I bought new shoes last year. First ones for 3 years though so I don't think they were to much of a luxury. Last ones lasted about 10 years, am hoping for the same again.
It would be interesting to get the list of people who were in screen tests for the part... strange that you'd set out to cast an older actor and call a younger one for screening? Perhaps they did it age blind based on shoe size??
It can take hours to days [...] to identify train, and support the switch to a new set of rote keystrokes and/or mouse clicks.
the first time I used Office 2007 was to answer a support call for a friend (who should have called his IT department). It took about 10 minutes to find the Options menu so I could switch the default filetype so he could send docs to his colleagues that they could read. [Forgive me if the details, menu option name, etc., are wrong, I only used Office on Vista that once, I'm not in IT support].
The point is a UI overhaul in an upgrade can be more problematic than a switch to a visually similar app.
In life shit happens and if you don't save money for those occasions then you're an idiot.
I work 2 jobs and can afford 1 home cooked meal a day. My house needs maintaining, our vehicle needs maintaining (used for work). What should I cut back on?
My statements are chosen to be consistent with yours but show that the breadth of those statements is illogical [reductio ad absurdum].
Trying to read between your ad hominem attack and your straw man/ logical fallacy claim that I'm saying that because a subset of a population has an attribute that therefore the whole population does...
Therefore you cannot use such statistics to decide on a single individuals likelihood to have such intent.
Who's misunderstanding statistics now: that's the exact opposite of what the situation is. But it is "likelihood". It says absolutely nothing about a particular individual, correct. But instead it says something about a sample from the population in which the attribute is found and your level of confidence in being able to apply the attribute correctly to a single person may be extremely low.
Therefore you cannot [generally] use such statistics to verify a single individuals intent.
100% of Charles Mansons were a white guy
And so if you're looking for Charles Manson [himself] which guy is most likely to be him in any population? The pink guy or the white guy. You should choose the white guy (assuming that attribute to be immutable) and guess what.. it's not necessarily him.
White said the pilot, after being informed of the remarks, requested that two federal air marshals on board remove the individuals.
It's not reported what the people said. Example: "the jet is right here, we'd better move, it's not safe here when the jet blows up" (a possibly innocent easily misconstrued statement).
The airline said in a news release Friday that one of the passengers became irate, made inappropriate comments and had to be escorted away from a gate podium by local law enforcement.
In my view this has nothing to do with them being Muslim (if indeed they are) but everything to do with them saying something silly, it being miscontrued (by two separate people) and then them getting cross and wanting to sue someone.
The passengers were at fault for being racists [...]
How do you know they were being racist. There may have been no racial prejudice involved at all. The passengers are unknown to us are they not? They could have been "US born muslims" for all we know.
On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
That seems rather an unfounded assumption to me.
When entering Gambia I was stopped and searched by the border control guards. Where they being racist - their racial origin was not mine - or was it merely because I presented them with a suspicion.
US Born Muslims have been terrorists less frequently than Michigan rednecks. They're a middle class immigrant group very similar to Indians and Koreans.
You know that Indians and Koreans can be Muslims? People from Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc., are not necessarily Muslims you know? You appear to be erroneously conflating geographic people groups with religious groupings.
So if they're not really Muslims why are they called such? Perhaps it's because the penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is death.
Being born in a country that has a lot of Christians in it doesn't make you a Christian. It seems highly likely that at the time McVeigh was an agnostic, as that's what he claimed. He also apparently committed the bombings as a political statement and not a religious one, certainly not for any reasons relating to a personal faith in Jesus though he has since apparently professed such a faith.
Nichols doesn't appear to have had any particularly religious background.
Statistically a larger proportion of crime is committed by people with coloured skin [...] such statistics mean nothing in relation to intent to commit any crime).
So you're saying people without "coloured skin" intend to commit crime more often but fail to do it and that's why those with "coloured skin" appear to commit more crime? I think not.
Of course the demographic of perpetrators gives a statistical indication as to intent.
