It's only Apple fans on Slashdot who go on endlessly about updates, and in fact Android users get most updates via apps rather than OS version number bumps.
Ha ha! What a pathetic excuse for the fact that Android users don't tend to get OS updates. You sir, are an apologist.
This is no different from anti-virus, because it WAS the Microsoft anti-virus tool that did it. A specific version of TOR in a specific hidden directory being part of the virus payload.
Talk of not owning your own computer is nonsense. You are free to not run AV software if you prefer. It would be a dumb move, but you are free to do it.
So called Anti-virus software is a kill switch. So everyone who knew their Windows PC was running Windows Security Essentials or any of the other Microsoft AV products knew.
Home cinema systems are nice. But they aren't a night out - less important now you're a family man than when you were dating. And they don't have the sense of scale of a real cinema. And they don't have the positive side of the group feeling of seeing a film in public. Comedies for example will always be funnier when seen in the company of a few hundred others than when seen with a family member or two.
Home Cinema has certainly cut cinema attendances. But they certainly haven't made cinemas obsolete.
How does one scientifically determine that a certain theory (let's call it a hypothesis) is the best explanation?
Scientists do the research, find evidence, reach conclusions. Publish it and it is reviewed by peers. Over a period of time, many such papers are weighed by the scientific community and a consensus emerges. Exactly as has happened with AGW.
For any collective bigger than a 30-member hippy commune, joining has never in human history been voluntary...
It's almost happening already. Look at all the zombies staring at their little phone screens, updating the hive mind, or Facebook, whatever you want to call it.
Seems contradictory. Facebook was voluntary last I heard.
Bleach, in large amounts, will kill you if ingested undilluted. Bleach, in minute amounts will kill things in water that would otherwise kill you. Should we outlaw bleach too?
No. For the same reason no one is calling for car bans. You don't seem to appreciate the difference between things that have the occasional side effect of killing people, and things who's entire purpose is to kill people.
IF he was carrying legally, of course not. We dont debate the merits of cars when a drunk driver kills a family by doing stupid things with a car.
That's because the purpose of a car is to transport people. Killing people is an unwanted side effect and cars have been increasingly engineered to minimise that.
Concealed carry hand guns however have the single purpose of killing people.
That's the reason why in these situations we discuss getting rid of the guns, but not the cars.
Talk about the REAL problem, (idiots) not the object.
Problems are multiple, not just singular. And it's just as ignorant of you to dismiss the gun's part in a shooting as it is for the NRA, who's argument you are parroting.
It's a lot harder to kill with a knife than a gun. Psychologically - because murder becomes harder the closer you are physically to the victim. And practically - because more people recover from stabbings than gun shot wounds.
Far from "new data", that's a Daily Mail article from 12 years ago.
Here's a chart of UK gun deaths. Despite a blip in 2002 (where the article comes from ) there is no sign of an ongoing rise in gun crime. Nor much of a sign of a fall either.
Theaters don't bother actually confronting unruly patrons any more;
They will if they see people with popcorn or drinks that weren't purchased in the cinema! I've seen it.
Of course, since there's so many annoying people in theaters, and they won't do anything to deter or remove those people, then it becomes pointless, in my mind, to bother going to a theater, since chances are high I'll just have to leave partway through.
Choose your cinema, and choose the time of the showing. Some houses are terrible for bad behaviour, some are fine.
It's perfectly possible, and indeed reasonable, to find both men at fault. The texter shouldn't have been texting, and the shooter shouldn't have shot him.
That doesn't mean both offences are equal, nor that the murderer is being defended.
Almost every jurisdiction with gun restrictions makes exceptions for active duty and retired cops.
American jurisdiction, perhaps. In the UK, armed officers can only carry in the hours they are on duty. They don't get to carry when they are off duty, let alone when they are retired.
"Republicans, at least some of them, are miffed that 10 of the 12 targeted offices are in GOP House districts. Another is in the home of a conservative independent who sides with Republicans."
10 out of 12 closed targeted offices in GOP districts. That isn't remotely the same thing as what you claimed:
"The democrat governor of MY state closed the DMVs in all the districts that voted in republican delegates."
a) 10 out of 12, in one state out of 50, is the kind of thing that will happen entirely by chance. b) The article explains that not all Republican politicians think it was a political action. c) It explains that Republican districts tend to be rural ones, which explains why the DMV closings were more likely there. d) It doesn't say whether or not there are other GOP districts that still have DMVs. e) The link shows that it WAS covered by the media.
