As a parent, I could protect my kid from a lot of things. In case of a direct physical attack by someone competent with violence, I would have been unable to protect him (as opposed to occupy the assailant while he ran away). This would be a case where a sophisticated company would have been doing a direct psychological attack on my son with the intention of getting him to spend money or get really upset. I'm outgunned in that case, and I want help.
While I don't own a Tesla, I have read the owner's manual.
How many drivers read the owner's manual?
Heck, how many remember it all? I got a new car a couple of weeks ago, and read the section on displays and controls. I still don't know what some of those controls do, because there's too many to remember on one reading. I could easily have missed something like "don't set the adaptive cruise control and lane following assist and plan to spend the next hour surfing porn".
A speeding driver is a lot less dangerous than one who isn't paying attention. Actually, a speeding driver can be safer than a non-speeding driver. Speed makes accidents worse, but going with the flow of traffic makes accidents less likely.
Give it time. Not that you've seen 100% of theatrical portrayals of Lincoln, I'd suspect.
The Marvel Universe movies picked out the best actor they could for Nick Fury, despite the fact that Fury's backstory absolutely does not work with Jackson's race.
I remember XML in one application I worked on, things like <AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters>A</AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters> on a slow and flaky connection.
If you don't understand an API and what the functions do, it doesn't matter if the code you write has any abstraction. You're still probably going to screw up.
And those unrealistic schedules and feature requests are often caused by the business plan, which needs to survive contact with the marketplace. If people would wait for and pay for better software, much of the problems would go away.
Actually, I can infer from that. I infer that the author should use a Mac. I don't see that as a particularly useful inference, but I'm fairly certain of it.
I have a C-PAP machine to help me sleep. When I turn it on or off, there's a bright white screen that lights up for a few minutes. Sometimes when I can't sleep I stop to appreciate the irony.
I have several problems that are partly fixed with pills and other medical technology, which would be real problems if I manned up and turned to self-reliance like you seem to be suggesting. I rely on external factors to fix stuff in me that's broken because I bloody have to. Get to be old enough, and you'll do the exact same thing without a second thought, or you'll probably get unnecessarily crippled and die early. Taking responsibility means relying on pills and services. My memory isn't quite what I remember it as being, so I have a calendar app on my phone to make up for some of that (missing meetings and appointments and such would be irresponsible). I'd be considerably worse off without certain laws that restrict pollution, and those are from politicians.
Most of the stuff that breaks around here I can't fix. Things in general have become a lot less fixable. Fortunately, they break a lot less. Anyone else old enough to remember the tube testers in hardware stores? If your electronic device wasn't working, you'd pull the vacuum tubes (if you were smart and/or doing this the second time, making notes on which sockets they came from), take them down there, test them, and buy replacements for the ones that didn't work anymore. Carburetors? They were fairly simple. They don't exist on most modern cars.
So, you seem to be saying I should use ancient technology and just accept medical conditions that were untreatable when I was a kid. I don't agree.
Racism has plenty to do with his win. He appealed to a lot of people who have been screwed over by the system, and who wanted change in the worst way, which, as far as I can tell, is what they're getting. These people are thinking back to when their recent ancestors had it good, which is roughly the 50s and 60s, and want to go back to that, problems and all. They've been fed a lot of nonsense about what's going on by people who want to exploit them for political purposes, and like most people on Slashdot it sinks in. The powers that be want to split up the people who are screwed by the system so they're fighting each other, and they've done a pretty good job of it, so they foster racism and other bigotry because it means they can stay in power and do what they do. There's also a real strong drive to blame one's problems on someone else, and that plays into this.
So, we wind up with whites and blacks being told that their problems stem primarily from the other group, and Christians being told that the atheists are the source of their problems, whereas if we all tried to find the actual sources of our problems and worked to eliminate them we'd shake things up too much.
The 50s and 60s, in the myth, were a time when society was built around white families with stay-at-home wives and children who went to church on Sundays. Women knew their place, which was putting up with a lot of sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment they would object to nowadays. There were standard routes to financial success, primarily climbing the management ladder in a larger company. (The path was somewhat different for blue-collar and white-collar jobs.) Society then could be pretty brutal to those who didn't fit into the standard categories, and to people in those categories in many cases, but if you're desperate for a past that's not really what it was, even if it wouldn't work today, those are easy things to ignore.)