If 90% of domestic abuse is perpetrated by white male skinheads (WMS) and you stop two people in the street, one a WMS and one a female long-haired Thai, which is more likely to intend to commit domestic abuse?
If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them.
Unless the suspects were terrorists and those passengers said nothing but saved themselves leaving the others onboard to die?
Sorry I should have been more pedantic, I wasn't attempting to disagree, I was adding to your statement showing that you don't always need a license to view BBC content legally from the UK.
"You will not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it."
Thankfully buffering ensures that you are not viewing at at the same time as it is being shown... strictly speaking.
I'm guessing that one may not wash - perhaps the uncertainty of the BBC as to whether using "watch live" requires a license or not. For example, on your link it merely states that to watch as a show is broadcast requires a license - if they knew watching that stream required a license, surely they'd just say that? They can't be lacking that much in people able to write plain English??
Interestingly that site doesn't tell you anywhere under which law you're required to have a license, nor does it mention the case law that broadens "tv equipment" to encompass computers.. I'm guessing they're interpreting the law to their own ends.
Under SS3.11 of The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended, http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1528097) there is a specific exclusion for computer apparatus which is not specially adapted to be used "in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services" - my computer has no wireless parts and no special adaptations.
You need to have a TV licence if you watching live TV on the PC as well.
You don't need a license for iPlayer (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/charge; at least that's what the BBC say, they should know!) nor I think do you for using a PC, unless it has a "TV tuner". So if you're viewing a stream over the internet, live or not, you don't need a license.
I can only think of three logical explanations for Google to release their own browser:
There's at least one other legitimate reason, especially if you consider the apparent focus on javascript "runtime" optimisation.
Google can't have a situation where they've built a whole suite of apps that require a specific class of browser and then the key browser makers (ie IE, FF) decide to do something that potentially jeopardises all those apps.
If they have technological control of at least one browser then they can continue to offer their apps. They can also focus attention on improving those apps by improving the underlying browser.
Additionally, it checks each and every URL you visit against google's malware-list.
I fail to see how checking hashes against a pre-downloaded list gives out any information about a user
Yeah because they're certain to be one way cryptographically hard hashes and Google has no computing resources that could possibly reverse hashes on popular hits to see who's visiting it's payrolling advertisers.
If it states in the user agreement that they'll never connect your ID with websites in the malware list then I'd probably let it pass for now though.
You've got out of band information too: the time of day and number of different pages and number of malware laden sites you choose to visit will be key metrics for some of Google's employers. Anti-malware and Porn promoters for example.
If you ran a shop and you made the doors awkward for 30-40% of your customers and lost trade because of it you would get fired...
More likely sued under the Disability Discrimination Act.
What you actual mean is making it awkward for 30-40% of people. They're not your customers until they leave with something they've paid for. If it's hard to leave once your in (eg better user experience) & if the 30-40% are the lame-o-s that take everything out the packet but never buy, well then you're definitely up.
*hmm* anyone seen that analogy, it was round here someplace, seem to have....
I was the opposite. I tried VMWare first as it appeared to be the biggest project with the best backing. Bugged out on me a couple of times and was impossible to upgrade; have used virtualbox for about 10 months now with less bother. YMMV.
virtualbox doesn't have branching snapshots afaik. But, it definitely has seamless integration in the version i have (2.0.4); wherein guest OS windows are drawn as if they belonged to the host OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought new shoes last year. First ones for 3 years though so I don't think they were to much of a luxury. Last ones lasted about 10 years, am hoping for the same again.
It would be interesting to get the list of people who were in screen tests for the part ... strange that you'd set out to cast an older actor and call a younger one for screening? Perhaps they did it age blind based on shoe size??
OK, got it, sounds doable.
Slashdot.
That's just insanity!
It can take hours to days [...] to identify train, and support the switch to a new set of rote keystrokes and/or mouse clicks.
the first time I used Office 2007 was to answer a support call for a friend (who should have called his IT department). It took about 10 minutes to find the Options menu so I could switch the default filetype so he could send docs to his colleagues that they could read. [Forgive me if the details, menu option name, etc., are wrong, I only used Office on Vista that once, I'm not in IT support].
