The basis for marriage which is shared amongst all those (at least Americans) who are married are the legal rules which require persons to be married in order for them to become available. The rest are all personal choices which do not apply to all people and thus they are irrelevant to the discussion.
We're now in a situation with 1 child and a SAHM so the tax benefit next year better be fucking huge or I'm coming back to this thread to berate you;-)
Ummm, yeah, that's what marriage IS. Everybody's not cut out for it. If you want to play the field, don't get married.
No, that's what marriage is to an individual with a religious background. For the rest of us it's a legal agreement between two people which supposedly brings some sort of perceived tax benefit which I have never seen (we pay out far more now that we're married), rights to share insurance, and rights of property and debt exchange after death.
Stop trying to confuse what marriage really is with what you want it to be.
No that's not the easy solution. That's a god damn pain in the ass. The easy solution would be for GMail to realize that most people have multiple GMail accounts and make it easy to switch between them w/o having to login/logout to do so.
Google updated Google Docs recently and I found that the new version didn't support some of the Gadgets that the old version did. I became quite concerned that the old and hackalicious python scripts I was using to upload CSV files that power my website's crime dashboards--something which would suck to have to recode.
I'm going to have to check this out and see if it works much in the same way like allowing me to just replace a Google Docs spreadsheet that already exists something which I require to keep my old code working.
Nice to see that they are continuing to make their commandline tools easier to use as I have to admit I was having some problems getting the ones I currently use to work but now that they are I certainly don't want to loose that functionality (I am good at using those scripts, just not coding new ones so any of the troll comments which say I should do it myself are not necessary, thanks:))
I don't know the other guy, and most other people wouldn't either, but there are some people who do know Ben Folds. Sorry I didn't know the root origin of where it came from, I only knew of the video watched by 4.4 million other people.
Ok. So why don't you set up your own version and cover the hosting fees? Oh wait....
Oh wait...yeah, I don't see any value in it so I'm not going to do it. But for the things I do find value in, namely covering local political news and data, I do pay the self-hosting fees associated with it.
But you don't care about that because it doesn't fit with your troll. At least if you're going to make a dig on someone using a long running Slashdot meme, you might as well do it with a clue.
Chatroulette has long featured the rawest side of humanity -- copulating couples, men taking their pants off, and so on. But it also allows for a potentially rewarding (and potentially lucrative) random human connection, and that's what interests investors.
While for me Chatroulette was nothing more than a one-time novelty and an interesting experiment by Ben Folds, I understand it may have a larger value to others. Unfortunately this sounds like Chatroulette is suddenly going to suck the same dicks they are eliminating because someone wants to make a buck.
Let it continue on in the way it has or let it die. Let's stop bastardizing stuff because a bunch of investors don't like others seeing the raging members sticking out from their foreheads.
Well isn't that unfortunate that you don't take the time to participate in the political arena which has the most direct effect on you. No, national politics have very little to do with what happens to you and your family yet that's all the few Americans who do vote seem to care about.
Get involved in your local area and carefully pay attention to where your tax dollars are spent. While your vote and your opinion means little on the national and state stages unless you are a paid lobbyist, you will have your voice heard by your council when you stand up at their meeting and let them, and everyone else paying attention via the Internet and cable streams as well as in person, know what you do and do not like.
It's only bewildering if you don't understand how public administrators work. Being that I deal with these people, on a much lower level than the Fed as I am extremely interested in hyperlocal politics and news, on a daily basis I have to say that, "shedding sunshine on the sort of things that 'sunshine laws' may make legally accessible, but that often are not practically accessible," puts it perfectly.
I regularly have to make repeated requests for information that should be publicly accessible. Unfortunately for the general public the politicos do not want this information to be made available, even if it has to be, so they put up every last roadblock they can invent to keep people like me from releasing it to the public.
Let's take for example local transit boarding data for 2007 to 2009. I wanted the number of people who ride the buses in our local transit co-op broken down at the lowest level. A simple task one would assume right? It was clear, based on their reporting, that they had the data at some sort of granular level as they can easily roll it up to yymon, quarter, etc. I also watched as bus drivers hand recorded the number of boardings and wrote them on sheets, by departure time, every single day for more than 2.5 years.
