According to this by a near super majority the most popular license type on Github is MIT. Combining the BSD2 and 3 licenses makes the super majority of licenses extremely liberal.
A BSD license means that the only development you are guaranteed to get is your own development. Anything else is just by chance...If you publish the same code under GPL, and even a single other developer shows some interest and adds something to your work, you are guaranteed to get rewarded by additional functionality.
The guarantee requires that the developer distribute their work.
There is no ROI for your development work if you publish something under BSD license.
LLVM and FreeBSD would like a word with you. Some extremely popular projects use very liberal licenses and there are more, not less of these.
Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point.
Irregardless, it's just a hunch;)
Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one
??? I'm unclear on this, comments don't say anything about an individual? Disagree strongly, if so. What people joke about, what they focus on subject wise, and how they discuss it speaks volumes about themselves and how they perceive the world. Example, all women are referred to as bitches. Or, They should just get a job! Or, they're all fucking faggots etc.
and....frankly....Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing.
Intelligence is expressed in many capacities including communication. If we can't speak, read or write well it is counterproductive. Cutting to the chase since these are considered trivial subjects by the STEM crowd (boo hiss to liberal arts!) as witnessed here and elsewhere, does this make the intelligent-but-unable-to-communicate person simply lazy? They're intelligent after all! What are people called, intelligent or not, who make mistakes? Willfully making mistakes? If they're a politician, they're stupid. Why wouldn't this apply here?
Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your opinion" really doesn't deserve to be acceptable.
There are responsibilities shared by both the audience and speaker, classically anyway, if you respect that then that means that every point is valid, including the AC comment which started this. Bigotry is such an emotionally charged word concerning intolerance to others opinions, key being opinions. We're entitled to our own opinions, after all (ex: In my opinion, towing the line is correct!) but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's about a phrase, a fact. We document reality with facts.
I agree with your sentiment regarding entitled people, it comes down to being persuasive and knowing you'll never persuade someone. The AC in a very unpersuasive way dew attention to an unfortunately common mangled phrase. Full stop. Reading too deeply into something results in projection. We have to agree on some things otherwise communication goes downhill quickly. Without standards like you mention we wouldn't be able to use the internet:)
Are you really trying to justify being irritatingly pedantic in order to somehow enhance the discussion? All it has accomplished is this timewasting derail.
How am I being pedantic? Let's recap shall we? Some guy online uses a phrase that he's never used before and manages to mangle it up. Someone calls him on it. Someone else doesn't like that someone else calls people out on things. I reply to this person to the effect that I suspect it's a phrase heard before and that using phrases improperly makes you look foolish. You reply to me with a response that I'm pedantic. If you'll notice I'm not the one who brought this up so your suggestion is better directed elsewhere.
Keeping that in mind, maybe it's just better to let this minor meaningless slip-up go?
And yet, you're commenting on it, too. By your logic does this make you pedantic or just self loathing?:)
Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.
It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.
Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.
You've moved the goal posts from images uploaded somewhere to human trafficking and prostitution. This is the type of slip weaselly people use when discussing illegal immigration, not to mention there is no such thing as illegal immigration, and flip over immigration issues. They're separate issues.
Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."
"It's a really big problem, I watched Netflix and heard some stories." A similar thing occurred with D&D and a fear campaign around satanic crap. Do you have anything better than a "trust me it's a big problem"?
Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that
"There are people in an industry that I don't work in, but that I have watched some completely unbiased shows on (trust me), and they don't know what they're talking about!"
and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.
This comes off much like a "think of the children". You used girl elsewhere, however, young women are by their very definition a woman, for woman to apply that would mean at least 18 (an adult). This continues the line of thinking that women are children and cannot make decisions on their own behalf. Let's not forget that girls mature faster than boys, and they're taught about people touching them - something boys aren't. Not to mention there are "a lot" (another weasel word, see how that works?) of 18yo males who enlist and deploy and are maimed or meet an untimely end. Take a story in the paper if it was about a young man, they'd drop the young part and just refer to him as a man. There's an effort here to paint this in a particular light. Why would that be?
More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.
Is it so, or could it be that it's easier to share things nowadays? Look at all the (disproportionately female) teachers raping students, is this a new phenomenon? Or is it something that's occurring with the same frequency and just broadcast further and faster? Another example is how people are worried about sending their children outside when crime is following a 40 year trend downwards.
Since you're fond of think of the children angle how about a present scandal occurring at this very moment. Human trafficking involving Chinese citizens coming over and having anchor babies. I've seen this with my own eyes, too. People who pay tens of thousands of dollars to come here and have a child on our dime by claiming to be destitute when at the Hospital. Getting back to the original issue, as far as these picture websites, your stance is that there isn't enough laws on the books to address these sites? That's rich.
