I expect that the population that's truly morbidly obese to the point that they need protection due to a medical condition that cannot be controlled is very, very small.
I don't think that in most cases being obese should be a protected category in the sense that an employer should be forced to purchase special furniture or to assign special parking. I say this as someone that isn't exactly tiny myself, but attempts to keep it under control. I'd argue that many such "protections" would actually be worse for the obese individual, rather than better. We've already seen lots of obese people abusing power-chairs and power-shopping-carts; we need people to put in more effort, not less.
If there are underlying medical reasons that should dictate special treatment, then it's those reasons that should give an obese person their special treatment, not the fact that they are obese.
The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...
Bingo.
If I had any real forward momentum with an electric car design that might use something patented by Tesla, I'd approach them to get a formal agreement, even if it's just a rubber-stamp formality. The tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer costs to ensure that millions of dollars in lawsuits are avoided would be worthwhile.
It is worthy to note that automakers have released patents before. Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt that has become the ubiquitous seatbelt today, and they felt that it was so important that they released their patent early specifically so that other automakers could make their cars safer.
I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.
The Left Wing Media makes the Right Wing like they are so out of touch and evil, so the Right feels constantly threatened, thus makes their stance more resolved.
I don't think that we listen to the same radio stations. I listen to NPR a lot (the virtue of driving around a lot during the day) and they talk about issues, not political stances.
I have heard right-wing radio on at places that I've had to visit, and they talk about their opposition, demonizing them. They didn't really talk about actual issues.
I attempted to listen to left-wing radio like Air America, and I couldn't. They attempted to operate the same way as right-wing radio. It put me off for the same reason that right-wing radio did, it only served to demonize, not to actually discuss anything. So I went back to NPR to hear about issues again.
I don't listen to the radio as much as I used to, actually. I realized that the 24 hour news cycle becomes a massively self-referential thing, and that it exists to feed itself on itself and the listener. It has to make things seem important to survive, any little deviation or difference suddenly becomes big news in order to garner the attention needed to keep the advertising dollars rolling in. As a consequence it needs inflammatory people that are willing to say disgusting things, which in-turn destroys polite discourse and factionalizes people that really don't come into this with any stake in it to begin with.
Turn off your TV, turn off your radio, stop visiting political websites and listening to political podcasts. Go do something for yourself that you choose to do, and the circle-jerk will reduce.
Again, it's my observation that the bulk of the inflammatory or doublespeak speech comes from the right, rather than from the left. "Obamacare", "Class warfare", "Job creators", "tax-and-spend Democrats", "job-killing", "Death panels", etc.
I'd like to know what the positions of the Republicans are. They're so loaded with these words that I really don't know what their positions are.
...with the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests earlier this month â" an event the Chinese government wants no one to remember.
It's nice to want things.
Thing about it is, if China's ruling party could hold on to power without committing further abuses then time would probably actually be on their side for forgetting about Tiananmen. After all, my own country committed terrible atrocities throughout its existence and we simply look at those transgressions in a historical context, but between limiting the amount of time that our leaders are in power (at least the President) and peacefully transitioning between those leaders makes it easier to let go. China doesn't have any of that going for them.
Yes, but one can test for heavy metals and other toxic substances. He's just establishing a baseline. If it works at all on this very small scale then it's evidence that greater (ie, more expensive) trials may be worthwhile.
The ideas of robotic missions that land on asteroids could include an experiment that attempts to set up some grow chambers pressed against the asteroid, to see if anything can be made to grow directly on one. But, they'd only accept the proposal to try it once it's been demonstrated in a lesser capacity.
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
It doesn't help your case that there were incidents of people subscribing to the tea party mentality physically throwing teabags on to people or into crowds, and that many self-identified with the word "teabag" until Maddow pointed out its previous slang meaning...
I donno, I see a lot more people that had an XBox that later bought an Xbox360, and now bought an XBox One, and others that bought a Playstation, then a Playstation 2, then a Playstation 3, and then a Playstation 4...
Come to think of it, we haven't heard much from Sega lately, have we?
Customers that become loyal often will stay loyal if the company continues to produce. When that company stops producing things that the customer wants, they jump ship. If the company never really gets anything off the ground in the first place then there aren't even enough fans to keep it rolling.
I love how people look to nitpick the details while missing the point.
The point is, if real-time functionality is a requirement , whatever the application may be, then it shuold be the ISP's job to QoS their network to make the real-time protocols run that way, and it shouldn't matter from whom the subscriber is retrieving the content. The subscriber has paid the ISP to have a solid, reliable Internet connection, and the ISP should deliver that solid, reliable Internet connection with the intent to provide the best experience for the customer.
The party providing the content has paid their ISP for their connection already. That party should not have to pay another ISP for connections. If there's a financial burden involved then it needs to be worked out between backbone providers and ISPs, and between ISPs and their direct subscribers.
Whose fault is the student teacher ratio, the students, the teachers or the administration.
Actually, it's the fault of the citizens of the school district or state in how they choose to fund education and who they choose the put on their schoolboards, and the fault of parents for their lack of involvement in the lives of their children.
If you aren't willing to tax yourselves to pay for the educational system that you claim you want then you do not deserve that educational system.
I have a choice of two companies for consumer-grade high-speed Internet in my area. One is the phone company, the other is the cable TV company. They don't really compete with each other in the sense that I cannot get the same speed from both.
