Seriously, if you can muster a greenhouse that simple and effective, it could also be used to grow chickens, which would travel very, very well in embryonic form. Once that greenhouse has been in business for a few months, start hatching chickens and watch the perpetual protein (and fertilizer) machine rev up.
I get flamed for being a conservative because I tend to advise people to be nearly 19th century in their professional presentation. Fact is, I personally wouldn't care if someone showed up to work tattooed and pierced head to toe wearing fishnets and tit-clamps. Company cultures are designed to minimize discomfort of the individuals, who obviously have their own cultures, and so what if they're a bunch of intolerant Christians? You're working with them and the office is not the place to take out your cultural differences. I mean, would you consider it merely being edgy and cool to run naked covered in bologna through the streets of Mecca or would that just be immodest, horribly distasteful and astonishingly stupid?
I mean, if you want to show up covered in tattoos and piercings, I want to show up without pants. Maybe we could compromise by both wearing dockers while at work and after work you can retreat to your goth club and I to my nude beach.
Surely, you mean LESS than. I mean, oh pish, it's MERELY fascism, hon. Nothing to get riled up about...;P
That said... well...
Anyone who really believes that this is just about distribution models, erm, I do hope you don't mind product-placement deals that make those of Austin Powers movies look subtle.
...yes, but when your primary export is your currency, perhaps it's not a bad idea to convince your government and your country's companies that actually _producing_ something is maybe, just maybe, not the worst idea ever.
What they _did_ have was an economy that was nowhere near as full of conglomerates. What I remember growing up in the 70's and 80's was that my parents and nearly all of the parents of those around me, rich and poor alike, were small business owners--and they fed off each other. The demise of my own family business was directly caused by the rapid conglomeration of the healthcare industry. Within five years, a market that was primarily local in scope was well over 80% acquired by national management companies, effectively shutting out all but the largest players from becoming service providers.
It seems to me that a large part of the "security" the "boomers" had was this broader small business economy and that one could just hang out the proverbial shingle. Local laws have been rewritten to make that even harder. I went to put my ducks in a row to do some petty consulting and was shocked that my city explictly forbade, for instance, accountants from operating out of their homes. I'd love to do a broader analysis of the changing laws in that respect to find out when that sort of nonsense began and how widespread it is, because without allowing people to reasonably start businesses in their homes, the bar is raised to high for people to enter the market, conglomerate domination or not. I mean, sure, you can still "fudge" on things like this, but it is pretty telling when it has been made ILLEGAL to perform someone else's bookkeeping on your kitchen table, as if having an executive suite is somehow required for something that requires little more than paper and a pen.
Sounds like some people are a little too bitter about losing those perqs that the mere mention of them or the reasons for their existence and subsequent removal sends them into a flagging tizzy.
It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.
It takes a village. That is, a group of people who live in close proximity, have known each other for years, and implicitly trust each other because their lives are so interconnected.
It does NOT take a group of people, separated by thousands of miles who have never met each other and are connected only by strands of fiber optic cable.
So, while you can jump all over my case for saying "where are the fucking parents" because of course parenting is complex and I'm young (I'm not) and don't understand (I do), you're totally missing the point. The choice of "babysitter" in this case was a poor one and that choice is the parent's fault, no matter how much marketing blather there was to the contrary. The point here is that the behavior that came out could have happened anywhere else. Do you sue 7-Eleven because the same kid picked her up at the Slurpee machine? The movie theater? The Mall? The county because the beach lifeguard tried to get into her pants? Are you willfully allowing your 15yo daughter go to those places alone or with nothing but strangers you don't know? I mean, they have security guards at all those places, so like, my job as a parent is done and stuff. Honestly, who's acting young and stupid there?
She's at risk, arguably higher, of meeting the same sorts of creeps at the mall.
Keep track of what your kids do outside of the house as well as in it. Know their friends, know the parents of their friends. If you don't know the parents of their friends, it's time to start asking questions. If you don't know either, protective services probably SHOULD be involved...
In any case, you might as well blame the telephone company for providing your house with a dialtone. Goodness knows what damage a 15yo can cause with that...
When your 15yo kid wants to go out alone on her birthday and says she'll be back the next day, you check up with the parents, who you of course KNOW, and then say you'll DROP HER OFF AT THAT EXACT ADDRESS, because she's not old enough to drive herself anyway, or when her 23yo boyfriend comes to pick her up, you grab her by the elbow and drag her back to her room, which she will not be leaving for the next week except for meals and bathroom, haul the 23yo kid into the house and call the damned cops.
