It's everything to do with moralizing bullshit. As a society, we have all the stuff we need, so people can't compete with their neighbors as to who has the best TV or car or whatever.
So instead people compete with who is the most "ethical" by buying a Prius, or "free-range" milk or "fair trade" coffee. And so we collect stickers that show we care.
Your buying decisions have nothing to do with how miserable someone's life in Asia is. It does absolutely fucking nothing. If Asia is broken, the Asians will fix it because they're human beings fully capable of choosing their own destinies.
If you really *must* compete with your neighbors, compete to see who can raise their kids right, who can be involved in their community, or something that might actually be worth a damn. Fix your goddamned self, you fucking posers.
That there are people in here somehow agreeing with the idea that this woman should be sued by these people simply beggars belief.
And while the judge dismissed the case, he never reprimanded the attorney for filing it, so he 100% agrees with me, and I'll take his expert opinion over your utter ignorance.
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
The US has a rather long history of tempered justice, going back to John Adams defending the British soldiers accused of deliberately firing into a crowd and killing civilians, the infamous Boston Massacre. The mob wanted hangings, but Adams famously said, "facts are stubborn things" and the jury agreed and acquitted most of them.
The fines and jail time only ramp up when there is intent, or disregard for the law (e.g. hit and run). If you screw up accidentally, you're expected to pay damages equivalent to, wait for it, the damage you caused.
And they have to prove it. The big exceptions tend to be when The Children are involved, or there is a War on Whatever.
They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried, and they may have had reason to believe she was at least partially culpable. If she knew her boyfriend was driving, there's a case there that she was a party to an act of gross negligence.
I agree entirely with the judge's ruling: the court has to set hard limits to where you can assign blame so as to prevent an inquisition. We don't know if the texts reveal that she knew, also, but it seems unlikely.
But in light of how severe their damages were, I think they were right to bring it before the court, even though it was a long shot.
And they probably also felt morally wronged by her, and it's not at all unreasonable to seek out justice through the system that society has set in place to resolve such disputes. Especially when, you know, you just lost your fucking leg.
from memory he has a criminal record for hacking in Australia yeah? you cant be in parlment with a criminal record...
Nope, only a handful of convictions (treason, bribery, etc.) are disqualifiers from Oz parliament. His main problem would be he'd have to renounce any dual citizenship.
If they do vote him in, the beauty of democracy is that it thoroughly rewards masochistic voters.
Why the hell would anyone drive more just because the price of fuel is lower? People drive largely because they have to, not because they want to.
Marriage and commutes. One person works here, another works there, they want one spouse to be close to the kids' school, etc.
So people will factor the cost of gas into the price of living further away. If there's a lower price, they'll commute further not because they want to, but because they can find a better paying job. And often they have larger vehicles because the vehicles have to do double duty, to commute and to haul children + goods around.
And it's not like they sit down and calculate this, people get a pretty good idea from their monthly bills.
+4 Insightful? Because this is something you easily find out before registering an account at a new bank.
I registered a free checking account at a bank, found that they had shitty security, and I closed it the next day. They gave me a cashier's check for the balance, so my total cost was zero.
The bank I'm using, I had the account open for a month before I was reasonably satisfied that they had their shit together, and I then transferred my direct deposit to them. This stuff isn't all that hard.
Are there any other good books by this "Jones & Bartlett Learning" publisher? Maybe one on HTML formatting?
There apparently aren't any better books on Infosec at all, since this is the "Information security magnum opus", or maybe it's a "tour de force", or whatever cliche the reviewer could dredge up to establish that it is, in fact, a really big book. Which, by the way, is eight hundred pages! Like, that's a hundred pages longer than 700 pages! Amazing!
But if you aren't sure what this HUGE HUGE book is:
The book is in fact a textbook meant to introduce the reader to the topic of information security.
Hate to break it to you, but while your employer may deduct it pre-tax, you're paying the full amount. You're just extraordinarily gullible and have been duped by a stupid accounting trick. Let me guess, you also think your employer pays your social security, right?
Fairly certain no one here actually believes any of that. We all know that the cost of benefits is part of the salary. It's why people will accept a lower per-paycheck value if they feel that the other benefits make up for it.
No, first, most people, generally, do not understand what "income" is, or how value is added by labor, and how income is different from a wealth transfer. Second, the post I quoted explicitly contradicts you:
You can afford more than $1000/month? I spent time as a consultant and sans an employer that was the quoted figure to cover one 20-something with no medical issues around five years ago. I couldn't afford it and neither could most people in my area. Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
That is directly stating that people cannot afford to pay for medical insurance because they don't have the money, their employer does. And that was modded up 3 times.
Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
Hate to break it to you, but while your employer may deduct it pre-tax, you're paying the full amount. You're just extraordinarily gullible and have been duped by a stupid accounting trick. Let me guess, you also think your employer pays your social security, right?
Here's how you know: when a business decides to hire a person, they write out two numbers:
A. salary + benefits + all the supposedly free stuff + all their "contributions"
B. total dollar value the employee will add to business operations
If A > B (or they're even close), that person does not get a job, no matter how much the government claims all that stuff is free.
I'm an Engineer. I've thought about getting into politics myself, but there's such a huge mess to clean up I don't even know where I could begin.
To get into politics, you have to talk to people and find out what they want to fix, since they're the ones who will support your campaign. That tends to narrow it down a lot. Once you've got a few achievable objectives, and reasonable answers to other issues you've got a platform.
Here is the same info from the Lancet. Per wikipedia, the Lancet is "one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals."
They're the same journal that posted the (now retracted) study linking vaccines and autism, so I'd challenge the "most respected" label.
can you explain why you expect he would be more successful as President?
In regards to bringing the troops home, I expect he would be more successful as President because he would then be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
I'm not a US citizen so I'm not really a Ron Paul supporter, just saying.
I'm was somewhat hyperbolic. It's entirely likely that some private in Rep Paul's district wrote him to complain that a drill sergeant was being mean to him in basic, and it's very likely that Paul's staff did the paperwork to get the kid out of the Army, getting him a discharge for "failure to adapt to military life". That kind of stuff happens all the time, and that would mean that, technically, he brought a single troop home.
As president, while he can put out arbitrary orders, he still has to explain his plans to the joint chiefs for them to actually carry them out. They will then explain why no one has done it before, to include the top secret stuff. After all, Obama ran on essentially the same theme, and he couldn't even close Guantanamo. The main issue is that withdrawing our forces can exacerbate instabilities that lead to wars, thus defeating the purpose of drawing down in the first place. (At which point he might argue to the chiefs, "but we created those instabilities in the first place!" To which they'd respond, "that may be true, Sir, but that doesn't change the situation we're dealing with.")
What Paul could do is promise to make significant progress towards disengaging in a few specific places, but he doesn't. He claims, sweepingly, that he'll bring the troops home, without saying how the hell he'd do it. And this is part of a general indicator: he claims the impossible because he doesn't expect to win. That's how you differentiate a serious candidate, they'll dictate realistic, achievable goals. Paul has never done that.
"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight."
So he's not just modelling physiology, he's also modelling economic decisions? And he's modelling the impacts of various government policies?
I wouldn't be surprised if poor people ate more food when the price went down, as they are highly affected by food costs, and they are the ones who experienced the largest increases in obesity. I'm just skeptical because he seems to be making some very broad conclusions from such a specific piece of research.
He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
No one ever wants to vote for reality.
Here's my standard challenge to the Ron Paul supporters:
Ron Paul has been a representative for about 20 years, with some interlude.
Please name a few parts of his agenda you support; no need to be all inclusive. Now, during the 20 years he was in office, what tangible gains has he made towards the items you named?
For example, if you support his desire to bring troops home, can you show evidence that he's brought one single troop home?
If you support his desire to cut taxes and regulations, can you name one bill that has saved taxpayers so much as a penny, or one bill that has taken a single regulation off the books?
Considering his record is essentially 20 years of keeping a seat warm, can you explain why you expect he would be more successful as President?
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
My friends on Facebook are college educated and highly intelligent. I don't know who you have on your Facebook but we aren't all alike.
If you weren't so snide, I wouldn't point out that you need to work on your reading comprehension: I never even remotely suggested that everyone on Facebook is the same. I can also see you don't grok statistics, or you would have caught the allusions in the analogy I presented.
But now that you mention it, most of my friends on Facebook are Army buddies, so yes, I probably have more high school educated people on Facebook than you do. I also have more combat veterans, more actual leaders, people that I had the honor of serving with, so I've got the better bargain, by far.
And I've never seen any evidence that education makes much difference in terms of grasping politics; educated people just grab talking points instead of making stuff up whole cloth, and they present equally superficial arguments with a more academic tone. They also tend to be bigger assholes because they're more intent on proving how clever they are.
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
Are you kidding? What they're doing with it is ensuring maintenance on the status quo where possible, and gradually shifting the wealth created by our society even more into their control in order to reduce social mobility.
