think government should be in the business of morality.
Seems like the alarmists mods are out in force. I haven't seen a post above 2 that wasn't pro-AGW
Now, if it continues like that for another ten-fifteen years, our models were wrong and you'll see me running in the street, celebrating.
Been there, done that.. If you're anything like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you'll just re-do the models, and claim you need another 15 years to falsify the new ones - which we should accept until they are proven wrong.
I remember day-dreaming about an MMO like this ages ago when they were just coming into the mainstream. I was thinking one based on Feist's "Hall of Worlds" concept. Each player would start on a pre-fabbed world, and after levelling a bit, make their way into the Hall, where they could connect to player-generated worlds which served as dungeons against which to test their skill. After progressing sufficiently, they could gain control of their own world, and create another dungeon to add to the Hall of Worlds.
Still think it'd be a good game; I'd like to play it.
That article's a strawman - it's debunking a claim that nobody made.
North Korea has a restricted number of haircuts that barbers are allowed to perform - 10 for men, and 18 for women. That's not in doubt, that article even referenced the fact.
The new claim was that the number of allowed haircuts for men was being reduced to 1. That doesn't mean the everyone in the country had to rush out and get their hair cut, it means that the next time they get their haircut, they will be forced to take a Kim Jong-un cut.
So the fact that a bunch of visitors haven't seen a sudden growth in Jong-un-style haircuts neither proves nor disproves the original claim.
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
No, it's because "Arrgh! We're all going to die!" sells more newspapers than "Nothing's happening here, folks".
They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector
Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field
giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.
You do realise there's a difference between "unmanned" and "autonomous" don't you?
He "hesitated", and then (according to her) started abusing her on commit messages, and pulling her code out. It was the that, not the "hesitation" that I was labelling as "not handling it well".
It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.
Of the other issues she raised:
* Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
* Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them
The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.
Nobody said abolish; they said limit their powers. And yes, states government's powers should be more limited than their constituent cities, for precisely the reasons you list.
It's not that state politicians are more moral; it's that their power is more limited. Less power = less corruption - and they have 49 competitors, which are relatively trivial to move between (compared to moving to a different country, anyway).
That statement is beyond dim, do you not understand what the definition of inequality is?
I'm the dim one, when apparently you cannot perform basic comprehension. I was questioning why 50 poor people getting rich was considered a bad thing, not why it was considered inequality.
How many decades of there being no "trickle-down effect"....profits get paid to rich shareholders and directors.
Blah, blah, blah, off-topic ranting on "trickle-down" economics that has nothing to do with what I posted. I guess a keyword in my post must have tripped a spinal reflex, or something.
When interviewer Steven Levy noted 'gazelles' like the 50-employee WhatsApp which was acquired by Facebook for a reported $19 billion seem to lead to more inequality, Schmidt brushed aside the apparent contradiction.
50 people getting a split of $19b is seen as a bad thing because it "increases inequality". Why? Would the rest of the area be better off if those 50 people were still poor? It was a transfer of wealth from Facebook's war chest to 50 individuals - the money wasn't taken from the rest of the population. Surely the measure of increasing prosperity should be how much your buying power has grown, rather than the fact that someone down the street's buying power increased more than yours.
Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.
They are unsafe because of poor schools, poor policing, the wage freeze, and the drug war.
Good, so you agree with me.
When rich assholes...snip snip snip, rant rant rant....you're exactly the person that Jesus of Nazareth said wouldn't get into heaven.
All I said was that saying "slums are not safe" does not imply "slum-dwellers are subhuman". All the rest was you projecting, and a mighty fine job you did of it, too.
No, you re-wrote what the OP said. He didn't say "unfit for human habitation" he implied that they were living in a place unsafe for human habitation.
That doesn't mean the occupants aren't human - it means that they're living a place that isn't safe. This is fairly basic English language comprehension.
Which has what to do with your claim that the OP implied that poor people aren't human, exactly?
making the slums safe for human habitation again.
So people who make less money than you are also less than human?
Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference that addressed recent rumors.
Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference? Did the Dollar and the Peso attend as well?
Oh, you mean Mt. Gox held an impromptu press conference. Yeah, well, whoever trusted an online card trading portal as if it were a bank deserves whatever they got, IMO.
Not if they're using animal rennet to set the curd. Modern cheeses often don't, but it was the standard method in traditional cheesemaking.
Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.
Fiat currency and backing are different things. All fiat currency is unbacked, but just because a currency is unbacked, doesn't make it fiat.
Backed currency relies on the physical properties of the universe to create scarcity (i.e. anything backed by a physical thing is inherently limited). Fiat currency relies on the authority of the state to create scarcity (i.e. only the state is allowed to print money). Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin rely on mathematical principles to create scarcity. Bitcoin is not backed; it's also not a fiat currency.
Seriously, you can't recognise the name of one of the site's editors?