Pardon my bluntness, but, WHERE ARE THE FSCKING PARENTS?
Frankly, I would love to see the day where a parent who sues ANYONE because some stranger a thousand miles away they've never met fails to protect their child from [WHATEVER] finds their butt drawn up on charges of child endangerment. It's YOUR FSCKING KID. YOU protect it, damn it!
Many, many other democratic systems have established that the social contract is limited to "do x, be punished with y" not "do x, lose your rights."
The problem with this notion that those who commit crimes are sub-citizens who cannot participate in the functioning of democracy is that abusive governments, which can and have developed out of democracies, can make criminals out of "difficult" people. Once enough of them have been stripped of their right to vote, there's little chance of political opposition.
In the case of the United States, you're talking MILLIONS of people. How close were the last two elections again?
Honestly, the bandwagon to round up the criminals (usually with a rapid expanse of the qualifications for the title) and remove them from society has been done many times before and it is usually indicative of something very, very frightful coming.
My point was that ICANN is where coordinated decisions are made about what goes into the root servers--and that's a fact. OBVIOUSLY they don't physically run all the root servers--that wasn't my point anyway, but thanks for the pedantic flame.
The point was if you want to "fix" (read:fsck-up) the currently agreed to use of those servers, you're going to have to go through ICANN. At the end of the day, you get rid of ICANN and you'll end up having to create another ICANN to fill the space.
However, if you want to set up a whole new set of servers and get people to use them, there ain't nothin' stopping you except for the proven fact that no one wants that. You need root servers in this system, but the current ones are, from a structural point of view ignoring history, arbitrary.
Besides, if you make a great distinction between ISI, IANA and ICANN (you know, half the acronyms at root-servers.org), well, back at 'ya, buddy. If you don't know why, well, I suggest you go walk over and visit each of them.
Actually, it is quite simple for them to fight. Unless they keep a record of the company attempting to launch the new tld, barring getting everyone to manually modify their DNSs, the TLD won't be visible or will only be visible to a small number of people.
I can't be bothered to dig up the story, but awhile back there was a company selling a "driver" for a new TLD that basically redirected your primary DNS lookup to their servers and, voila, *.whatever worked. People bought domains under it only to realize that the rest of the world couldn't get to their sites. It lasted about twenty seconds.
What gets me about these perennial arguments is that there is NOTHING stopping someone from setting up an alternate root server system. Honestly. Say you could pitch AOL and, say, Verizon that *.SomeTLD was the hottest property. They'd have to add ONE FSCKING LINE to their root server hints. Okay, you'd probably want to be as redundant as the current root server system, so it would take 13 lines. THAT'S IT! You'd have something insane like 75% of the US market connected from making two phone calls.
No, really, it IS that simple. The fact that no one has convinced any of the major providers to do just that is evidence that ICANN, like it or not, is something people want--and by "people" I mean people who have the ability to replace ICANN overnight, but choose not to.
...then again, it's sort of amusing that the statement came from the official cybercrime prosecution unit.
Funny thing, language. "Prosecuting crime" can mean both committing it and punishing it. Perhaps "Department K" is in the business of the former, rather than the latter.
Erm, considering she's a fsking squid, yes, I do think he was being cute and naming her "my squid." Writers do this crap all the time, but usually they're intelligent enough to not make themselves look like illiterate morons in the process.
Obviously, the root of the word is shared, because they're in the same language family. The fsck up is that it is categorically wrong in ANY romance language to use a singular possessive with a plural noun or vice versa. For anyone with a first-year highschool knowledge of any of the languages in question, this is not a "grammar nazi" issue, it's an error so obvious that it boggles the mind how it made it to production artwork.
Not a grammar/spelling nazi, more of an intelligence nazi and "Mon Calamari" is as insipid as it is incorrect. Such an obvious blunder would be one thing in a discussion thread, but when it makes it into production art, someone has deliberately enforced their idiocy, at which point it is our patriotic duty to publicly humiliate them....oh, and it's "grammar," not "grammer."
Slashdot Mirror
You know, when you repeatedly use a derogatory term, at least spell it correctly. I mean, you might as well say "moran."
Geezuz, you clueless plebeian.
Seriously, if you can muster a greenhouse that simple and effective, it could also be used to grow chickens, which would travel very, very well in embryonic form. Once that greenhouse has been in business for a few months, start hatching chickens and watch the perpetual protein (and fertilizer) machine rev up.