Well when I requested this information here was the exchange which occurred over 7 months:
1. We don't have that data.
2. We don't have that data in an easily accessible format (which would be in violation of Minnesota Statute).
3. We have the data but it would take a very long time to procure. Hundreds of man hours (again in violation of Statute). It will cost at least $250. Pay first, we'll provide it later.
4. We have the data and it will take considerably less time than we first thought. $50 for the data. Pay first.
5. Here's the data you paid $50 to receive. If you want more explanation you need to pay more (in violation of Statute).
---
Now, I turned around and did exactly what they didn't want. I released it to the public and thus to the other state agencies who were originally told this data didn't exist in the way they wanted it. You can see the archive here (don't download the 7MB CSV unless you are really interested in the raw data as I host my site myself and I don't need my cable modem smoking all day long).
So why did they go through so much trouble, wasted man hours of their staff (including their counsel) just to keep this data out of my hands? Because they want to be the ones in control, even though they are mandated by law to provide it to the public, and they certainly want to make compliance with sunshine laws as difficult as possible to keep people from doing this time and time again.
So, unless you deal with that particular instance day in and day out for years, like I do on any variety of topics from any variety of local government entities, then you wouldn't have the faintest idea what that blurb meant. But to me it made perfect sense. I just hope that bringing this data to light and placing it out there for the public to interpret themselves isn't limited to skewed infographics and a couple of PDFs on Deep Water Horizon documents.
If they're going to sell ads, why not sell ads that look like ads?... Put an ad in the corner. I promise not to run away.
Because of Ad Block, GreaseMonkey, and the great work the brain does in training itself not to look at ads when they become prevalent on the page. So by sneaking them into shit like trending topics or making random tweets actually ads, it's harder to train your mind or software to ignore them.
Personally I don't use twitter.com for anything and I have clicked a trending topic once or twice ever. Since they are never relevant to me they just don't matter. This will obviously not change that.
Yes, the Clinton administration did bring a push for an overhaul to inefficient government. The entire program was to be led by his Vice President and it was. And they accomplished setting the program into motion but as with any government program things take time and the whole idea fit well with the Republican base which is why much of it was continued, although not all and not under the same name--which is why some people are confused.
In the end this is just another level in the on-going and fruitless battle that the political branch has with the administrative and one which will never be solved.
Oh please. They were quoting a PC World article. PC World is not geared towards geeks because, well, geeks don't really read magazines anymore as they get their geek news from any variety of other sources which offer more credibility, better geek readability, and more in-depth research than talking about Google's 10101010101010100110 million gazillion quadrillion byte database.
Oh and honestly being that the indexed material I would see returned was already quite fresh and relevant, I just don't see how this will benefit anyone over what has been available for at least a year and a half.
One Google employee who asked not to be named mentioned another report on journalism's future and pointed out a section called "Focus on the User." "They just mean, 'Get money out of the user,'" he said. "Nowhere do they talk about how to create something people actually want to read and engage with and use." On the topic of engaging modern users, Google feels very confident right now, and the news business feels very nervous. Apart from anything else, that certainty gap makes Google important to the future of the news.
So far I am completely unimpressed with Google's attempts at engaging the modern user. I use a lot of Google's products but none of them are really "engaging". Yeah, they're trying different engagement tactics such as copycatting the "like" feature and adding social commenting to Google Reader. They've tried and failed to engage people with Wave and Buzz. They have some input on Google News from "pros". Otherwise, it's just your typical aggregator. Not impressed.
Now, the whole getting money out of the user thing is all the newspaper industry cares about. While some are coming around to the fact that community is what is most important, right now at least, to their bottom line they are so far behind the curve that they may never catch up. Blogs are great not only for the content they aggregate or create themselves and deliver for free, but the commenting that's permitted, encouraged and which flourishes far better than on any newspaper site.
Once Google stops concerning itself with pandering to the pay-for desires of the other industries, perhaps the lessons and wars waged and won on the blogs will make themselves known to others. Until then the newspaper industry, even with Google backing them in some sort of lame attempt at winning a war they lost 10 years ago, will continue its slow death.
Go ahead, "copyright" your investigated information.