I used to have a Mac Mini with two video adapters chained. That meant that every so often the weight would get the adapters misaligned somehow and the RGB monitor would turn into an R monitor.
I wish Linux was a more viable alternative for a development environment
The primariy reason I have a Linux desktop is development. I use Windows 10 to play games, and it really doesn't matter what OS I use for email, the web, and fiction writing. Vim's available on everything I want it on, after all.
One thing that sold me was when I had an iPhone problem, and called Apple Support. I got a woman on line who spoke English as well as I do, knew what she was talking about, and took the time to explain what was happening and what I could do about it, and gave me a URL for more detailed information. If you're going to use a support line, service like that is worth paying extra for.
Wrong. You don't want to figure out why some people like Apple stuff, so you attribute it to "marketing" working on inferior minds. To you, "marketing" appears to be the God of the Gaps, a mystical word to explain what you don't even try to understand.
Marketing is important in stuff sold, but not that important, and marketing also includes figuring out what people want. Figuring out what people want so you can provide that to them is a positive contribution.
Prices are not set at cost of production plus profit. Assuming no mistakes, the prices are set for the maximum profit point, because companies don't think "We're making enough money on that, no need to make more" so much as "We want as much profit as we can get.". This does involve cost of production, since profit is revenue minus expenses, which do include cost of production, but cost of production doesn't itself determine the price. Desired margins are more of a rule of thumb.
I'm not arguing against the Senate. It's useful to have two legislative bodies elected in different ways. I'm not real fond of the bicameral legislature in my state, where the big difference is that state Representatives are elected from districts that are state Senate districts cut in half.
The House was intended to reflect the people's will, with short terms and fairly uniform representation. The reason these elections are divided among states is that states run the elections. I can't think of any way in which state delegations matter per se other than in electing the President.
If democracy is laudable but flawed, why is it that all reasonably fair elections in the First World except that of US President are by popular vote? (If there's other exceptions, I'd love to hear about them. I'm not talking about offices that are not directly elected, either, like the British Prime Minister.)
Are you quoting the Federalist Papers or some other document from someone who helped write or campaign for the Constitution? If so, throw it out, because it hasn't been applicable in over two hundred years. The Electoral College system as the original Founders thought of it stopped working in the early 1800s, and hasn't worked like that since.
You seem to have claimed that campaigning in all of Rhode Island is as expensive as campaigning in all of California.
The purpose of states is to allow people who live in a state to control how they're governed for the most part. That doesn't depend on how Federal officials are selected.
The states have lost power due to the introduction of the Federal income tax and the expansion of the interstate commerce clause, neither of which have anything much to do with the selection of the Senate or President. The Seventeenth Amendment didn't make all that much difference in representation anyway. It just means I can consider my state legislators on how they'll do making laws for the state rather than having to wonder also who they'll vote for for Senator.
A nationwide popular vote election would mean that everybody has the same influence. If a candidate could, presumably by sacrificing sufficient virgins to create a massive mind control spell, get all of California to vote his or her way, that would be one thing. However, some Californians are going to vote one way and some another, and if a candidate chases another couple of percentage points in California at the expense of ten percentage points across the Midwest, that isn't really a good strategy.
Literally every elective office I vote for except President is done by "majoritarian mob rule". My state hasn't slid into mob rule and tyranny and anarchy yet. Has yours?
Competitive sovereignity would work without the Senate or Electoral College. What that means is that people in my state govern my state, and people in yours govern yours, and so our states are differently governed. If mine were to turn into a devastated anarchy ruled by warlords, your state would be free not to do the same, even if we had a straight parliamentary democracy on the national level.
In your last paragraph, you are saying that the EC is good because it dilutes the influence of people whose politics you don't like. That's a terrible reason to want a certain structure of government.
Large numbers of citizens live in many places. If you want the popular vote, you pick up votes where you find them.
And the Electoral College means that candidates have to work hard to appeal to citizens in swing states, and can ignore states that are probably voting for one candidate or another. In a popular vote, the candidates would have to appeal to citizens in safe states, to run up their totals.
