Regarding the Karen post/follow-up: myself (and at least a few others) felt that his initial response was unnecessarily condescending and rude. Yes, his follow-up helps to patch things up, but it's not a stretch for me to believe that people from "the other side" who read that email have already been pushed away from the "Linux side." If indeed he was trying to convert people to the "Linux side," he did his goal a disservice with that first post: IMHO, the damage had already been done.
To me, Occam's Razor suggests Clark's Law (although the tags suggest that others derived Hanlon's Razor instead).
I can't find that exact definition anywhere. Care to point out which reference book or site I may find it in?
Just because you use a word one way, does not make it correct.
This is a conflict between descriptive and prescriptive definitions of words.
Just because you appeal to the dictionary for your definition doesn't mean the dictionary's definition is current with the word's actual usage.
Actually, if one compares the merits of Linux versus Windows in terms of their gaming support, then in those terms Windows is indeed "better."
Windows may have a monopoly, but their monopoly is sustained at least in part by the gamers supporting their platform. Spread the blame equally, where it belongs.
1) Linux does not run a critical set of games which he wants to play.
2) Linux apps lack the kind of application compatibility that he and his family are looking for.
Let's accept that a console is superior to a PC for gaming, and let's accept that Linux is preferable to Windows for general computing tasks. GP's two points are still unresolved: he wants to play that particular set of games (presumably not available on either a console or on Linux) and he wants compatibility for a specific set of applications (presumably Windows-only applications without equivalent Linux alternatives/ports).
I am growing to understand your viewpoint more and more.
I'll accept that in the general case, the act of changing status to married does indeed cause couples to undergo a fundamental shift in attitude and emotion, though my reasoning is probably different from yours. I'm of the opinion that society (religion, tradition, what-have-you) has trained both men and women to look at marriage as a secure bond: a social contract, if you will, that gives both partners an added level of comfort when dealing with each other, i.e. "we're married, so we now have such-and-such additional responsibilities to each other; let's work this out."
You are correct: my argument is indeed that an unmarried couple can have that same level of connection and commitment as any given unmarried couple. I do agree that, given the standard westernized upbringing, the act of marriage facilitates a shift in attitude toward one of having to work things out, versus having to call it quits. What I infer from your comments is that you believe the incidence of this attitude to be higher in married couples than in non-married couples. Assuming that this is your claim: having no numbers to back me up, I must simply say that I'm skeptical.
<soapbox>In my experience, a couple needs to both make a commitment toward having open communication about problems, then to actively (key word) work at keeping communication open. Marriage impresses upon a couple that they "must" work things out, but if they mutually have the inner steel to take that extra step without having to get married, they can certainly get by without the title and social validation. (I have a hunch that you agree with this, at least in principle.)</soapbox>
In short: I agree with your points in general, and I agree that (in the general case) marriage definitely helps bring about this change in attitude, but I am skeptical of the incidence of "successful relationships" (in our context) being higher in married than in non-married couples.
Thank you for your response. It is certainly appreciated.
That said, I still fail to see how any of these points are exclusive to married sexuality. What it appears to be to me is that you're describing a set of behaviors and purpose that one could find in any monogamous, dedicated, unmarried sexual relationship. I fail to see any distinction between these "marriage-specific" behaviors you are describing and behaviors between two unmarried people who have been having committed sexual relations for several years.
Again, thanks for the response. At least now I've got an idea of what behavior and thinking you consider to be exclusive to marriage.
[Extramarital sex] may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this. What are these "lots of reasons" of which you speak?
> And what the heck will you do with the cloned passport, since you're obviously not the same person on the photo ?
There exists a person Bob who is not obviously not the same person as Jim, who happens to look very similar to Bob. Bob simply needs to get Very Lucky.
It seems to me that you actually have at least a couple choices: you can choose to defer your entertainment for a while or you can choose to just not upgrade to HD-DVD.
The GP and GGP were talking about the pros/cons of the soft power switch, not so much about the power draw from standby.
Turning on six rooms full of computers may not be good for the grid, but to some people, it is definitely a benefit of having the soft power switch. Even the GGP mentions that it's useful for people who need to remote-power-on their computers.