Oh fuck them and their investigated information. Asshole journalists steal the research done by bloggers, like myself, all the fucking time. While bloggers happily link to the information they are using for their work, journalists never do and cite how it's just not done in their industry.
While I am happy to research, request, and even sometimes pay to make data public which may not have been before, I do expect that the journos will cite that work I did when they use my materials when they write their stories--just like I do for them. Using other people's work without citation is called plagiarism anywhere else in the world and I really and honestly believe that the entire journalism field needs to go back to college and learn how to do their jobs again. Perhaps at that point the industry will turn around for them.
I am not much of a TV watcher but a coworker loaned me the DVDs to watch on the bus during my commute in the Fall of 2008 and I kept up with the show ever since. For the first two seasons I was riveted. The cliffhangers, the mystery, etc, etc, etc. With the first half of Season 3 the show started to fall apart. They came back with a clear vision in the second half, supposedly, but I never saw it materialize.
Yesterday I sat down with my wife (who only started watching it in Season 5) and we watched as nothing in the final episode answered any questions. No, the fucking light at the center of the island didn't tell us shit and that stupid fucking ending with some sort of allusion to the afterlife was absolutely stupid. People had been suspecting that all along and knowing that many people did you would have thought the writers, being paid as much as they were, would have come up with something more shocking than that--but they didn't.
I am glad that I only wasted two years of my life watching that show rather than the 6 many others did. It started with a plane wreck and it ended with one. We were all duped. The least they could have done was provide everyone watching with some of that Dharma beer in rusty cans to help ease the pain.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing my point completely.
The basis for marriage which is shared amongst all those (at least Americans) who are married are the legal rules which require persons to be married in order for them to become available. The rest are all personal choices which do not apply to all people and thus they are irrelevant to the discussion.
We're now in a situation with 1 child and a SAHM so the tax benefit next year better be fucking huge or I'm coming back to this thread to berate you ;-)
Ummm, yeah, that's what marriage IS. Everybody's not cut out for it. If you want to play the field, don't get married.
No, that's what marriage is to an individual with a religious background. For the rest of us it's a legal agreement between two people which supposedly brings some sort of perceived tax benefit which I have never seen (we pay out far more now that we're married), rights to share insurance, and rights of property and debt exchange after death.
Stop trying to confuse what marriage really is with what you want it to be.
No that's not the easy solution. That's a god damn pain in the ass. The easy solution would be for GMail to realize that most people have multiple GMail accounts and make it easy to switch between them w/o having to login/logout to do so.
My wife would make the goatse guy look like a virgin if I ever did what the blurb suggested.
Wake me up when they add easy account switching to GMail. Then I'll be impressed with the "updates" to the system.
It's worth it to me. That's how I afford to post the content to the website which "you" consume information from.
Err I was concerned they wouldn't work when Google switched to the full on new version. I need a beer.
Google updated Google Docs recently and I found that the new version didn't support some of the Gadgets that the old version did. I became quite concerned that the old and hackalicious python scripts I was using to upload CSV files that power my website's crime dashboards--something which would suck to have to recode.
I'm going to have to check this out and see if it works much in the same way like allowing me to just replace a Google Docs spreadsheet that already exists something which I require to keep my old code working.
Nice to see that they are continuing to make their commandline tools easier to use as I have to admit I was having some problems getting the ones I currently use to work but now that they are I certainly don't want to loose that functionality (I am good at using those scripts, just not coding new ones so any of the troll comments which say I should do it myself are not necessary, thanks :))
There's a reason I said Ben Folds, because it *was* done by Ben Folds apparently as a tribute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfamTmY5REw
I don't know the other guy, and most other people wouldn't either, but there are some people who do know Ben Folds. Sorry I didn't know the root origin of where it came from, I only knew of the video watched by 4.4 million other people.
Ok. So why don't you set up your own version and cover the hosting fees? Oh wait....
Oh wait...yeah, I don't see any value in it so I'm not going to do it. But for the things I do find value in, namely covering local political news and data, I do pay the self-hosting fees associated with it.
But you don't care about that because it doesn't fit with your troll. At least if you're going to make a dig on someone using a long running Slashdot meme, you might as well do it with a clue.