I get flamed for being a conservative because I tend to advise people to be nearly 19th century in their professional presentation. Fact is, I personally wouldn't care if someone showed up to work tattooed and pierced head to toe wearing fishnets and tit-clamps. Company cultures are designed to minimize discomfort of the individuals, who obviously have their own cultures, and so what if they're a bunch of intolerant Christians? You're working with them and the office is not the place to take out your cultural differences. I mean, would you consider it merely being edgy and cool to run naked covered in bologna through the streets of Mecca or would that just be immodest, horribly distasteful and astonishingly stupid?
I mean, if you want to show up covered in tattoos and piercings, I want to show up without pants. Maybe we could compromise by both wearing dockers while at work and after work you can retreat to your goth club and I to my nude beach.
Surely, you mean LESS than. I mean, oh pish, it's MERELY fascism, hon. Nothing to get riled up about... ;P
That said... well...
Anyone who really believes that this is just about distribution models, erm, I do hope you don't mind product-placement deals that make those of Austin Powers movies look subtle.
...yes, but when your primary export is your currency, perhaps it's not a bad idea to convince your government and your country's companies that actually _producing_ something is maybe, just maybe, not the worst idea ever.
What they _did_ have was an economy that was nowhere near as full of conglomerates. What I remember growing up in the 70's and 80's was that my parents and nearly all of the parents of those around me, rich and poor alike, were small business owners--and they fed off each other. The demise of my own family business was directly caused by the rapid conglomeration of the healthcare industry. Within five years, a market that was primarily local in scope was well over 80% acquired by national management companies, effectively shutting out all but the largest players from becoming service providers.
It seems to me that a large part of the "security" the "boomers" had was this broader small business economy and that one could just hang out the proverbial shingle. Local laws have been rewritten to make that even harder. I went to put my ducks in a row to do some petty consulting and was shocked that my city explictly forbade, for instance, accountants from operating out of their homes. I'd love to do a broader analysis of the changing laws in that respect to find out when that sort of nonsense began and how widespread it is, because without allowing people to reasonably start businesses in their homes, the bar is raised to high for people to enter the market, conglomerate domination or not. I mean, sure, you can still "fudge" on things like this, but it is pretty telling when it has been made ILLEGAL to perform someone else's bookkeeping on your kitchen table, as if having an executive suite is somehow required for something that requires little more than paper and a pen.
Sounds like some people are a little too bitter about losing those perqs that the mere mention of them or the reasons for their existence and subsequent removal sends them into a flagging tizzy.
Sheesh... Get a grip, people.
Wait for the next book in the series: "Quick-and-Dirty Neurosurgery for the Doctor on the Go."
Geezuz.
It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.
It takes a village. That is, a group of people who live in close proximity, have known each other for years, and implicitly trust each other because their lives are so interconnected.
It does NOT take a group of people, separated by thousands of miles who have never met each other and are connected only by strands of fiber optic cable.
So, while you can jump all over my case for saying "where are the fucking parents" because of course parenting is complex and I'm young (I'm not) and don't understand (I do), you're totally missing the point. The choice of "babysitter" in this case was a poor one and that choice is the parent's fault, no matter how much marketing blather there was to the contrary. The point here is that the behavior that came out could have happened anywhere else. Do you sue 7-Eleven because the same kid picked her up at the Slurpee machine? The movie theater? The Mall? The county because the beach lifeguard tried to get into her pants? Are you willfully allowing your 15yo daughter go to those places alone or with nothing but strangers you don't know? I mean, they have security guards at all those places, so like, my job as a parent is done and stuff. Honestly, who's acting young and stupid there?
She's at risk, arguably higher, of meeting the same sorts of creeps at the mall.
Keep track of what your kids do outside of the house as well as in it. Know their friends, know the parents of their friends. If you don't know the parents of their friends, it's time to start asking questions. If you don't know either, protective services probably SHOULD be involved...
In any case, you might as well blame the telephone company for providing your house with a dialtone. Goodness knows what damage a 15yo can cause with that...
When your 15yo kid wants to go out alone on her birthday and says she'll be back the next day, you check up with the parents, who you of course KNOW, and then say you'll DROP HER OFF AT THAT EXACT ADDRESS, because she's not old enough to drive herself anyway, or when her 23yo boyfriend comes to pick her up, you grab her by the elbow and drag her back to her room, which she will not be leaving for the next week except for meals and bathroom, haul the 23yo kid into the house and call the damned cops.
Geezuz.
Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?
The difference is, I don't expect other people to do act as the parent for MY children, perfect or otherwise.
Pardon my bluntness, but, WHERE ARE THE FSCKING PARENTS?
