No they didn't. I was around at the time and it was like being a phlebotomist or a help desk technician today. Short vocational training and they let you loose to do your job. Because all three were rote tasks and required zero creativity.
It was entirely possible for them to keep making iPod classics with a flash drive in them. People are retrofitting them actively to late-gen iPod classics.
The reason why they don't care about how unborn humans die is that they already know they are pieces of shit for killing off a baby. "Humane" methods of doing it wouldn't make them feel any better.
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I feel for the women in our world. They still generally want that long term relationship to provide them with stability, security, and someone to listen to their worries for the rest of their life. They're willing (mostly) to offer lifelong care, including some sexual favors, to get this. And the idea that a lot of women are not going to be satisfied with how their lives turn out is sad.
I mean the *cough* common users. The Internet worked fine when you required some skill to get on it. As soon as it became easy - and even hooking up to AOL was not painless, in retrospect - that's when the commercialization and ultimately the regulation and surveillance followed.
We've been talking about a 'second net' for many years now, one with no lusers. Perhaps Tor is it?
If your app doesn't do anything that I could do in the included web browser, why would I bother downloading it and using it? And if I download it and use it, it had best be frequently or i'm not going to put up with the constant, annoying updates. So I only have bare minimum apps and every time I get an update request, I ask myself if I could just delete this POS and not have to have it. That's how FB messenger died, for instance. And Twitter. And Yelp. And Instagram.
There are quite a few women who are worth being married to. There are (more) women that feel entitled to marriage but are not good partners for most. I am referring to the dispirited, jaded women out there that are basically wanting attention but inflict misery to achieve it.
I have found that younger women (early 20s) are the best mix of features for me. No one stays 23 forever, but a good relationship then does kind of smooth things later.
What part of the Constitution bans online surveillance? You're going to rely on the definition of 'unreasonable' in the Fourth Amendment here? Unreasonable means different things to different people.
A bit of self-awareness is required here. I don't think anything in existing US law actually rules out the surveillance program. And thinking that it should be illegal is great, but pretending that there's something in law to stop it when it expressly isn't the case is just delusional, and totally ineffective in getting it changed.
Women are incongruent with men in most cases, once you get past the hormone stage of needing a sexual partner. You can see this in the divorce rates and marriage rates.
The overoptimism in the article about divorce rates is counteracted by the much lower marriage rates in younger cohorts of the population. With that said, a lot of people are living together without doing the marriage thing, which is fine, and not captured in the statistics. But I have two takeways. First, people aren't pairing up as consistently as in the past, by a relatively large number. Second, the very reason people aren't marrying (or pairing up) is that they want to be free to move on when they think it is time - ie, not making a lifelong commitment.
Women have to blame something for this, for the idea of having a lifelong partner is an ingrained female desire. Just anecdotally, I have a lot of sisters and two daughters - every one of them wants a long term relationship with a man with the same passion a geek has for his geekery. And they're not finding as many takers now as in the 80s, just a bunch of guys wanting a quick fuck. Porn is one place women could lay the blame, though I don't think that is correct. They are switching cause and effect. The porn is a substitute to take care of the hormonal desires. The reason men don't want to pair up with them long term is that it isn't seen as a value proposition.
Examining why having a wife isn't considered a value proposition for most men is going to turn up some interesting data. I don't think there is a silver bullet here, but the tendency over the last fifty years for the law to favor women in _all_ disputes relating to marriage probably didn't help. Another issue is that having children isn't considered a value proposition, either, and that was a significant justification for marriage in the past.
I'd go a little further and take the economics out of it, even. If we don't have anything useful for Joe to do, Joe is going to do things that the human race would find not useful or actively harmful, in some cases. Rebellions and what we'd judiciously consider crime are what I am thinking of. Everyone needs a job that keeps them busy and makes them feel like they are contributing to society or at least their own well-being. Take away that illusion - for in many (most) cases it is an illusion - and the results are not going to be pretty, so we end up shooting Joe for that reason even before we get to economics.