Chatroulette has long featured the rawest side of humanity -- copulating couples, men taking their pants off, and so on. But it also allows for a potentially rewarding (and potentially lucrative) random human connection, and that's what interests investors.
While for me Chatroulette was nothing more than a one-time novelty and an interesting experiment by Ben Folds, I understand it may have a larger value to others. Unfortunately this sounds like Chatroulette is suddenly going to suck the same dicks they are eliminating because someone wants to make a buck.
Let it continue on in the way it has or let it die. Let's stop bastardizing stuff because a bunch of investors don't like others seeing the raging members sticking out from their foreheads.
Well isn't that unfortunate that you don't take the time to participate in the political arena which has the most direct effect on you. No, national politics have very little to do with what happens to you and your family yet that's all the few Americans who do vote seem to care about.
Get involved in your local area and carefully pay attention to where your tax dollars are spent. While your vote and your opinion means little on the national and state stages unless you are a paid lobbyist, you will have your voice heard by your council when you stand up at their meeting and let them, and everyone else paying attention via the Internet and cable streams as well as in person, know what you do and do not like.
What a bewildering summary.
It's only bewildering if you don't understand how public administrators work. Being that I deal with these people, on a much lower level than the Fed as I am extremely interested in hyperlocal politics and news, on a daily basis I have to say that, "shedding sunshine on the sort of things that 'sunshine laws' may make legally accessible, but that often are not practically accessible," puts it perfectly.
I regularly have to make repeated requests for information that should be publicly accessible. Unfortunately for the general public the politicos do not want this information to be made available, even if it has to be, so they put up every last roadblock they can invent to keep people like me from releasing it to the public.
Let's take for example local transit boarding data for 2007 to 2009. I wanted the number of people who ride the buses in our local transit co-op broken down at the lowest level. A simple task one would assume right? It was clear, based on their reporting, that they had the data at some sort of granular level as they can easily roll it up to yymon, quarter, etc. I also watched as bus drivers hand recorded the number of boardings and wrote them on sheets, by departure time, every single day for more than 2.5 years.
Well when I requested this information here was the exchange which occurred over 7 months:
1. We don't have that data.
2. We don't have that data in an easily accessible format (which would be in violation of Minnesota Statute).
3. We have the data but it would take a very long time to procure. Hundreds of man hours (again in violation of Statute). It will cost at least $250. Pay first, we'll provide it later.
4. We have the data and it will take considerably less time than we first thought. $50 for the data. Pay first.
5. Here's the data you paid $50 to receive. If you want more explanation you need to pay more (in violation of Statute).
---
Now, I turned around and did exactly what they didn't want. I released it to the public and thus to the other state agencies who were originally told this data didn't exist in the way they wanted it. You can see the archive here (don't download the 7MB CSV unless you are really interested in the raw data as I host my site myself and I don't need my cable modem smoking all day long).
So why did they go through so much trouble, wasted man hours of their staff (including their counsel) just to keep this data out of my hands? Because they want to be the ones in control, even though they are mandated by law to provide it to the public, and they certainly want to make compliance with sunshine laws as difficult as possible to keep people from doing this time and time again.
So, unless you deal with that particular instance day in and day out for years, like I do on any variety of topics from any variety of local government entities, then you wouldn't have the faintest idea what that blurb meant. But to me it made perfect sense. I just hope that bringing this data to light and placing it out there for the public to interpret themselves isn't limited to skewed infographics and a couple of PDFs on Deep Water Horizon documents.
Oh, here I thought I just had to fire up http://thehun.com/ and show them one of those facials. Thanks for setting me straight!
If they're going to sell ads, why not sell ads that look like ads? ... Put an ad in the corner. I promise not to run away.
Because of Ad Block, GreaseMonkey, and the great work the brain does in training itself not to look at ads when they become prevalent on the page. So by sneaking them into shit like trending topics or making random tweets actually ads, it's harder to train your mind or software to ignore them.
Personally I don't use twitter.com for anything and I have clicked a trending topic once or twice ever. Since they are never relevant to me they just don't matter. This will obviously not change that.
Yes, the Clinton administration did bring a push for an overhaul to inefficient government. The entire program was to be led by his Vice President and it was. And they accomplished setting the program into motion but as with any government program things take time and the whole idea fit well with the Republican base which is why much of it was continued, although not all and not under the same name--which is why some people are confused.
