They're preventing people from viewing material they consider objectionable.
Their hubs, their rules. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. There's always some douche who wants to abuse it. I'm curious as to why your ire isn't directed at the abusers.
Until we answer that we should be very careful to keep our ugly little biosphere to ourselves.
Nice that you have an opinion. Not so very that you present it as if it were a truth. Even less so that you do it with such self-denigration. More so that you attempt to drag us all into said denigration. Don't project your self-loathing onto me.
Plus, we have data indicating that life may have existed even before the Earth existed. [emphasis mine]
No, no we do not. We have two guys who presume that evolution follows Moore's law. Evolution is not a smooth progression. It is punctuated by extinctions as well as explosions of diversification.
As for your assertion that there wasn't enough time, there was plenty of time. Early evolution wasn't accomplished by larger life forms but by typically asexually reproducing little bits of life. It was a sea of trillions upon trillions of those bits, each evolving simultaneously and either succeeding or failing and, if succeeding, providing an instant lineage.
This is especially true for projects such as this. Fifty billion dollars. This is a very real zero-sum game going on. At this scale, things must be weighed against what other benefits can be accomplished with those funds.
Why do you presume our bus is on the road in the first place or that Hillary would stay on the road if it is? Your entire screed is nothing but a display of your incoming bias. Here's mine: Hillary's already wrecked several bus shuttles and you want to give her the wheel of the Greyhound.
Because someone in the accounting/management bureaucracy has looked at the dollar amounts and no further. Heaven forfend that they cut fat where the fat really is - in said bureaucracy.
Then why would you presume someone else wouldn't be and use them? We are, after all, speaking of people wanting to have backups of their data for later.
You do understand that someone can close down existing accounts prior to taking a sensitive job, right? Then you simply do not use email on the job. Simple.
I am on the high horse because I am better than you.
Bwahahaha! What a fucking pompous attitude. You're the one saying it's a subset. It's incumbent on *you* to explain why and your little redundant screed about behavior and irrationality doesn't cut it because you didn't bother describing the behaviors or why they're irrational. You simply block quoted something vague from PolySci and then dropped into ad hominem with both feet.
Slashdot Mirror
Their hubs, their rules. This is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. There's always some douche who wants to abuse it. I'm curious as to why your ire isn't directed at the abusers.
They found an even simpler solution.
Would you care to list any carnivores which have more than four canines?
Midgets have a population to compare themselves to. I suggest you develop a more robust argument.
Nice that you have an opinion. Not so very that you present it as if it were a truth. Even less so that you do it with such self-denigration. More so that you attempt to drag us all into said denigration. Don't project your self-loathing onto me.
No, no we do not. We have two guys who presume that evolution follows Moore's law. Evolution is not a smooth progression. It is punctuated by extinctions as well as explosions of diversification.
As for your assertion that there wasn't enough time, there was plenty of time. Early evolution wasn't accomplished by larger life forms but by typically asexually reproducing little bits of life. It was a sea of trillions upon trillions of those bits, each evolving simultaneously and either succeeding or failing and, if succeeding, providing an instant lineage.
This is especially true for projects such as this. Fifty billion dollars. This is a very real zero-sum game going on. At this scale, things must be weighed against what other benefits can be accomplished with those funds.
And anyone spouting one or the other is qualified is confusing their political opinion with what will happen in the future.
Why do you presume our bus is on the road in the first place or that Hillary would stay on the road if it is? Your entire screed is nothing but a display of your incoming bias. Here's mine: Hillary's already wrecked several bus shuttles and you want to give her the wheel of the Greyhound.
Because someone in the accounting/management bureaucracy has looked at the dollar amounts and no further. Heaven forfend that they cut fat where the fat really is - in said bureaucracy.
The general population also doesn't read above a sixth grade level. What's your point?
I found that interesting, so I zoomed in. The text wrapped to fit the space just fine and I didn't have to horz scroll.
How sad you equate shooting a toy with shooting a human. Or did you purposely conflate those two things in attempt to make a point?
Not mutually exclusive.
Then why would you presume someone else wouldn't be and use them? We are, after all, speaking of people wanting to have backups of their data for later.
That's largely because being [a conservative] political these days largely seems to involve being mad about something.
Fixed it for you.
Cut it into quarters with a friggin' oxy torch. Jeez, the lack of votech training nowadays.
You do understand that someone can close down existing accounts prior to taking a sensitive job, right? Then you simply do not use email on the job. Simple.
Having the wifi on does not require your presence.
Or just simply not upgrade from an already functioning version.
You can. People just find it convenient to do it while they're on their computer.
Correction, he listens to the experts he already agrees with and echos what they say.
I very much agree.
What part of his first paragraph was unclear?
Bwahahaha! What a fucking pompous attitude. You're the one saying it's a subset. It's incumbent on *you* to explain why and your little redundant screed about behavior and irrationality doesn't cut it because you didn't bother describing the behaviors or why they're irrational. You simply block quoted something vague from PolySci and then dropped into ad hominem with both feet.