The point is a UI overhaul in an upgrade can be more problematic than a switch to a visually similar app.
In life shit happens and if you don't save money for those occasions then you're an idiot.
I work 2 jobs and can afford 1 home cooked meal a day. My house needs maintaining, our vehicle needs maintaining (used for work). What should I cut back on?
Clarification please: are you saying you worked an entry level job for 2 years and now can afford to live for 10-15 years on savings?
In UK average wage is about £28K. (pretax; most quotes are higher, eg http://freedomandwhisky.blogspot.com/2008/12/do-scotsmans-journalists-pay-income-tax.html) - that gives you £100 to live on per month (not allowing for interest payments! and having deducted NI and tax). My rent as a student 15 years ago was £200 for room only.
?
oops, my bad
My statements are chosen to be consistent with yours but show that the breadth of those statements is illogical [reductio ad absurdum].
Trying to read between your ad hominem attack and your straw man/ logical fallacy claim that I'm saying that because a subset of a population has an attribute that therefore the whole population does ...
Therefore you cannot use such statistics to decide on a single individuals likelihood to have such intent.
Who's misunderstanding statistics now: that's the exact opposite of what the situation is. But it is "likelihood". It says absolutely nothing about a particular individual, correct. But instead it says something about a sample from the population in which the attribute is found and your level of confidence in being able to apply the attribute correctly to a single person may be extremely low.
Therefore you cannot [generally] use such statistics to verify a single individuals intent.
100% of Charles Mansons were a white guy
And so if you're looking for Charles Manson [himself] which guy is most likely to be him in any population? The pink guy or the white guy. You should choose the white guy (assuming that attribute to be immutable) and guess what .. it's not necessarily him.
White said the pilot, after being informed of the remarks, requested that two federal air marshals on board remove the individuals.
It's not reported what the people said. Example: "the jet is right here, we'd better move, it's not safe here when the jet blows up" (a possibly innocent easily misconstrued statement).
The airline said in a news release Friday that one of the passengers became irate, made inappropriate comments and had to be escorted away from a gate podium by local law enforcement.
If you abuse airline staff you get banned.
Incidentally it's interesting to note that IslamOnline ( http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230650235063&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout ) mention one brother is an attorney (whilst all other sources exclude this, mentioning one as an anaesthetist) and also saying that all 9 family members were interrogated! Yeah, I bet the FBI interrogated those kids good and proper?!
In my view this has nothing to do with them being Muslim (if indeed they are) but everything to do with them saying something silly, it being miscontrued (by two separate people) and then them getting cross and wanting to sue someone.
I'd probably be pretty pissed too.
The passengers were at fault for being racists [...]
How do you know they were being racist. There may have been no racial prejudice involved at all. The passengers are unknown to us are they not? They could have been "US born muslims" for all we know.
On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
That seems rather an unfounded assumption to me.
When entering Gambia I was stopped and searched by the border control guards. Where they being racist - their racial origin was not mine - or was it merely because I presented them with a suspicion.
US Born Muslims have been terrorists less frequently than Michigan rednecks. They're a middle class immigrant group very similar to Indians and Koreans.
You know that Indians and Koreans can be Muslims? People from Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, etc., are not necessarily Muslims you know? You appear to be erroneously conflating geographic people groups with religious groupings.
So if they're not really Muslims why are they called such? Perhaps it's because the penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is death.
Ha, it was a Sunni/Shia Muslim (delete as applicable).
I'm guessing everyone is assuming it was a pale-skinned white-collar-worker? Prejudice indeed ...
Being born in a country that has a lot of Christians in it doesn't make you a Christian. It seems highly likely that at the time McVeigh was an agnostic, as that's what he claimed. He also apparently committed the bombings as a political statement and not a religious one, certainly not for any reasons relating to a personal faith in Jesus though he has since apparently professed such a faith.