In the end this is just another level in the on-going and fruitless battle that the political branch has with the administrative and one which will never be solved.
A million gigabytes is what we call a petabyte.
Oh please. They were quoting a PC World article. PC World is not geared towards geeks because, well, geeks don't really read magazines anymore as they get their geek news from any variety of other sources which offer more credibility, better geek readability, and more in-depth research than talking about Google's 10101010101010100110 million gazillion quadrillion byte database.
Oh and honestly being that the indexed material I would see returned was already quite fresh and relevant, I just don't see how this will benefit anyone over what has been available for at least a year and a half.
From the article:
One Google employee who asked not to be named mentioned another report on journalism's future and pointed out a section called "Focus on the User." "They just mean, 'Get money out of the user,'" he said. "Nowhere do they talk about how to create something people actually want to read and engage with and use." On the topic of engaging modern users, Google feels very confident right now, and the news business feels very nervous. Apart from anything else, that certainty gap makes Google important to the future of the news.
So far I am completely unimpressed with Google's attempts at engaging the modern user. I use a lot of Google's products but none of them are really "engaging". Yeah, they're trying different engagement tactics such as copycatting the "like" feature and adding social commenting to Google Reader. They've tried and failed to engage people with Wave and Buzz. They have some input on Google News from "pros". Otherwise, it's just your typical aggregator. Not impressed.
Now, the whole getting money out of the user thing is all the newspaper industry cares about. While some are coming around to the fact that community is what is most important, right now at least, to their bottom line they are so far behind the curve that they may never catch up. Blogs are great not only for the content they aggregate or create themselves and deliver for free, but the commenting that's permitted, encouraged and which flourishes far better than on any newspaper site.
Once Google stops concerning itself with pandering to the pay-for desires of the other industries, perhaps the lessons and wars waged and won on the blogs will make themselves known to others. Until then the newspaper industry, even with Google backing them in some sort of lame attempt at winning a war they lost 10 years ago, will continue its slow death.
Go ahead, "copyright" your investigated information.
Oh fuck them and their investigated information. Asshole journalists steal the research done by bloggers, like myself, all the fucking time. While bloggers happily link to the information they are using for their work, journalists never do and cite how it's just not done in their industry.
While I am happy to research, request, and even sometimes pay to make data public which may not have been before, I do expect that the journos will cite that work I did when they use my materials when they write their stories--just like I do for them. Using other people's work without citation is called plagiarism anywhere else in the world and I really and honestly believe that the entire journalism field needs to go back to college and learn how to do their jobs again. Perhaps at that point the industry will turn around for them.
You're worried about cosmetics? Not everyone uses those. You should be more worried about what toxic ingredients are in your food items.
I'm fine with this system as long as:
1. My child isn't required to participate (if the religious right can opt out of sex-ed, my kid can opt out of this) and an alternative is provided.
2. If no alternatives are provided then my child isn't required as part of his assignments to check books out of the school library.
I am about to give up on "flash forward" for the same reason.
You're not going to have a choice as the show was canceled last week.
I am not much of a TV watcher but a coworker loaned me the DVDs to watch on the bus during my commute in the Fall of 2008 and I kept up with the show ever since. For the first two seasons I was riveted. The cliffhangers, the mystery, etc, etc, etc. With the first half of Season 3 the show started to fall apart. They came back with a clear vision in the second half, supposedly, but I never saw it materialize.
Yesterday I sat down with my wife (who only started watching it in Season 5) and we watched as nothing in the final episode answered any questions. No, the fucking light at the center of the island didn't tell us shit and that stupid fucking ending with some sort of allusion to the afterlife was absolutely stupid. People had been suspecting that all along and knowing that many people did you would have thought the writers, being paid as much as they were, would have come up with something more shocking than that--but they didn't.
I am glad that I only wasted two years of my life watching that show rather than the 6 many others did. It started with a plane wreck and it ended with one. We were all duped. The least they could have done was provide everyone watching with some of that Dharma beer in rusty cans to help ease the pain.
What's the difference, plenty of states already collect DNA samples from birth: http://www.lazylightning.org/minnesotas-unnecessary-newborn-dnablood-bank