Reduce social mobility, what is this, neo-feudalism? How? And to what end? When you're making less sense than the plot of the X-Files, you're doing it wrong.
I contact my representative regularly. They don't respond.
Really, they don't even answer the phone?
I try to get people to vote them out of office. It isn't working. I'm not capable of being persuasive enough to achieve the kind of change we need.
Two problems: the point isn't to get people out of office, it's to get your guy into office. That means you first need to have your guy. Second, you're confusing what "you want" with what "we need." To be persuasive, you have to be honest and admit that you've got an agenda like everyone else. Until you do that, you can't find common interest with others and put a movement together.
Doesn't the value depend on what we put in the hole? It would be valuable if we could put all the world's corrupt politicians and lawyers in the hole as opposed to say Jennifer Anniston.
Why not Jennifer Anniston? Does being pretty make her oxygen theft any more excusable? And, fair's fair, there are plenty of man-children celebrities who would make acceptable landfill material too.
Oh hell yes!!! Just because you've never exercised your sex drive doesn't mean the rest of us wouldn't like to.
Okay, tiger, don't let me, or the restraining order, get in the way of you and Miss Anniston.
Slashdot Mirror
It's everything to do with moralizing bullshit. As a society, we have all the stuff we need, so people can't compete with their neighbors as to who has the best TV or car or whatever.
So instead people compete with who is the most "ethical" by buying a Prius, or "free-range" milk or "fair trade" coffee. And so we collect stickers that show we care.
Your buying decisions have nothing to do with how miserable someone's life in Asia is. It does absolutely fucking nothing. If Asia is broken, the Asians will fix it because they're human beings fully capable of choosing their own destinies.
If you really *must* compete with your neighbors, compete to see who can raise their kids right, who can be involved in their community, or something that might actually be worth a damn. Fix your goddamned self, you fucking posers.
That there are people in here somehow agreeing with the idea that this woman should be sued by these people simply beggars belief.
And while the judge dismissed the case, he never reprimanded the attorney for filing it, so he 100% agrees with me, and I'll take his expert opinion over your utter ignorance.
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
The US has a rather long history of tempered justice, going back to John Adams defending the British soldiers accused of deliberately firing into a crowd and killing civilians, the infamous Boston Massacre. The mob wanted hangings, but Adams famously said, "facts are stubborn things" and the jury agreed and acquitted most of them.
The fines and jail time only ramp up when there is intent, or disregard for the law (e.g. hit and run). If you screw up accidentally, you're expected to pay damages equivalent to, wait for it, the damage you caused.
And they have to prove it. The big exceptions tend to be when The Children are involved, or there is a War on Whatever.
They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried, and they may have had reason to believe she was at least partially culpable. If she knew her boyfriend was driving, there's a case there that she was a party to an act of gross negligence.
I agree entirely with the judge's ruling: the court has to set hard limits to where you can assign blame so as to prevent an inquisition. We don't know if the texts reveal that she knew, also, but it seems unlikely.
But in light of how severe their damages were, I think they were right to bring it before the court, even though it was a long shot.
And they probably also felt morally wronged by her, and it's not at all unreasonable to seek out justice through the system that society has set in place to resolve such disputes. Especially when, you know, you just lost your fucking leg.
Well, it was a mistake to use the Keystone division...
Berkley has another?
Do editors here do any proofreading at all, whatsoever? Irrelevant statements, useless commentary, and almost no coherant point of the headline.
No wonder people are leaving this site in droves. Slashdot = the myspace of tech sites.
Hey now, it takes real editorial genius to come up with the "from foo department" jokes.
from memory he has a criminal record for hacking in Australia yeah?
you cant be in parlment with a criminal record...
Nope, only a handful of convictions (treason, bribery, etc.) are disqualifiers from Oz parliament. His main problem would be he'd have to renounce any dual citizenship.
If they do vote him in, the beauty of democracy is that it thoroughly rewards masochistic voters.
Sure, texting while driving is stupid. On the one hand: Just how is a cop going to prove that is what you were doing?
Subpoena your phone records.
Why the hell would anyone drive more just because the price of fuel is lower? People drive largely because they have to, not because they want to.
Marriage and commutes. One person works here, another works there, they want one spouse to be close to the kids' school, etc.
So people will factor the cost of gas into the price of living further away. If there's a lower price, they'll commute further not because they want to, but because they can find a better paying job. And often they have larger vehicles because the vehicles have to do double duty, to commute and to haul children + goods around.
And it's not like they sit down and calculate this, people get a pretty good idea from their monthly bills.