Slashdot Mirror
As a parent, I could protect my kid from a lot of things. In case of a direct physical attack by someone competent with violence, I would have been unable to protect him (as opposed to occupy the assailant while he ran away). This would be a case where a sophisticated company would have been doing a direct psychological attack on my son with the intention of getting him to spend money or get really upset. I'm outgunned in that case, and I want help.
How many drivers read the owner's manual?
Heck, how many remember it all? I got a new car a couple of weeks ago, and read the section on displays and controls. I still don't know what some of those controls do, because there's too many to remember on one reading. I could easily have missed something like "don't set the adaptive cruise control and lane following assist and plan to spend the next hour surfing porn".
A speeding driver is a lot less dangerous than one who isn't paying attention. Actually, a speeding driver can be safer than a non-speeding driver. Speed makes accidents worse, but going with the flow of traffic makes accidents less likely.
Give it time. Not that you've seen 100% of theatrical portrayals of Lincoln, I'd suspect.
The Marvel Universe movies picked out the best actor they could for Nick Fury, despite the fact that Fury's backstory absolutely does not work with Jackson's race.
Which means that developers often don't bother to see what happens on a slower machine with the user having limited privileges.
And it can be simpler to put a pagefile in a ramdisk than to replace the application.
I remember XML in one application I worked on, things like <AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters>A</AVeryVeryLongFieldNameThatTakesALotOfCharacters> on a slow and flaky connection.
If you don't understand an API and what the functions do, it doesn't matter if the code you write has any abstraction. You're still probably going to screw up.
And those unrealistic schedules and feature requests are often caused by the business plan, which needs to survive contact with the marketplace. If people would wait for and pay for better software, much of the problems would go away.
Data compaction is easy. Here's the entire NSA archive in compacted form: 1. It's a bit lossy, but with the right expansion program it'll work fine.
Actually, I can infer from that. I infer that the author should use a Mac. I don't see that as a particularly useful inference, but I'm fairly certain of it.
I have a C-PAP machine to help me sleep. When I turn it on or off, there's a bright white screen that lights up for a few minutes. Sometimes when I can't sleep I stop to appreciate the irony.
I have several problems that are partly fixed with pills and other medical technology, which would be real problems if I manned up and turned to self-reliance like you seem to be suggesting. I rely on external factors to fix stuff in me that's broken because I bloody have to. Get to be old enough, and you'll do the exact same thing without a second thought, or you'll probably get unnecessarily crippled and die early. Taking responsibility means relying on pills and services. My memory isn't quite what I remember it as being, so I have a calendar app on my phone to make up for some of that (missing meetings and appointments and such would be irresponsible). I'd be considerably worse off without certain laws that restrict pollution, and those are from politicians.
Most of the stuff that breaks around here I can't fix. Things in general have become a lot less fixable. Fortunately, they break a lot less. Anyone else old enough to remember the tube testers in hardware stores? If your electronic device wasn't working, you'd pull the vacuum tubes (if you were smart and/or doing this the second time, making notes on which sockets they came from), take them down there, test them, and buy replacements for the ones that didn't work anymore. Carburetors? They were fairly simple. They don't exist on most modern cars.
So, you seem to be saying I should use ancient technology and just accept medical conditions that were untreatable when I was a kid. I don't agree.
Racism has plenty to do with his win. He appealed to a lot of people who have been screwed over by the system, and who wanted change in the worst way, which, as far as I can tell, is what they're getting. These people are thinking back to when their recent ancestors had it good, which is roughly the 50s and 60s, and want to go back to that, problems and all. They've been fed a lot of nonsense about what's going on by people who want to exploit them for political purposes, and like most people on Slashdot it sinks in. The powers that be want to split up the people who are screwed by the system so they're fighting each other, and they've done a pretty good job of it, so they foster racism and other bigotry because it means they can stay in power and do what they do. There's also a real strong drive to blame one's problems on someone else, and that plays into this.
So, we wind up with whites and blacks being told that their problems stem primarily from the other group, and Christians being told that the atheists are the source of their problems, whereas if we all tried to find the actual sources of our problems and worked to eliminate them we'd shake things up too much.