I think the leaders of the world are failing to consider that their responsibility is to preserve that illusion that everyone is working for the benefit of themselves or society out of necessity. This opens Pandora's box. (Though if Pandora were hot, I wouldn't mind that)
You can't characterize something as a "global crime spree" when it's obviously not. At least if you want credibility. The surveillance program is and was legal. That's the problem. Nothing about that has changed. So I don't know what everyone is on about in regards to "Snowden's impact". He let people know, but do you really believe NSA is doing business any different now than before in regards to purview?
Oh, I think they are actually telling the truth when they say Snowden did them "tremendous damage". He gave away methodologies, which benefited us all, but caused harm to the intelligence gathering efforts they are making reference to.
His attorney is taking quite the wrong tack here, and instead should have criticized the program rather than differed with their characterization. Everyone knows the characterization is quite true if you are fan of constant surveillance of the citizenry.
So now it's compassion to give money and harbor to ungrateful losers who don't realize that THEY have requirements and responsibilities too? So it's just dad that has to do all the fucking work? WTF is wrong with your generation? That kind of attitude was considered a mental disorder 25 years ago.
I don't have a cent invested in anything that isn't real estate - because I don't like play money investments. Land doesn't go anywhere.
My daughters aren't going to make much money, sadly. Maybe they'll marry up, but I doubt it. Menial labor is their fate.
Slashdot Mirror
No they didn't. I was around at the time and it was like being a phlebotomist or a help desk technician today. Short vocational training and they let you loose to do your job. Because all three were rote tasks and required zero creativity.
I don't think we've given that acquisition enough time to know for sure.
True, they like to play their prey to death.
It was entirely possible for them to keep making iPod classics with a flash drive in them. People are retrofitting them actively to late-gen iPod classics.
Apple didn't want to.
Can anyone think of a single MS purchase where the employees did well out of the deal, leaving out the original owner?
"Microsoft is buying us" should convince anyone employed by the firm to update their resume.
Exactly what I was thinking, that is why they do that.
The reason why they don't care about how unborn humans die is that they already know they are pieces of shit for killing off a baby. "Humane" methods of doing it wouldn't make them feel any better.
I believe this was the theorized process whereby the Pompeiians died post-Vesuvius but pre-buried in ash.
I recommend using a cat. They are also intelligent and adaptable...
You can tell I have daughters, right?
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I feel for the women in our world. They still generally want that long term relationship to provide them with stability, security, and someone to listen to their worries for the rest of their life. They're willing (mostly) to offer lifelong care, including some sexual favors, to get this. And the idea that a lot of women are not going to be satisfied with how their lives turn out is sad.
I mean the *cough* common users. The Internet worked fine when you required some skill to get on it. As soon as it became easy - and even hooking up to AOL was not painless, in retrospect - that's when the commercialization and ultimately the regulation and surveillance followed.
We've been talking about a 'second net' for many years now, one with no lusers. Perhaps Tor is it?
If your app doesn't do anything that I could do in the included web browser, why would I bother downloading it and using it? And if I download it and use it, it had best be frequently or i'm not going to put up with the constant, annoying updates. So I only have bare minimum apps and every time I get an update request, I ask myself if I could just delete this POS and not have to have it. That's how FB messenger died, for instance. And Twitter. And Yelp. And Instagram.
Blames the whole thing on the pill, which seems dumb. If we didn't have birth control we'd be talking about euthanasia already.
That's a broad brush there (ha).
There are quite a few women who are worth being married to. There are (more) women that feel entitled to marriage but are not good partners for most. I am referring to the dispirited, jaded women out there that are basically wanting attention but inflict misery to achieve it.
I have found that younger women (early 20s) are the best mix of features for me. No one stays 23 forever, but a good relationship then does kind of smooth things later.