I buy a new phone about every 3 years, when my previous one is worn out. Most people do this every year or two. What a waste...This article shows what you're missing when you sign that lease, or buy that new iPhone.
I replace mine with about the same frequency. Not to toot Apple's horn but they have trade in programs which reduce the cost of the new phone and they refurbish or recycle the old one. Many people will hand their phones down, too. Often the only thing that the handsets really need is a battery.
The motors and battery (which needs to be replaced every X years) for your new Prius are not so great for the environment. Sure, it makes you feel good to not fill up at the gas pump, but what is the true environmental cost of that car?
One argument that can be made is efficiency, is it more efficient to tap the grid vs generating energy at home? Is less fuel consumption beneficial? Here's a Forbes article about Prius, having a battery replaced with a refurbished one from a 3rd party.
The reality is that there are 28 separate cells in the hybrid battery pack. When the unit starts to fail, only a handful of the individual cells are bad. What Prius Battery Repair of Houston does, and Toyota could do if it wanted to, is replace the bad hybrid battery pack with a reconditioned one to get the customer back on the road. Then, determine which cells are bad, and simply replace the bad battery cells, recondition the battery, and sell it to the next customer.
Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?
Better is so subjective. Replace windmills with $anyitem (minifridge, dams, coal power plants). Does it make it more or less profound?
I'm glad someone out there is forcing us to look at the downside of all of the technology we use. Kudos to them for doing it.
Forcing? Hardly. This is the byproduct of cheap.
I'd say this article just focuses on an admittedly bad area where stuff is done cheaply because that's what many people want world wide. A rare earth mine isramping up production in California. Compare how it's done. It lowered capacity because of cost, a re-occuring theme with a lot of American industry.
Just because you appreciate someone or something doesn't mean you're doing it in an acceptable way, not to mention they feel the same way about you, take stalkers for example. Talking to someone you like is good, talking over them isn't so good. Many people don't know that this isn't good, otherwise we wouldn't encounter it, it's something your parents should teach you and not everyone has good parents.
Anybody telling you to 'be sincere and do what I say' is saying 'fake sincerity, copy me'.
They could have Aspergers and don't know how. Copying people is how we learn, just the format that changes.
There is a resurgence of the anti-intellectualism culture in this country, and it's being elected into positions where it can do unimaginable damage to our country.
Resurgence? It's been going on longer than we've been alive. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" - Isaac Asimov, 1980
Stupid people make stupid decisions, and when those stupid people are in public office, they make stupid decisions that fuck up everyone's life.
Where to begin? Unfortunately stupid people do not hold a monopoly on stupid decisions. Ever tried ordering lunch for an entire company? Scale that up to 300 million people and you may begin to appreciate the scope of the issue. Politicians don't magically slither into office, they're voted in. Ultimately it sounds like you don't want a politician but a leader, one who cannot make poor decisions meaning no compromising is allowed, since that results in stupidity, nor any dissent since only stupid people would go against the smart leader. Sounds like a good fit for a totalitarian. Who do you recommend take the helm?
You have state representatives who don't have a basic understanding of the female anatomy trying to regulate women's medical treatments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
There are minions of the state involved in falsifying test scores for financial gain, spanning over a decade, see the huge scandal in Georgia which affects tens of thousands of students.
I couldn't help but notice the source and targets for both of those links, HuffPo isn't exactly center, as tempting as it may be this is be to frame this as such it is by no means a partisan issue. There is a sustained and concerted effort by powerful monied interests spanning decades working on both sides of the aisle to undo this country and they successfully have us fighting one another. Only by working together will we get things done.
Gandhi refused to let British doctors give his wife a life-saving shot of penicillin, on the grounds that she should not have alien substances injected in her body. This was a death sentence for her. And yet he was willing to accept quinine when he himself later contracted malaria. He also let British doctors perform an appendectomy on him, another alien intrusion to be sure.
Anti-Western, or post-colonial, intellectuals and activists bring up the West's rap sheet not because we were uniquely complicit in slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, but because we are uniquely vulnerable to such guilt mongering. "I think it would be a good idea," Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi famously replied when asked what he thought of Western civilization, as if Indian civilization was without sin. To this day, left-wing poseurs have this line stuck to their refrigerators or use it for yearbook quotes as if it is a brilliantly insightful and humorous bon mot, when in reality the joke is on them.
Gandhi was in many respects the pioneer of exploiting Western self-loathing. For many pacifists, "What Would Gandhi Do?" is a more important question than "What would Jesus Do?" and for good reason. Jesus did believe that violent self-defense was sometimes justified (that's why he instructed his followers to carry swords). Gandhi did not.