Nichols doesn't appear to have had any particularly religious background.
Next?
Statistically a larger proportion of crime is committed by people with coloured skin [...] such statistics mean nothing in relation to intent to commit any crime).
So you're saying people without "coloured skin" intend to commit crime more often but fail to do it and that's why those with "coloured skin" appear to commit more crime? I think not.
Of course the demographic of perpetrators gives a statistical indication as to intent.
If 90% of domestic abuse is perpetrated by white male skinheads (WMS) and you stop two people in the street, one a WMS and one a female long-haired Thai, which is more likely to intend to commit domestic abuse?
If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them.
Unless the suspects were terrorists and those passengers said nothing but saved themselves leaving the others onboard to die?
I'm trying to work out whether you're telling us about your life or telling us a bad analogy (and what for) ...?
Sorry I should have been more pedantic, I wasn't attempting to disagree, I was adding to your statement showing that you don't always need a license to view BBC content legally from the UK.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8b7wx6 : tvlicensing.co.uk
"You will not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it."
Thankfully buffering ensures that you are not viewing at at the same time as it is being shown ... strictly speaking.
I'm guessing that one may not wash - perhaps the uncertainty of the BBC as to whether using "watch live" requires a license or not. For example, on your link it merely states that to watch as a show is broadcast requires a license - if they knew watching that stream required a license, surely they'd just say that? They can't be lacking that much in people able to write plain English??
Interestingly that site doesn't tell you anywhere under which law you're required to have a license, nor does it mention the case law that broadens "tv equipment" to encompass computers .. I'm guessing they're interpreting the law to their own ends.
Under SS3.11 of The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended, http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1528097) there is a specific exclusion for computer apparatus which is not specially adapted to be used "in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services" - my computer has no wireless parts and no special adaptations.
You need to have a TV licence if you watching live TV on the PC as well.
You don't need a license for iPlayer (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/charge; at least that's what the BBC say, they should know!) nor I think do you for using a PC, unless it has a "TV tuner". So if you're viewing a stream over the internet, live or not, you don't need a license.
I can only think of three logical explanations for Google to release their own browser:
There's at least one other legitimate reason, especially if you consider the apparent focus on javascript "runtime" optimisation.
Google can't have a situation where they've built a whole suite of apps that require a specific class of browser and then the key browser makers (ie IE, FF) decide to do something that potentially jeopardises all those apps.
If they have technological control of at least one browser then they can continue to offer their apps. They can also focus attention on improving those apps by improving the underlying browser.
I suspect this is an overoptimistic view however.
Additionally, it checks each and every URL you visit against google's malware-list.
I fail to see how checking hashes against a pre-downloaded list gives out any information about a user
Yeah because they're certain to be one way cryptographically hard hashes and Google has no computing resources that could possibly reverse hashes on popular hits to see who's visiting it's payrolling advertisers.
If it states in the user agreement that they'll never connect your ID with websites in the malware list then I'd probably let it pass for now though.
You've got out of band information too: the time of day and number of different pages and number of malware laden sites you choose to visit will be key metrics for some of Google's employers. Anti-malware and Porn promoters for example.
If you ran a shop and you made the doors awkward for 30-40% of your customers and lost trade because of it you would get fired ...
More likely sued under the Disability Discrimination Act.
What you actual mean is making it awkward for 30-40% of people. They're not your customers until they leave with something they've paid for. If it's hard to leave once your in (eg better user experience) & if the 30-40% are the lame-o-s that take everything out the packet but never buy, well then you're definitely up.
*hmm* anyone seen that analogy, it was round here someplace, seem to have ....
I was the opposite. I tried VMWare first as it appeared to be the biggest project with the best backing. Bugged out on me a couple of times and was impossible to upgrade; have used virtualbox for about 10 months now with less bother. YMMV.
virtualbox doesn't have branching snapshots afaik. But, it definitely has seamless integration in the version i have (2.0.4); wherein guest OS windows are drawn as if they belonged to the host OS.