What part of the Constitution bans online surveillance? You're going to rely on the definition of 'unreasonable' in the Fourth Amendment here? Unreasonable means different things to different people.
A bit of self-awareness is required here. I don't think anything in existing US law actually rules out the surveillance program. And thinking that it should be illegal is great, but pretending that there's something in law to stop it when it expressly isn't the case is just delusional, and totally ineffective in getting it changed.
Preface: I am married and reasonably happily.
Women are incongruent with men in most cases, once you get past the hormone stage of needing a sexual partner. You can see this in the divorce rates and marriage rates.
The overoptimism in the article about divorce rates is counteracted by the much lower marriage rates in younger cohorts of the population. With that said, a lot of people are living together without doing the marriage thing, which is fine, and not captured in the statistics. But I have two takeways. First, people aren't pairing up as consistently as in the past, by a relatively large number. Second, the very reason people aren't marrying (or pairing up) is that they want to be free to move on when they think it is time - ie, not making a lifelong commitment.
Women have to blame something for this, for the idea of having a lifelong partner is an ingrained female desire. Just anecdotally, I have a lot of sisters and two daughters - every one of them wants a long term relationship with a man with the same passion a geek has for his geekery. And they're not finding as many takers now as in the 80s, just a bunch of guys wanting a quick fuck. Porn is one place women could lay the blame, though I don't think that is correct. They are switching cause and effect. The porn is a substitute to take care of the hormonal desires. The reason men don't want to pair up with them long term is that it isn't seen as a value proposition.
Examining why having a wife isn't considered a value proposition for most men is going to turn up some interesting data. I don't think there is a silver bullet here, but the tendency over the last fifty years for the law to favor women in _all_ disputes relating to marriage probably didn't help. Another issue is that having children isn't considered a value proposition, either, and that was a significant justification for marriage in the past.
I'd go a little further and take the economics out of it, even. If we don't have anything useful for Joe to do, Joe is going to do things that the human race would find not useful or actively harmful, in some cases. Rebellions and what we'd judiciously consider crime are what I am thinking of. Everyone needs a job that keeps them busy and makes them feel like they are contributing to society or at least their own well-being. Take away that illusion - for in many (most) cases it is an illusion - and the results are not going to be pretty, so we end up shooting Joe for that reason even before we get to economics.
I think the leaders of the world are failing to consider that their responsibility is to preserve that illusion that everyone is working for the benefit of themselves or society out of necessity. This opens Pandora's box. (Though if Pandora were hot, I wouldn't mind that)
You can't characterize something as a "global crime spree" when it's obviously not. At least if you want credibility. The surveillance program is and was legal. That's the problem. Nothing about that has changed. So I don't know what everyone is on about in regards to "Snowden's impact". He let people know, but do you really believe NSA is doing business any different now than before in regards to purview?
Soylent Green, not Soviet. Soviet is Red. :-)
for the wrongful death lawsuits.
Oh, I think they are actually telling the truth when they say Snowden did them "tremendous damage". He gave away methodologies, which benefited us all, but caused harm to the intelligence gathering efforts they are making reference to.
His attorney is taking quite the wrong tack here, and instead should have criticized the program rather than differed with their characterization. Everyone knows the characterization is quite true if you are fan of constant surveillance of the citizenry.
So now it's compassion to give money and harbor to ungrateful losers who don't realize that THEY have requirements and responsibilities too? So it's just dad that has to do all the fucking work? WTF is wrong with your generation? That kind of attitude was considered a mental disorder 25 years ago.
I don't have a cent invested in anything that isn't real estate - because I don't like play money investments. Land doesn't go anywhere.
My daughters aren't going to make much money, sadly. Maybe they'll marry up, but I doubt it. Menial labor is their fate.
Sweat is a useful stand-in for generic labor. Are you really saying you don't perform useful work?
Don't worry, I think you're an asshole too! The difference is that I am right and you are completely wrong.