Undoubtedly one of the most idiosyncratic world leaders in modern memory. Particularly given the prevalence of New Age pieties these days, he has become a saint of sorts. A true ascetic, Gandhi voluntarily eschewed luxurious pleasures. He found satisfaction in more humble pastimes. Indeed, among his greatest joys and fascinations was the successful bowel movement.
Paul Johnson notes that the first question he asked of his female attendants every morning was "Did you have a good bowel movement?" One of his favorite books, which e reread often, was Constipation and Our Civilization. Deprived of a sense of smell, which no doubt impaired his sense of taste his vegetarian diet was centered around the goal of a successful digestive cycle.
His advice on both personal diet and public agriculture was not merely impractical and gloomy. Had his ideas been translated into public policy they would have subjected millions of Indians to even worse starvation and even more pervasive poverty than they were already enduring. Gandhi's social and economic vision was perhaps best described as Tolkienesque. Technology was the enemy of decency, the perfect political unit was the Arcadian village, a subcontinental Shire where, instead of hobbits, Hindus would work individually on their tiny looms.
Of course, you would not know this from the film that helped cement the Gandhian legend. For instance, in Gandhi the movie, audiences are led to believe that his first hunger strike was to protest the British police's horrific slaughter of a crowd of peaceful Indian protesters. But Gandhi's first hunger strike was devoted to protesting a British effort to grand the Untouchables-India's lowest and most oppressed caste-greater rights and freedoms, including providing them with access to a form of affirmative action. That wouldn't play as well on the big screen, alas.
The filmmakers were merely picking up on a practice begun by the British foreign office. Simply put, Gandhi was a creature of the system he sought to overthrow. For years the British Empire used Gandhi as the most convenient nationalist. Unlike other anti-colonial activists, Gandhi worked assiduously to prevent violence. "The true oddity," writes Richard Grenier, "is that Gandhi, this holy man, having drawn from British sources his notions of nationalism and democracy, also absorbed from the British his model of virtue in public life. He was a historical original, a Hindu holy man that a British model of public service and dazzling advances in mass communications thrust out into the world, to become a great moral leader and the 'father of his country'."
Gandhi's accomplishments were great, but absent the con
Do other countries have a glut of school administrators with salaries to the tune of $700,000+ a year plus perks?
OC Register Article featuring several salaries.
LA Times
UC San Francisco's Sam Hawgood, who started in July, is the highest-paid UC chancellor, at $750,000 . In hoping to erase disparities, regents noted that Gene Block, who came to UCLA in 2007, is paid $428,480, which is below what Gillman will be paid at a smaller campus. (In addition to salaries, chancellors receive housing or housing allowances.)
Here's an interactive chart with a state by state breakdown.
Why the obscene jump in administration, especially over the last 20 years? Far greater than the educators, you know the ones actually doing something, many educators are adjunct instructors (pardon the source), in a nutshell so they're working cheaper and they comprise the super majority of instructors.
braindead republicans, ruining the country
Your bias is showing. Both parties are fully bought and paid for and further corporate special interests. Democrats were in control for many years and furthered ghastly policies began by the previous administration. Apathy and partisan politics is ruining this country. Control by splitting into hostile groups, it's not new and it's effective, you're doing them proud! The Millennials will make up a larger voting block than the Boomers this year.
Unless you're the Government, or a School, or a Business. Being most everywhere is fixated with Diversity (code for institutionalized sexism and racism) we can play name games with things! Douchebag Google, Douchebag University California Irvine, Douchebag Stanford University. Maybe we can just swap out parts of the name for Douchebag? Douchebagrosoft. Since many sites are also imposing policies, maybe Douchebagdot or Douchebaggit?
Wow you seriously don't have any idea what you are talking about. Most of the web application development world had abandoned MSIE around 2001,
Abandoned IE? IE dominated from the late 90s to the mid 00s. No amount of revisionism will dispute this fact. It's not like I work(ed) for Microsoft or enjoyed supporting IE6 later in its life, it's just a fact it was immensely popular for multiple reasons. This was the infamous era of applets and ActiveX, static webpages, single user computers, Sub7, Melissa and peak AOL. Web application development was IE centric, especially in the form of intranet sites, which were responsible for it being around an unnaturally long time. This isn't about ideology, it's simple business, you target what your customers run and at the time that was IE(6).
Version numbers weren't important, features were: you could build a new-skool web site using Phoenix and then hack it to look less-than-shitty in MSIE (does that sound familiar? It's still the process most of follow today).