The democrat governor of MY state closed the DMVs in all the districts that voted in republican delegates. Didn't make the news at all.
Unnamed governor, unnamed state. Perhaps the MSN was just as eager as you to protect the name of this Democrat politician. Or perhaps they simply don't report on the shit that comes out of your ass.
Alas, I guess pretty much any of the front runners for the office of President fits into this category. I mean, Hillary has her "hit" list, and I'm guessing the Clintons are still pissed at a number of people who they feel threw her under the bus to support Obama that first time around.
You "guess"? "Still pissed"? If you;'re going to try to shift some of the shit from your Republican friends over to the Democrat lines, you need some actual examples of things that have actually been done. Not your imagination of someone else's private emotions.
Science doesn't do that. That's mathematics, where you can prove things, and something is conclusively true or false.
Science at any moment in time provides the best explanations for how the universe and it's parts work. But it's always open to new theories and evidence which can add more to the best explanation.
Newton's laws of motion were pretty good. Then along comes relativity. Newton's laws are still pretty good, but relativity shows us they are an approximation, useful in most real world situations, but becoming inaccurate when speeds approach the speed of light.
Meteorology, has advanced hugely over the last few decades, as proved by the increasing ability to make accurate weather predictions. But it can never be a 100% understanding. In a chaotic system, it can't be.
AGW isn't amenable to fasifiable theories. That doesn't mean it's study isn't science.
And I find it bizarre how you allege "right wingers" supposedly have Popper as a "religion".
No, The idea that all of science consists of Popper's falsifiable hypotheses is the right wing religion. Popper himself made a great contribution to science. It's his misrepresentation that is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only Apple fans on Slashdot who go on endlessly about updates, and in fact Android users get most updates via apps rather than OS version number bumps.
Ha ha! What a pathetic excuse for the fact that Android users don't tend to get OS updates. You sir, are an apologist.
This is no different from anti-virus, because it WAS the Microsoft anti-virus tool that did it. A specific version of TOR in a specific hidden directory being part of the virus payload.
Talk of not owning your own computer is nonsense. You are free to not run AV software if you prefer. It would be a dumb move, but you are free to do it.
Well we do know if we bother to RTFA.
So called Anti-virus software is a kill switch. So everyone who knew their Windows PC was running Windows Security Essentials or any of the other Microsoft AV products knew.
Same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, a Chinese man went on a rampage with a knife, stabbing 20 people. Zero fatalities.
Sandy Hook had 28 fatalities.
The bullshit smell is coming from you.
Home cinema systems are nice. But they aren't a night out - less important now you're a family man than when you were dating. And they don't have the sense of scale of a real cinema. And they don't have the positive side of the group feeling of seeing a film in public. Comedies for example will always be funnier when seen in the company of a few hundred others than when seen with a family member or two.
Home Cinema has certainly cut cinema attendances. But they certainly haven't made cinemas obsolete.
How does one scientifically determine that a certain theory (let's call it a hypothesis) is the best explanation?
Scientists do the research, find evidence, reach conclusions. Publish it and it is reviewed by peers. Over a period of time, many such papers are weighed by the scientific community and a consensus emerges. Exactly as has happened with AGW.
The true future Google Glass, 5-20 years from now, will be indistinguishable from a pair of glasses.
But will anyone wear glasses 5-20 years from now? Laser surgery means they are becoming less common.
Few people wear glasses because they want to. So being like them is not that good a selling point for Google Glass.
For any collective bigger than a 30-member hippy commune, joining has never in human history been voluntary...
It's almost happening already. Look at all the zombies staring at their little phone screens, updating the hive mind, or Facebook, whatever you want to call it.
Seems contradictory. Facebook was voluntary last I heard.
At which point A drops the matter and calmly summons a theatre employee if it continues into the feature.
It had already proceeded beyond this point. The shooter had already been out to summon the manager - apparently to no effect.
Bleach, in large amounts, will kill you if ingested undilluted. Bleach, in minute amounts will kill things in water that would otherwise kill you.
Should we outlaw bleach too?
No. For the same reason no one is calling for car bans. You don't seem to appreciate the difference between things that have the occasional side effect of killing people, and things who's entire purpose is to kill people.
IF he was carrying legally, of course not. We dont debate the merits of cars when a drunk driver kills a family by doing stupid things with a car.
That's because the purpose of a car is to transport people. Killing people is an unwanted side effect and cars have been increasingly engineered to minimise that.