The difference is that you are much more likely to get user cooperation if password changes consisted of the computer picking 4 random words for them
And why in God's name can't sites do this? Especially if you want to make four-word passwords the norm, just generate them.
+4 Insightful? Because this is something you easily find out before registering an account at a new bank.
I registered a free checking account at a bank, found that they had shitty security, and I closed it the next day. They gave me a cashier's check for the balance, so my total cost was zero.
The bank I'm using, I had the account open for a month before I was reasonably satisfied that they had their shit together, and I then transferred my direct deposit to them. This stuff isn't all that hard.
Are there any other good books by this "Jones & Bartlett Learning" publisher? Maybe one on HTML formatting?
There apparently aren't any better books on Infosec at all, since this is the "Information security magnum opus", or maybe it's a "tour de force", or whatever cliche the reviewer could dredge up to establish that it is, in fact, a really big book. Which, by the way, is eight hundred pages! Like, that's a hundred pages longer than 700 pages! Amazing!
But if you aren't sure what this HUGE HUGE book is:
The book is in fact a textbook meant to introduce the reader to the topic of information security.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Hate to break it to you, but while your employer may deduct it pre-tax, you're paying the full amount. You're just extraordinarily gullible and have been duped by a stupid accounting trick. Let me guess, you also think your employer pays your social security, right?
Fairly certain no one here actually believes any of that. We all know that the cost of benefits is part of the salary. It's why people will accept a lower per-paycheck value if they feel that the other benefits make up for it.
No, first, most people, generally, do not understand what "income" is, or how value is added by labor, and how income is different from a wealth transfer. Second, the post I quoted explicitly contradicts you:
You can afford more than $1000/month? I spent time as a consultant and sans an employer that was the quoted figure to cover one 20-something with no medical issues around five years ago. I couldn't afford it and neither could most people in my area. Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
That is directly stating that people cannot afford to pay for medical insurance because they don't have the money, their employer does. And that was modded up 3 times.
Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
Hate to break it to you, but while your employer may deduct it pre-tax, you're paying the full amount. You're just extraordinarily gullible and have been duped by a stupid accounting trick. Let me guess, you also think your employer pays your social security, right?
Here's how you know: when a business decides to hire a person, they write out two numbers:
A. salary + benefits + all the supposedly free stuff + all their "contributions"
B. total dollar value the employee will add to business operations
If A > B (or they're even close), that person does not get a job, no matter how much the government claims all that stuff is free.
I'm an Engineer. I've thought about getting into politics myself, but there's such a huge mess to clean up I don't even know where I could begin.
To get into politics, you have to talk to people and find out what they want to fix, since they're the ones who will support your campaign. That tends to narrow it down a lot. Once you've got a few achievable objectives, and reasonable answers to other issues you've got a platform.
Here is the same info from the Lancet. Per wikipedia, the Lancet is "one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals."
They're the same journal that posted the (now retracted) study linking vaccines and autism, so I'd challenge the "most respected" label.
can you explain why you expect he would be more successful as President?
In regards to bringing the troops home, I expect he would be more successful as President because he would then be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
I'm not a US citizen so I'm not really a Ron Paul supporter, just saying.
I'm was somewhat hyperbolic. It's entirely likely that some private in Rep Paul's district wrote him to complain that a drill sergeant was being mean to him in basic, and it's very likely that Paul's staff did the paperwork to get the kid out of the Army, getting him a discharge for "failure to adapt to military life". That kind of stuff happens all the time, and that would mean that, technically, he brought a single troop home.
As president, while he can put out arbitrary orders, he still has to explain his plans to the joint chiefs for them to actually carry them out. They will then explain why no one has done it before, to include the top secret stuff. After all, Obama ran on essentially the same theme, and he couldn't even close Guantanamo. The main issue is that withdrawing our forces can exacerbate instabilities that lead to wars, thus defeating the purpose of drawing down in the first place. (At which point he might argue to the chiefs, "but we created those instabilities in the first place!" To which they'd respond, "that may be true, Sir, but that doesn't change the situation we're dealing with.")
What Paul could do is promise to make significant progress towards disengaging in a few specific places, but he doesn't. He claims, sweepingly, that he'll bring the troops home, without saying how the hell he'd do it. And this is part of a general indicator: he claims the impossible because he doesn't expect to win. That's how you differentiate a serious candidate, they'll dictate realistic, achievable goals. Paul has never done that.
Just so we can get them out of the way:
"I tried diet X and lost Y pounds, thus clearly establishing that substance Z is causing everyone to become fat."