The person who replied named Firefox specifically, not Phoenix, nor Firebird. You're moving the goal posts. Compared to the popular browsers at the time few people would've been using it prior to 2004 because it simply didn't exist as such. Regarding the claim about the process "most" follow today, (anecdote? are you the arbiter of the world wide designer/developer leauge?) , it's focused around Chrome and if they're half way competent Firefox. Why? Because laziness isn't new or unique to this industry. Just to be clear, how do you determine laziness? There are things called vendor prefixes which enable non-standard vendor specific CSS. Lazy folk will just use the popular ones which typically mean webkit specific. Things have improved as support for HTML5 and CSS3 increases. I'd love for ISPs to release the metrics for the User Agent strings for a more objective list of browsers/devices instead of relying on sites people visit. Google.com might be a worthy runner up, but here's a wiki page citing several stat sites in the browser wars.
The Wikipedia article on Firefox doesn't cover all that, so your apparently insightful research simply isn't.
For the record this is just a topic which I've firsthand experience with and calling it research cheapens the term and I'm not involved with the articles I referenced in any way. I just did some admittedly quick searches for supporting citations where possible, honestly, what is/was difficult is finding information on Netscape and IE JavaScript performance. There is a reason why Netscape users jumped ship and it took writing something from scratch to succeed. Your post contains no links, for those who aren't familiar with the details of the situation the more information available the better. My post isn't gospel and citing wikipedia doesn't grant one authority, it's simply convenient. Lots of sites have disappeared over the last ~15 years to boot. What would really help is finding a side by side comparison of the features supported by each browser (including Netscape!) I often search for things on my own, and I don't think I'm alone in this practice and I encourage anyone to do the same when educating themselves.
As an aside, revisionism is rampant. Look at Windows XP being lauded as light on resources, which at the time it was considered a busted pig compared to Windows 2k and 98 on this very site.
Nonetheless it sounds like a worthy experiment:) There are passionate people who are far more experienced I who've graciously shared their wisdom and experiences, all it takes is asking the right questions. If it's a single piece of hardware with drivers on hand, why not provision a fresh image and just install the drivers again? No sense in making a production out of it unnecessarily, unless that's your cup of tea!
I think we've all been bitten by the upgrade bug. I've become conservative with updates to setups that work. Sierra was extremely effective at branding "save early, save often" into my impressionable formative brain. While the times have changed I've taken this to heart and make liberal use of snapshots when doing anything in a VM. I'm not certain which platform you're using but most of them have roughly similar features. Not to say I don't cowboy things from time to time:)
Poke it into a VM. I've got old hardware that doesn't have drivers supported on the host machine, but work fine through the VM. Should you not want to be tied to a particular machine this is an option you may want to look into.
If you're looking for partners I can't recommend italki.com highly enough, dig a little in the site and there are oodles of free tutors. I've met many interesting people through the site and it's a great way to meet native speakers. I'm not affiliated with the site, I just enjoy language. The accent you have will help you immensely with English speakers, embrace it.;)
No, that doesn't follow at all. Firefox was a significantly better browser at the time, before they jumped the shark after version 4.
Your disagreement seems to be looking from now backwards instead of from the beginning. Since Firefox was named specifically, it's a browser that wasn't released until 3 years after (4 excluding the technology previews) the competition.
Better is such a subjective word, better how? Stability? That eliminates technology previews bumping the "better" browser back another year. I sincerely hope something developed years after its competition was released would improve upon established norms. Out of the gate it was feature incomplete by their own version numbers. Steve Jobs is one who can make that a compelling argument. Firefox also featured some really cool fundamental concepts, like the now ubiquitous download manager.
Firefox became competitive in 2005/2006. Prior to that IE was top dog, when IE6 was released it was better than the other browsers by means of features like standards support and speed. Prior to the JavaScript engine wars fundamentally changing things, there were incremental steps. IE6 believe it or not was peppy compared to Netscape's offerings. This is documented in Netscape Navigator's decline. IE6 at the time it was released and for many years was what the vast majority of designers targeted and designed for. Designed for Internet Explorer, Designed for Netscape Navigator were prevalent like perverse badges of honor. In my opinion the debut of Firebug in 2006 was a turning point for designer/developer interest considering many tools are heavily inspired by its features.
Here's a neat little read on IE1.0 upto Firefox 2.0.
I never claimed there was only _one_ tool. You sure love to jump to conclusions about things I never said. There was another utility I used to use back in the day too, it might have been MultIE. I've deleted / removed almost everything related to IE.
The way you mentioned it was, paraphrasing: "Sandboxie was really annoying." So is installing Steam games into it and so is supporting dozens of viewport sizes. Welcome to software!
You're missing the point. Microsoft popularized that crap. Just because other vendors are doing it doesn't give MS a free pass.
I feel like somewhere in your secret volcano lair there exists a giant whiteboard which has a soul crushing flowchart with winding complex paths leading to the giant Sauron like cloud labeled "Microsoft: Great Satan". At some point the responsibility shifts to the shoulders of those who take action.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this by a near super majority the most popular license type on Github is MIT. Combining the BSD2 and 3 licenses makes the super majority of licenses extremely liberal.