Frankly, I would love to see the day where a parent who sues ANYONE because some stranger a thousand miles away they've never met fails to protect their child from [WHATEVER] finds their butt drawn up on charges of child endangerment. It's YOUR FSCKING KID. YOU protect it, damn it!
Operative: in other states.
Many, many other democratic systems have established that the social contract is limited to "do x, be punished with y" not "do x, lose your rights."
The problem with this notion that those who commit crimes are sub-citizens who cannot participate in the functioning of democracy is that abusive governments, which can and have developed out of democracies, can make criminals out of "difficult" people. Once enough of them have been stripped of their right to vote, there's little chance of political opposition.
In the case of the United States, you're talking MILLIONS of people. How close were the last two elections again?
Honestly, the bandwagon to round up the criminals (usually with a rapid expanse of the qualifications for the title) and remove them from society has been done many times before and it is usually indicative of something very, very frightful coming.
My point was that ICANN is where coordinated decisions are made about what goes into the root servers--and that's a fact. OBVIOUSLY they don't physically run all the root servers--that wasn't my point anyway, but thanks for the pedantic flame.
The point was if you want to "fix" (read:fsck-up) the currently agreed to use of those servers, you're going to have to go through ICANN. At the end of the day, you get rid of ICANN and you'll end up having to create another ICANN to fill the space.
However, if you want to set up a whole new set of servers and get people to use them, there ain't nothin' stopping you except for the proven fact that no one wants that. You need root servers in this system, but the current ones are, from a structural point of view ignoring history, arbitrary.
Besides, if you make a great distinction between ISI, IANA and ICANN (you know, half the acronyms at root-servers.org), well, back at 'ya, buddy. If you don't know why, well, I suggest you go walk over and visit each of them.
Actually, it is quite simple for them to fight. Unless they keep a record of the company attempting to launch the new tld, barring getting everyone to manually modify their DNSs, the TLD won't be visible or will only be visible to a small number of people.
I can't be bothered to dig up the story, but awhile back there was a company selling a "driver" for a new TLD that basically redirected your primary DNS lookup to their servers and, voila, *.whatever worked. People bought domains under it only to realize that the rest of the world couldn't get to their sites. It lasted about twenty seconds.
What gets me about these perennial arguments is that there is NOTHING stopping someone from setting up an alternate root server system. Honestly. Say you could pitch AOL and, say, Verizon that *.SomeTLD was the hottest property. They'd have to add ONE FSCKING LINE to their root server hints. Okay, you'd probably want to be as redundant as the current root server system, so it would take 13 lines. THAT'S IT! You'd have something insane like 75% of the US market connected from making two phone calls.
No, really, it IS that simple. The fact that no one has convinced any of the major providers to do just that is evidence that ICANN, like it or not, is something people want--and by "people" I mean people who have the ability to replace ICANN overnight, but choose not to.
In short, get over it, folks...
Yes, I'm such a nerd that I didn't have television for years and bought one _purely_ because of the new series.
I watched three episodes, then gave the t.v. away.
What makes me more upset than anything is realizing this is probably the death of the whole franchise. Stargate and BSG will take its place.
Blah.
...then again, it's sort of amusing that the statement came from the official cybercrime prosecution unit.
Funny thing, language. "Prosecuting crime" can mean both committing it and punishing it. Perhaps "Department K" is in the business of the former, rather than the latter.
...because they're cheaper.
...they lost the ACM contest to the Chinese.
I guess by "best" they mean "second best."
Erm, considering she's a fsking squid, yes, I do think he was being cute and naming her "my squid." Writers do this crap all the time, but usually they're intelligent enough to not make themselves look like illiterate morons in the process.
Obviously, the root of the word is shared, because they're in the same language family. The fsck up is that it is categorically wrong in ANY romance language to use a singular possessive with a plural noun or vice versa. For anyone with a first-year highschool knowledge of any of the languages in question, this is not a "grammar nazi" issue, it's an error so obvious that it boggles the mind how it made it to production artwork.
French:
MON calmar
MES calmars
Italian:
I MIEI calamari
IL MIO calamaro
Spanish:
MI calamar
MIS calamares
Not a grammar/spelling nazi, more of an intelligence nazi and "Mon Calamari" is as insipid as it is incorrect. Such an obvious blunder would be one thing in a discussion thread, but when it makes it into production art, someone has deliberately enforced their idiocy, at which point it is our patriotic duty to publicly humiliate them.
*cough*
...but, you cannot say "mon calamar[i|s]" or "mon calmars." On the artwork, it was "Mon Calamari," which any way you slice it is patently wrong.