If you choose to fire on the spot someone who makes such a claim but can actually deliver on quality, that's your call. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. After all, you are the PHB.
Now if you got that line from someone who couldn't deliver but chose to fire them anyway... well. You get what you pay for.
Regardless of it being fair, some people's skills are valued that little. It follows that some of those people will work in places that don't give raises and that allow these "fringe benefits."
It's not about justification. It happens because the system (and the people in the system--let's try to distribute the blame) perpetuates it.
implying that you're more likely to get molested by a "gay" guild than any other kind.
Given the widespread misinformation and badly-baked statistics about this sort of thing (i.e. molestation as a function of "deviant" lifestyles, etc.), that's exactly the kind of argument a jury would fall for. So yes, this could be a reason why Blizzard would be hesitant about endorsing LGBT guilds. People don't believe in facts; they believe what they're conditioned to believe.
It's a damned shame that you got modded down for expressing your opinion. Personally, I feel much the same about it as you do. I won't be using GTalk as my main IM program until (even assuming that) they start getting linked up with other servers (providers email federation@google.com, as per their FAQ) and their client gets more polished.
At the risk of sounding like an apologist: it is beta, and for something like IM, it does make sense to start simple. In this case, they started really simple. That doesn't mean that I'll use it now, of course, but I'm holding out hope for the future.
Or would you rather have them say, "I knew this was going to happen, and you would be affected this way, and I made the decision regardless. It was a tough decision, but it was the best damn decision I could've made. And basically you weren't here to show us a better decision and it's water under the bridge now. I know you won't care about what I have to say because you can't see past your own problems, so I won't bother explaining. Just get it out of your system and let us move on to more important things."
Yes, yes I would. I'd also like to know about that kind of stuff before it happens, but that's really just wishful thinking on my part.
I disagree. The good/bad/good guys did the reasonable expected thing, because in a real-world situation, a phisher wouldn't stop just because it's illegal to impersonate an officer.
The test did what it needed to do and showed what it needed to show. An AC above pointed at SMTP being the problem, but I feel that the problem's really even deeper than that: how many of the students actually checked the headers before they clicked that link?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. It's around the $20/credit level for community colleges in Riverside and Orange counties in California, too.
I see means and opportunity, but what of motive?
Regarding the Karen post/follow-up: myself (and at least a few others) felt that his initial response was unnecessarily condescending and rude. Yes, his follow-up helps to patch things up, but it's not a stretch for me to believe that people from "the other side" who read that email have already been pushed away from the "Linux side." If indeed he was trying to convert people to the "Linux side," he did his goal a disservice with that first post: IMHO, the damage had already been done.
To me, Occam's Razor suggests Clark's Law (although the tags suggest that others derived Hanlon's Razor instead).
I can't find that exact definition anywhere. Care to point out which reference book or site I may find it in? Just because you use a word one way, does not make it correct.
This is a conflict between descriptive and prescriptive definitions of words.
Just because you appeal to the dictionary for your definition doesn't mean the dictionary's definition is current with the word's actual usage.
Some games, like Nethack, don't. They work on the honor system.
I thought it was perfectly clear: the AC was passive-aggressively inciting other people to do his dirty work for him.
Vampires. They can eat vampires, right?
Actually, if one compares the merits of Linux versus Windows in terms of their gaming support, then in those terms Windows is indeed "better."
Windows may have a monopoly, but their monopoly is sustained at least in part by the gamers supporting their platform. Spread the blame equally, where it belongs.
I daresay you're sidestepping GP's points:
1) Linux does not run a critical set of games which he wants to play.
2) Linux apps lack the kind of application compatibility that he and his family are looking for.
Let's accept that a console is superior to a PC for gaming, and let's accept that Linux is preferable to Windows for general computing tasks. GP's two points are still unresolved: he wants to play that particular set of games (presumably not available on either a console or on Linux) and he wants compatibility for a specific set of applications (presumably Windows-only applications without equivalent Linux alternatives/ports).
I am growing to understand your viewpoint more and more.
I'll accept that in the general case, the act of changing status to married does indeed cause couples to undergo a fundamental shift in attitude and emotion, though my reasoning is probably different from yours. I'm of the opinion that society (religion, tradition, what-have-you) has trained both men and women to look at marriage as a secure bond: a social contract, if you will, that gives both partners an added level of comfort when dealing with each other, i.e. "we're married, so we now have such-and-such additional responsibilities to each other; let's work this out."