A BSD license means that the only development you are guaranteed to get is your own development. Anything else is just by chance...If you publish the same code under GPL, and even a single other developer shows some interest and adds something to your work, you are guaranteed to get rewarded by additional functionality.
The guarantee requires that the developer distribute their work.
There is no ROI for your development work if you publish something under BSD license.
LLVM and FreeBSD would like a word with you. Some extremely popular projects use very liberal licenses and there are more, not less of these.
Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point.
Irregardless, it's just a hunch ;)
Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one
??? I'm unclear on this, comments don't say anything about an individual? Disagree strongly, if so. What people joke about, what they focus on subject wise, and how they discuss it speaks volumes about themselves and how they perceive the world. Example, all women are referred to as bitches. Or, They should just get a job! Or, they're all fucking faggots etc.
and....frankly....Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing.
Intelligence is expressed in many capacities including communication. If we can't speak, read or write well it is counterproductive. Cutting to the chase since these are considered trivial subjects by the STEM crowd (boo hiss to liberal arts!) as witnessed here and elsewhere, does this make the intelligent-but-unable-to-communicate person simply lazy? They're intelligent after all! What are people called, intelligent or not, who make mistakes? Willfully making mistakes? If they're a politician, they're stupid. Why wouldn't this apply here?
Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your opinion" really doesn't deserve to be acceptable.
There are responsibilities shared by both the audience and speaker, classically anyway, if you respect that then that means that every point is valid, including the AC comment which started this. Bigotry is such an emotionally charged word concerning intolerance to others opinions, key being opinions. We're entitled to our own opinions, after all (ex: In my opinion, towing the line is correct!) but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's about a phrase, a fact. We document reality with facts.
:)
I agree with your sentiment regarding entitled people, it comes down to being persuasive and knowing you'll never persuade someone. The AC in a very unpersuasive way dew attention to an unfortunately common mangled phrase. Full stop. Reading too deeply into something results in projection. We have to agree on some things otherwise communication goes downhill quickly. Without standards like you mention we wouldn't be able to use the internet
Are you really trying to justify being irritatingly pedantic in order to somehow enhance the discussion? All it has accomplished is this timewasting derail.
How am I being pedantic? Let's recap shall we? Some guy online uses a phrase that he's never used before and manages to mangle it up. Someone calls him on it. Someone else doesn't like that someone else calls people out on things. I reply to this person to the effect that I suspect it's a phrase heard before and that using phrases improperly makes you look foolish. You reply to me with a response that I'm pedantic. If you'll notice I'm not the one who brought this up so your suggestion is better directed elsewhere.
Keeping that in mind, maybe it's just better to let this minor meaningless slip-up go?
And yet, you're commenting on it, too. By your logic does this make you pedantic or just self loathing? :)
Why? You're intimately more familiar with the inhabitants.
Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.
It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.
Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.
One cannot simply use a phone without taking nude pictures of themselves /seanbean.jpg
Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."
"It's a really big problem, I watched Netflix and heard some stories." A similar thing occurred with D&D and a fear campaign around satanic crap. Do you have anything better than a "trust me it's a big problem"?
Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that
"There are people in an industry that I don't work in, but that I have watched some completely unbiased shows on (trust me), and they don't know what they're talking about!"
and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.
This comes off much like a "think of the children". You used girl elsewhere, however, young women are by their very definition a woman, for woman to apply that would mean at least 18 (an adult). This continues the line of thinking that women are children and cannot make decisions on their own behalf. Let's not forget that girls mature faster than boys, and they're taught about people touching them - something boys aren't. Not to mention there are "a lot" (another weasel word, see how that works?) of 18yo males who enlist and deploy and are maimed or meet an untimely end. Take a story in the paper if it was about a young man, they'd drop the young part and just refer to him as a man. There's an effort here to paint this in a particular light. Why would that be?
More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.
Is it so, or could it be that it's easier to share things nowadays? Look at all the (disproportionately female) teachers raping students, is this a new phenomenon? Or is it something that's occurring with the same frequency and just broadcast further and faster? Another example is how people are worried about sending their children outside when crime is following a 40 year trend downwards.
Since you're fond of think of the children angle how about a present scandal occurring at this very moment. Human trafficking involving Chinese citizens coming over and having anchor babies. I've seen this with my own eyes, too. People who pay tens of thousands of dollars to come here and have a child on our dime by claiming to be destitute when at the Hospital. Getting back to the original issue, as far as these picture websites, your stance is that there isn't enough laws on the books to address these sites? That's rich.