The 50s and 60s, in the myth, were a time when society was built around white families with stay-at-home wives and children who went to church on Sundays. Women knew their place, which was putting up with a lot of sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment they would object to nowadays. There were standard routes to financial success, primarily climbing the management ladder in a larger company. (The path was somewhat different for blue-collar and white-collar jobs.) Society then could be pretty brutal to those who didn't fit into the standard categories, and to people in those categories in many cases, but if you're desperate for a past that's not really what it was, even if it wouldn't work today, those are easy things to ignore.)
I used to have a Mac Mini with two video adapters chained. That meant that every so often the weight would get the adapters misaligned somehow and the RGB monitor would turn into an R monitor.
The primariy reason I have a Linux desktop is development. I use Windows 10 to play games, and it really doesn't matter what OS I use for email, the web, and fiction writing. Vim's available on everything I want it on, after all.
One thing that sold me was when I had an iPhone problem, and called Apple Support. I got a woman on line who spoke English as well as I do, knew what she was talking about, and took the time to explain what was happening and what I could do about it, and gave me a URL for more detailed information. If you're going to use a support line, service like that is worth paying extra for.
Wrong. You don't want to figure out why some people like Apple stuff, so you attribute it to "marketing" working on inferior minds. To you, "marketing" appears to be the God of the Gaps, a mystical word to explain what you don't even try to understand.
Marketing is important in stuff sold, but not that important, and marketing also includes figuring out what people want. Figuring out what people want so you can provide that to them is a positive contribution.
Prices are not set at cost of production plus profit. Assuming no mistakes, the prices are set for the maximum profit point, because companies don't think "We're making enough money on that, no need to make more" so much as "We want as much profit as we can get.". This does involve cost of production, since profit is revenue minus expenses, which do include cost of production, but cost of production doesn't itself determine the price. Desired margins are more of a rule of thumb.
I'm not arguing against the Senate. It's useful to have two legislative bodies elected in different ways. I'm not real fond of the bicameral legislature in my state, where the big difference is that state Representatives are elected from districts that are state Senate districts cut in half.
The House was intended to reflect the people's will, with short terms and fairly uniform representation. The reason these elections are divided among states is that states run the elections. I can't think of any way in which state delegations matter per se other than in electing the President.
If democracy is laudable but flawed, why is it that all reasonably fair elections in the First World except that of US President are by popular vote? (If there's other exceptions, I'd love to hear about them. I'm not talking about offices that are not directly elected, either, like the British Prime Minister.)
Are you quoting the Federalist Papers or some other document from someone who helped write or campaign for the Constitution? If so, throw it out, because it hasn't been applicable in over two hundred years. The Electoral College system as the original Founders thought of it stopped working in the early 1800s, and hasn't worked like that since.
You seem to have claimed that campaigning in all of Rhode Island is as expensive as campaigning in all of California.
The purpose of states is to allow people who live in a state to control how they're governed for the most part. That doesn't depend on how Federal officials are selected.
The states have lost power due to the introduction of the Federal income tax and the expansion of the interstate commerce clause, neither of which have anything much to do with the selection of the Senate or President. The Seventeenth Amendment didn't make all that much difference in representation anyway. It just means I can consider my state legislators on how they'll do making laws for the state rather than having to wonder also who they'll vote for for Senator.
A nationwide popular vote election would mean that everybody has the same influence. If a candidate could, presumably by sacrificing sufficient virgins to create a massive mind control spell, get all of California to vote his or her way, that would be one thing. However, some Californians are going to vote one way and some another, and if a candidate chases another couple of percentage points in California at the expense of ten percentage points across the Midwest, that isn't really a good strategy.
Literally every elective office I vote for except President is done by "majoritarian mob rule". My state hasn't slid into mob rule and tyranny and anarchy yet. Has yours?
Competitive sovereignity would work without the Senate or Electoral College. What that means is that people in my state govern my state, and people in yours govern yours, and so our states are differently governed. If mine were to turn into a devastated anarchy ruled by warlords, your state would be free not to do the same, even if we had a straight parliamentary democracy on the national level.
In your last paragraph, you are saying that the EC is good because it dilutes the influence of people whose politics you don't like. That's a terrible reason to want a certain structure of government.
Large numbers of citizens live in many places. If you want the popular vote, you pick up votes where you find them.
And the Electoral College means that candidates have to work hard to appeal to citizens in swing states, and can ignore states that are probably voting for one candidate or another. In a popular vote, the candidates would have to appeal to citizens in safe states, to run up their totals.