You are correct: my argument is indeed that an unmarried couple can have that same level of connection and commitment as any given unmarried couple. I do agree that, given the standard westernized upbringing, the act of marriage facilitates a shift in attitude toward one of having to work things out, versus having to call it quits. What I infer from your comments is that you believe the incidence of this attitude to be higher in married couples than in non-married couples. Assuming that this is your claim: having no numbers to back me up, I must simply say that I'm skeptical.
<soapbox>In my experience, a couple needs to both make a commitment toward having open communication about problems, then to actively (key word) work at keeping communication open. Marriage impresses upon a couple that they "must" work things out, but if they mutually have the inner steel to take that extra step without having to get married, they can certainly get by without the title and social validation. (I have a hunch that you agree with this, at least in principle.)</soapbox>
In short: I agree with your points in general, and I agree that (in the general case) marriage definitely helps bring about this change in attitude, but I am skeptical of the incidence of "successful relationships" (in our context) being higher in married than in non-married couples.
Thank you for your response. It is certainly appreciated.
That said, I still fail to see how any of these points are exclusive to married sexuality. What it appears to be to me is that you're describing a set of behaviors and purpose that one could find in any monogamous, dedicated, unmarried sexual relationship. I fail to see any distinction between these "marriage-specific" behaviors you are describing and behaviors between two unmarried people who have been having committed sexual relations for several years.
Again, thanks for the response. At least now I've got an idea of what behavior and thinking you consider to be exclusive to marriage.
[Extramarital sex] may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this. What are these "lots of reasons" of which you speak?
At least you're consistent to your personal moral compass.
Fewer choices are not necessarily better.
> And what the heck will you do with the cloned passport, since you're obviously not the same person on the photo ?
0 .html
There exists a person Bob who is not obviously not the same person as Jim, who happens to look very similar to Bob. Bob simply needs to get Very Lucky.
References:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650206136,0
Bertillon measurements regarding Will and William West at the Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, between 1903 and 1909.
People have the right to choose to quit.
I will not deny them that right.
Duly noted; I did indeed misunderstand.
For whatever reason, I somehow equated "HD-DVD" with "Sony" when I should have been binding "Blu-Ray" to "Sony" instead.
I suppose that in your case, you really do now have no choice in your upgrade path.
I'm curious as to why you need an HD-DVD player.
It seems to me that you actually have at least a couple choices: you can choose to defer your entertainment for a while or you can choose to just not upgrade to HD-DVD.
The GP and GGP were talking about the pros/cons of the soft power switch, not so much about the power draw from standby.
Turning on six rooms full of computers may not be good for the grid, but to some people, it is definitely a benefit of having the soft power switch. Even the GGP mentions that it's useful for people who need to remote-power-on their computers.
If you choose to fire on the spot someone who makes such a claim but can actually deliver on quality, that's your call. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. After all, you are the PHB.
Now if you got that line from someone who couldn't deliver but chose to fire them anyway... well. You get what you pay for.
Regardless of it being fair, some people's skills are valued that little. It follows that some of those people will work in places that don't give raises and that allow these "fringe benefits."
It's not about justification. It happens because the system (and the people in the system--let's try to distribute the blame) perpetuates it.
It's a damned shame that you got modded down for expressing your opinion. Personally, I feel much the same about it as you do. I won't be using GTalk as my main IM program until (even assuming that) they start getting linked up with other servers (providers email federation@google.com, as per their FAQ) and their client gets more polished.
At the risk of sounding like an apologist: it is beta, and for something like IM, it does make sense to start simple. In this case, they started really simple. That doesn't mean that I'll use it now, of course, but I'm holding out hope for the future.
I disagree. The good/bad/good guys did the reasonable expected thing, because in a real-world situation, a phisher wouldn't stop just because it's illegal to impersonate an officer.
The test did what it needed to do and showed what it needed to show. An AC above pointed at SMTP being the problem, but I feel that the problem's really even deeper than that: how many of the students actually checked the headers before they clicked that link?
I'm guessing few to none.