I buy a new phone about every 3 years, when my previous one is worn out. Most people do this every year or two. What a waste...This article shows what you're missing when you sign that lease, or buy that new iPhone.
I replace mine with about the same frequency. Not to toot Apple's horn but they have trade in programs which reduce the cost of the new phone and they refurbish or recycle the old one. Many people will hand their phones down, too. Often the only thing that the handsets really need is a battery.
The motors and battery (which needs to be replaced every X years) for your new Prius are not so great for the environment. Sure, it makes you feel good to not fill up at the gas pump, but what is the true environmental cost of that car?
One argument that can be made is efficiency, is it more efficient to tap the grid vs generating energy at home? Is less fuel consumption beneficial? Here's a Forbes article about Prius, having a battery replaced with a refurbished one from a 3rd party.
The reality is that there are 28 separate cells in the hybrid battery pack. When the unit starts to fail, only a handful of the individual cells are bad. What Prius Battery Repair of Houston does, and Toyota could do if it wanted to, is replace the bad hybrid battery pack with a reconditioned one to get the customer back on the road. Then, determine which cells are bad, and simply replace the bad battery cells, recondition the battery, and sell it to the next customer.
Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?
Better is so subjective. Replace windmills with $anyitem (minifridge, dams, coal power plants). Does it make it more or less profound?
I'm glad someone out there is forcing us to look at the downside of all of the technology we use. Kudos to them for doing it.
Forcing? Hardly. This is the byproduct of cheap.
I'd say this article just focuses on an admittedly bad area where stuff is done cheaply because that's what many people want world wide. A rare earth mine is ramping up production in California. Compare how it's done. It lowered capacity because of cost, a re-occuring theme with a lot of American industry.
Anybody telling you to 'be sincere and do what I say' is saying 'fake sincerity, copy me'.
They could have Aspergers and don't know how. Copying people is how we learn, just the format that changes.
There is a resurgence of the anti-intellectualism culture in this country, and it's being elected into positions where it can do unimaginable damage to our country.
Resurgence? It's been going on longer than we've been alive. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" - Isaac Asimov, 1980
Stupid people make stupid decisions, and when those stupid people are in public office, they make stupid decisions that fuck up everyone's life.
Where to begin? Unfortunately stupid people do not hold a monopoly on stupid decisions. Ever tried ordering lunch for an entire company? Scale that up to 300 million people and you may begin to appreciate the scope of the issue. Politicians don't magically slither into office, they're voted in. Ultimately it sounds like you don't want a politician but a leader, one who cannot make poor decisions meaning no compromising is allowed, since that results in stupidity, nor any dissent since only stupid people would go against the smart leader. Sounds like a good fit for a totalitarian. Who do you recommend take the helm?
You have state representatives who don't have a basic understanding of the female anatomy trying to regulate women's medical treatments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
There are minions of the state involved in falsifying test scores for financial gain, spanning over a decade, see the huge scandal in Georgia which affects tens of thousands of students.
I couldn't help but notice the source and targets for both of those links, HuffPo isn't exactly center, as tempting as it may be this is be to frame this as such it is by no means a partisan issue. There is a sustained and concerted effort by powerful monied interests spanning decades working on both sides of the aisle to undo this country and they successfully have us fighting one another. Only by working together will we get things done.
Gandhi refused to let British doctors give his wife a life-saving shot of penicillin, on the grounds that she should not have alien substances injected in her body. This was a death sentence for her. And yet he was willing to accept quinine when he himself later contracted malaria. He also let British doctors perform an appendectomy on him, another alien intrusion to be sure.
Anti-Western, or post-colonial, intellectuals and activists bring up the West's rap sheet not because we were uniquely complicit in slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, but because we are uniquely vulnerable to such guilt mongering. "I think it would be a good idea," Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi famously replied when asked what he thought of Western civilization, as if Indian civilization was without sin. To this day, left-wing poseurs have this line stuck to their refrigerators or use it for yearbook quotes as if it is a brilliantly insightful and humorous bon mot, when in reality the joke is on them.
Gandhi was in many respects the pioneer of exploiting Western self-loathing. For many pacifists, "What Would Gandhi Do?" is a more important question than "What would Jesus Do?" and for good reason. Jesus did believe that violent self-defense was sometimes justified (that's why he instructed his followers to carry swords). Gandhi did not.
Undoubtedly one of the most idiosyncratic world leaders in modern memory. Particularly given the prevalence of New Age pieties these days, he has become a saint of sorts. A true ascetic, Gandhi voluntarily eschewed luxurious pleasures. He found satisfaction in more humble pastimes. Indeed, among his greatest joys and fascinations was the successful bowel movement.