Concealed carry hand guns however have the single purpose of killing people.
That's the reason why in these situations we discuss getting rid of the guns, but not the cars.
Talk about the REAL problem, (idiots) not the object.
Problems are multiple, not just singular. And it's just as ignorant of you to dismiss the gun's part in a shooting as it is for the NRA, who's argument you are parroting.
It's a lot harder to kill with a knife than a gun.
Psychologically - because murder becomes harder the closer you are physically to the victim.
And practically - because more people recover from stabbings than gun shot wounds.
Far from "new data", that's a Daily Mail article from 12 years ago.
Here's a chart of UK gun deaths. Despite a blip in 2002 (where the article comes from ) there is no sign of an ongoing rise in gun crime. Nor much of a sign of a fall either.
http://therightscoop.com/more-statistics-that-prove-gun-homicides-havent-gone-down-in-britain/
Theaters don't bother actually confronting unruly patrons any more;
They will if they see people with popcorn or drinks that weren't purchased in the cinema! I've seen it.
Of course, since there's so many annoying people in theaters, and they won't do anything to deter or remove those people, then it becomes pointless, in my mind, to bother going to a theater, since chances are high I'll just have to leave partway through.
Choose your cinema, and choose the time of the showing. Some houses are terrible for bad behaviour, some are fine.
So it's OK to shoot someone for being rude?? Dude, see a shrink, you're out of your tiny little mind.
I think you're more in need of a some time speaking to someone rational.
None. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the texter was being excessively rude.
It's perfectly possible, and indeed reasonable, to find both men at fault. The texter shouldn't have been texting, and the shooter shouldn't have shot him.
That doesn't mean both offences are equal, nor that the murderer is being defended.
For some reason, gun control measures and proposals here in the US from the left never include cops or former cops. They always get a special pass.
Because politics is the art of the possible.
Almost every jurisdiction with gun restrictions makes exceptions for active duty and retired cops.
American jurisdiction, perhaps. In the UK, armed officers can only carry in the hours they are on duty. They don't get to carry when they are off duty, let alone when they are retired.
"Republicans, at least some of them, are miffed that 10 of the 12 targeted offices are in GOP House districts. Another is in the home of a conservative independent who sides with Republicans."
10 out of 12 closed targeted offices in GOP districts. That isn't remotely the same thing as what you claimed:
"The democrat governor of MY state closed the DMVs in all the districts that voted in republican delegates."
a) 10 out of 12, in one state out of 50, is the kind of thing that will happen entirely by chance.
b) The article explains that not all Republican politicians think it was a political action.
c) It explains that Republican districts tend to be rural ones, which explains why the DMV closings were more likely there.
d) It doesn't say whether or not there are other GOP districts that still have DMVs.
e) The link shows that it WAS covered by the media.
So, nothing like your allegation at all then.
The democrat governor of MY state closed the DMVs in all the districts that voted in republican delegates. Didn't make the news at all.
Unnamed governor, unnamed state. Perhaps the MSN was just as eager as you to protect the name of this Democrat politician. Or perhaps they simply don't report on the shit that comes out of your ass.
Alas, I guess pretty much any of the front runners for the office of President fits into this category. I mean, Hillary has her "hit" list, and I'm guessing the Clintons are still pissed at a number of people who they feel threw her under the bus to support Obama that first time around.
You "guess"? "Still pissed"? If you;'re going to try to shift some of the shit from your Republican friends over to the Democrat lines, you need some actual examples of things that have actually been done. Not your imagination of someone else's private emotions.
Science doesn't do that. That's mathematics, where you can prove things, and something is conclusively true or false.
Science at any moment in time provides the best explanations for how the universe and it's parts work. But it's always open to new theories and evidence which can add more to the best explanation.
Newton's laws of motion were pretty good. Then along comes relativity. Newton's laws are still pretty good, but relativity shows us they are an approximation, useful in most real world situations, but becoming inaccurate when speeds approach the speed of light.
Meteorology, has advanced hugely over the last few decades, as proved by the increasing ability to make accurate weather predictions. But it can never be a 100% understanding. In a chaotic system, it can't be.
AGW isn't amenable to fasifiable theories. That doesn't mean it's study isn't science.
And I find it bizarre how you allege "right wingers" supposedly have Popper as a "religion".
No, The idea that all of science consists of Popper's falsifiable hypotheses is the right wing religion. Popper himself made a great contribution to science. It's his misrepresentation that is the problem.