"Moral failing Q is the real culprit! We need government policy R! I have no proof!"
"I'm from country C and we have no fat people. You Americans are fat, and I have a ridiculous accent!"
"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight."
So he's not just modelling physiology, he's also modelling economic decisions? And he's modelling the impacts of various government policies?
I wouldn't be surprised if poor people ate more food when the price went down, as they are highly affected by food costs, and they are the ones who experienced the largest increases in obesity. I'm just skeptical because he seems to be making some very broad conclusions from such a specific piece of research.
He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
No one ever wants to vote for reality.
Here's my standard challenge to the Ron Paul supporters:
Ron Paul has been a representative for about 20 years, with some interlude.
Please name a few parts of his agenda you support; no need to be all inclusive. Now, during the 20 years he was in office, what tangible gains has he made towards the items you named?
For example, if you support his desire to bring troops home, can you show evidence that he's brought one single troop home?
If you support his desire to cut taxes and regulations, can you name one bill that has saved taxpayers so much as a penny, or one bill that has taken a single regulation off the books?
Considering his record is essentially 20 years of keeping a seat warm, can you explain why you expect he would be more successful as President?
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
My friends on Facebook are college educated and highly intelligent. I don't know who you have on your Facebook but we aren't all alike.
If you weren't so snide, I wouldn't point out that you need to work on your reading comprehension: I never even remotely suggested that everyone on Facebook is the same. I can also see you don't grok statistics, or you would have caught the allusions in the analogy I presented.
But now that you mention it, most of my friends on Facebook are Army buddies, so yes, I probably have more high school educated people on Facebook than you do. I also have more combat veterans, more actual leaders, people that I had the honor of serving with, so I've got the better bargain, by far.
And I've never seen any evidence that education makes much difference in terms of grasping politics; educated people just grab talking points instead of making stuff up whole cloth, and they present equally superficial arguments with a more academic tone. They also tend to be bigger assholes because they're more intent on proving how clever they are.
I'm a news junkie, and I often listen to C-SPAN radio. Some shows have callers, most of whom are awful. "And next is Bob on the Independents line. Hi Bob, you're on. Uh, hi, am I on? Yes, Bob, you're on with us. Uh, hi, so, uh, thanks for, uh, having me on, I really like C-SPAN, uh, thanks for your service Congressman, and, uh, I'm calling to ask about..." by which point I'm already yelling in my car, "just ask your fucking question!" There are rewarding exceptions, but the norm is outspoken incoherence.
The best thing Facebook can do is begin paying people to post relevant news articles and popular stories on Facebook.
No, really, it's not. Just like the callers, my friends and family on Facebook are fine folks who rarely have any insight into politics.
I'm on Facebook not to see amateur op-eds, but because I want to know what's going on in their lives, what they're actually doing, and so forth. Maybe a monetary incentive could help, but I suspect I'd wind up blocking people who were too spammy.
Are you kidding? What they're doing with it is ensuring maintenance on the status quo where possible, and gradually shifting the wealth created by our society even more into their control in order to reduce social mobility.
Reduce social mobility, what is this, neo-feudalism? How? And to what end? When you're making less sense than the plot of the X-Files, you're doing it wrong.
I contact my representative regularly. They don't respond.
Really, they don't even answer the phone?
I try to get people to vote them out of office. It isn't working. I'm not capable of being persuasive enough to achieve the kind of change we need.
Two problems: the point isn't to get people out of office, it's to get your guy into office. That means you first need to have your guy. Second, you're confusing what "you want" with what "we need." To be persuasive, you have to be honest and admit that you've got an agenda like everyone else. Until you do that, you can't find common interest with others and put a movement together.
Doesn't the value depend on what we put in the hole? It would be valuable if we could put all the world's corrupt politicians and lawyers in the hole as opposed to say Jennifer Anniston.
Why not Jennifer Anniston? Does being pretty make her oxygen theft any more excusable? And, fair's fair, there are plenty of man-children celebrities who would make acceptable landfill material too.
Oh hell yes!!! Just because you've never exercised your sex drive doesn't mean the rest of us wouldn't like to.
Okay, tiger, don't let me, or the restraining order, get in the way of you and Miss Anniston.
Considering that the current chkdsk is actually capable of causing massive logical damage , Microsoft has a LONG way to go to make it function as intended.
You mean it's suspected of causing additional damage in a couple of comments.
It's very possible that there are long standing bugs. It's also possible that it just tried very hard on a hopelessly borked drive and failed.