Paul Johnson notes that the first question he asked of his female attendants every morning was "Did you have a good bowel movement?" One of his favorite books, which e reread often, was Constipation and Our Civilization. Deprived of a sense of smell, which no doubt impaired his sense of taste his vegetarian diet was centered around the goal of a successful digestive cycle.
His advice on both personal diet and public agriculture was not merely impractical and gloomy. Had his ideas been translated into public policy they would have subjected millions of Indians to even worse starvation and even more pervasive poverty than they were already enduring. Gandhi's social and economic vision was perhaps best described as Tolkienesque. Technology was the enemy of decency, the perfect political unit was the Arcadian village, a subcontinental Shire where, instead of hobbits, Hindus would work individually on their tiny looms.
Of course, you would not know this from the film that helped cement the Gandhian legend. For instance, in Gandhi the movie, audiences are led to believe that his first hunger strike was to protest the British police's horrific slaughter of a crowd of peaceful Indian protesters. But Gandhi's first hunger strike was devoted to protesting a British effort to grand the Untouchables-India's lowest and most oppressed caste-greater rights and freedoms, including providing them with access to a form of affirmative action. That wouldn't play as well on the big screen, alas.
The filmmakers were merely picking up on a practice begun by the British foreign office. Simply put, Gandhi was a creature of the system he sought to overthrow. For years the British Empire used Gandhi as the most convenient nationalist. Unlike other anti-colonial activists, Gandhi worked assiduously to prevent violence. "The true oddity," writes Richard Grenier, "is that Gandhi, this holy man, having drawn from British sources his notions of nationalism and democracy, also absorbed from the British his model of virtue in public life. He was a historical original, a Hindu holy man that a British model of public service and dazzling advances in mass communications thrust out into the world, to become a great moral leader and the 'father of his country'."
Gandhi's accomplishments were great, but absent the con
This is hilarious. You just can't make up shit like this. Thanks!
UC San Francisco's Sam Hawgood, who started in July, is the highest-paid UC chancellor, at $750,000 . In hoping to erase disparities, regents noted that Gene Block, who came to UCLA in 2007, is paid $428,480, which is below what Gillman will be paid at a smaller campus. (In addition to salaries, chancellors receive housing or housing allowances.)
Absolutely ridiculous.
Administrators ate my tuition
Here's an interactive chart with a state by state breakdown. Why the obscene jump in administration, especially over the last 20 years? Far greater than the educators, you know the ones actually doing something, many educators are adjunct instructors (pardon the source), in a nutshell so they're working cheaper and they comprise the super majority of instructors.
braindead republicans, ruining the country
Your bias is showing. Both parties are fully bought and paid for and further corporate special interests. Democrats were in control for many years and furthered ghastly policies began by the previous administration. Apathy and partisan politics is ruining this country. Control by splitting into hostile groups, it's not new and it's effective, you're doing them proud! The Millennials will make up a larger voting block than the Boomers this year.
A key to marketing, just like rhetoric is understanding your audience.
After some quick searching on the subject looks like it's just a newer form of slang.
Unless you're the Government, or a School, or a Business. Being most everywhere is fixated with Diversity (code for institutionalized sexism and racism) we can play name games with things! Douchebag Google, Douchebag University California Irvine, Douchebag Stanford University. Maybe we can just swap out parts of the name for Douchebag? Douchebagrosoft. Since many sites are also imposing policies, maybe Douchebagdot or Douchebaggit?
Wow you seriously don't have any idea what you are talking about. Most of the web application development world had abandoned MSIE around 2001,
Abandoned IE? IE dominated from the late 90s to the mid 00s. No amount of revisionism will dispute this fact. It's not like I work(ed) for Microsoft or enjoyed supporting IE6 later in its life, it's just a fact it was immensely popular for multiple reasons. This was the infamous era of applets and ActiveX, static webpages, single user computers, Sub7, Melissa and peak AOL. Web application development was IE centric, especially in the form of intranet sites, which were responsible for it being around an unnaturally long time. This isn't about ideology, it's simple business, you target what your customers run and at the time that was IE(6).
Version numbers weren't important, features were: you could build a new-skool web site using Phoenix and then hack it to look less-than-shitty in MSIE (does that sound familiar? It's still the process most of follow today).
The person who replied named Firefox specifically, not Phoenix, nor Firebird. You're moving the goal posts. Compared to the popular browsers at the time few people would've been using it prior to 2004 because it simply didn't exist as such. Regarding the claim about the process "most" follow today, (anecdote? are you the arbiter of the world wide designer/developer leauge?) , it's focused around Chrome and if they're half way competent Firefox. Why? Because laziness isn't new or unique to this industry. Just to be clear, how do you determine laziness? There are things called vendor prefixes which enable non-standard vendor specific CSS. Lazy folk will just use the popular ones which typically mean webkit specific. Things have improved as support for HTML5 and CSS3 increases. I'd love for ISPs to release the metrics for the User Agent strings for a more objective list of browsers/devices instead of relying on sites people visit. Google.com might be a worthy runner up, but here's a wiki page citing several stat sites in the browser wars.
The Wikipedia article on Firefox doesn't cover all that, so your apparently insightful research simply isn't.
For the record this is just a topic which I've firsthand experience with and calling it research cheapens the term and I'm not involved with the articles I referenced in any way. I just did some admittedly quick searches for supporting citations where possible, honestly, what is/was difficult is finding information on Netscape and IE JavaScript performance. There is a reason why Netscape users jumped ship and it took writing something from scratch to succeed. Your post contains no links, for those who aren't familiar with the details of the situation the more information available the better. My post isn't gospel and citing wikipedia doesn't grant one authority, it's simply convenient. Lots of sites have disappeared over the last ~15 years to boot. What would really help is finding a side by side comparison of the features supported by each browser (including Netscape!) I often search for things on my own, and I don't think I'm alone in this practice and I encourage anyone to do the same when educating themselves.
As an aside, revisionism is rampant. Look at Windows XP being lauded as light on resources, which at the time it was considered a busted pig compared to Windows 2k and 98 on this very site.
Nonetheless it sounds like a worthy experiment :) There are passionate people who are far more experienced I who've graciously shared their wisdom and experiences, all it takes is asking the right questions. If it's a single piece of hardware with drivers on hand, why not provision a fresh image and just install the drivers again? No sense in making a production out of it unnecessarily, unless that's your cup of tea!
I think we've all been bitten by the upgrade bug. I've become conservative with updates to setups that work. Sierra was extremely effective at branding "save early, save often" into my impressionable formative brain. While the times have changed I've taken this to heart and make liberal use of snapshots when doing anything in a VM. I'm not certain which platform you're using but most of them have roughly similar features. Not to say I don't cowboy things from time to time :)
Still not /. enough!
1. You give me your email address
2. ???
3. Judge holds you in contempt.
Just looked at the tablet, and on the Microsoft Store the unit is $79. Pretty wild, how's the screen on this?
Poke it into a VM. I've got old hardware that doesn't have drivers supported on the host machine, but work fine through the VM. Should you not want to be tied to a particular machine this is an option you may want to look into.
If you're looking for partners I can't recommend italki.com highly enough, dig a little in the site and there are oodles of free tutors. I've met many interesting people through the site and it's a great way to meet native speakers. I'm not affiliated with the site, I just enjoy language. The accent you have will help you immensely with English speakers, embrace it. ;)
No, that doesn't follow at all. Firefox was a significantly better browser at the time, before they jumped the shark after version 4.
Your disagreement seems to be looking from now backwards instead of from the beginning. Since Firefox was named specifically, it's a browser that wasn't released until 3 years after (4 excluding the technology previews) the competition.
Better is such a subjective word, better how? Stability? That eliminates technology previews bumping the "better" browser back another year. I sincerely hope something developed years after its competition was released would improve upon established norms. Out of the gate it was feature incomplete by their own version numbers. Steve Jobs is one who can make that a compelling argument. Firefox also featured some really cool fundamental concepts, like the now ubiquitous download manager.
Firefox became competitive in 2005/2006. Prior to that IE was top dog, when IE6 was released it was better than the other browsers by means of features like standards support and speed. Prior to the JavaScript engine wars fundamentally changing things, there were incremental steps. IE6 believe it or not was peppy compared to Netscape's offerings. This is documented in Netscape Navigator's decline. IE6 at the time it was released and for many years was what the vast majority of designers targeted and designed for. Designed for Internet Explorer, Designed for Netscape Navigator were prevalent like perverse badges of honor. In my opinion the debut of Firebug in 2006 was a turning point for designer/developer interest considering many tools are heavily inspired by its features. Here's a neat little read on IE1.0 upto Firefox 2.0.
I never claimed there was only _one_ tool. You sure love to jump to conclusions about things I never said. There was another utility I used to use back in the day too, it might have been MultIE. I've deleted / removed almost everything related to IE.
The way you mentioned it was, paraphrasing: "Sandboxie was really annoying." So is installing Steam games into it and so is supporting dozens of viewport sizes. Welcome to software!
You're missing the point. Microsoft popularized that crap. Just because other vendors are doing it doesn't give MS a free pass.
I feel like somewhere in your secret volcano lair there exists a giant whiteboard which has a soul crushing flowchart with winding complex paths leading to the giant Sauron like cloud labeled "Microsoft: Great Satan". At some point the responsibility shifts to the shoulders of those who take action.