Back when the common-carrier thing applied to DSL, I had my DSL line through the phone company, but my account was through an ISP. The DSLAM pointed me to that ISP in the CO, instead of to the phone company's network. That arrangement suited me just fine, as I had a business-grade account with the ISP, and it cost me almost the same for that arrangement with five static IPs and full control over my reverse-resolve as going through the phone company for a residential-grade setup would have.
I think that all physical infrastructure providers need to be common-carrier. Let the consumer decide who provides the account, even if that means that they have to pay a nominal cost for the line.
Don't confuse quality-of-service in general for anti-net-neutrality in particular.
Cisco is technically correct in that real-time or near-real-time services need higher priority than data transfers that don't need real-time synchronization or timing. If I'm watching a live TV program I need the network traffic carrying that program to get to me correctly, in real time, or watching the program live doesn't work. If I'm surfing the Internet to use web forums, mild reductions in performance won't really impact my experience. I do not have a problem with an ISP attempting to shape its traffic to give priority to content requiring real-time capability.
Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.
I expect that it's going to be nearly impossible for Valve/Steam to succeed with the mainstream with this development. Had there been no ready-to-use competitor it'd be one thing, but delaying launch to the point that the ready-made competitor can just come in and save the day pretty much destroys credibility, and once that credibility is lost it usually can't be earned back.
I'm in the same boat actually. My desktop is a dual-Xeon box that's almost fourteen years old now, still uses AGP, and still plays the few games that I want to play quite well. I am planning on finally migrating to a new box (processors in the current one are only 32 bit so I'm capped at the ~4gb memory limit) but it's served me well for many, many years.
I'm typing this post on an old Dell Latitude D420, which still works fine for surfing the web, though I have to limit youtube-type video to lower resolutions to keep it smooth.
Some of the details of California's rules really seemed ripe for this ruling, but I don't think that it's ultimately necessary to throw out the entire concept. Case in point, two years? That is too short. The word "tenure" itself was based on an expectation that it would take ten years to get there.
On the other hand, teachers can only work with the students that they are assigned. The only way to fairly assess teacher performance is to compare not only the performance of the students during the year that they're assigned to that teacher, but to compare all other years both before and after.
The simplest way to do this is to remove assessment from the teacher's responsibilities. Let teachers teach, let section, unit, quarter, and semester tests be a function of the school district or the state, and use curriculum services to ensure that what the teachers are asked to teach actually matches what the district or state expects them to do. This frees up teacher time from rote grading of exams, and lets them spend more time on their lesson plans and on extra assistance if students need it.
The other advantage is that now one can track both the student's achievement across multiple teachers, and the teachers' achievement across multiple students over multiple years, and how those students have done as they've progressed through the grades. This allows the school district as the employer to identify teachers that are struggling or are bad-fits for the grades that they're teaching, or to identify teachers whose majority of students do poorly for the long term. It also lets the system identify teachers that receive severely underperforming students, to honestly assess how they do with students that come in to a school year without the fundamentals needed to succeed on the level that they're normally expected to.
It can also show exemplary teachers that take students that are highly underperforming and bringing them up to levels to succeed.
I'm so glad that I got the gaming bug out of my system when a ridiculously-priced video card was $300, and mainstream cards were in the $90-160 range...
I really wish that this was possible, but some places like Costco don't take credit except from a single card (AMEX), and buying things at Costco with cash could itself be risky given the amount of cash one would need to carry. Plus they only take plastic at their fuel pumps.
More to the point, if I'm going to be stuck using a browser that looks exactly like Chrome, I may as well use Chrome.
I'm basically using Firefox for historical reasons, ie, I'm lazy and I'm disinclined to change without a real need to do so. But I've been forced to change before, from Mosiac, from Netscape Navigator, from Netscape Communicator, and from Mozilla. What's another change?
I was wondering the exact same thing. They don't like to make it known that they're the same company, so I wonder if they use the same CC processing system or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect that the population that's truly morbidly obese to the point that they need protection due to a medical condition that cannot be controlled is very, very small.
I don't think that in most cases being obese should be a protected category in the sense that an employer should be forced to purchase special furniture or to assign special parking. I say this as someone that isn't exactly tiny myself, but attempts to keep it under control. I'd argue that many such "protections" would actually be worse for the obese individual, rather than better. We've already seen lots of obese people abusing power-chairs and power-shopping-carts; we need people to put in more effort, not less.
If there are underlying medical reasons that should dictate special treatment, then it's those reasons that should give an obese person their special treatment, not the fact that they are obese.
Bingo.
If I had any real forward momentum with an electric car design that might use something patented by Tesla, I'd approach them to get a formal agreement, even if it's just a rubber-stamp formality. The tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer costs to ensure that millions of dollars in lawsuits are avoided would be worthwhile.
It is worthy to note that automakers have released patents before. Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt that has become the ubiquitous seatbelt today, and they felt that it was so important that they released their patent early specifically so that other automakers could make their cars safer.
I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.
Really? Because that was in the height of the Juan Williams era, when he was distorting matters the other way.
I don't think that we listen to the same radio stations. I listen to NPR a lot (the virtue of driving around a lot during the day) and they talk about issues, not political stances.
I have heard right-wing radio on at places that I've had to visit, and they talk about their opposition, demonizing them. They didn't really talk about actual issues.
I attempted to listen to left-wing radio like Air America, and I couldn't. They attempted to operate the same way as right-wing radio. It put me off for the same reason that right-wing radio did, it only served to demonize, not to actually discuss anything. So I went back to NPR to hear about issues again.
I don't listen to the radio as much as I used to, actually. I realized that the 24 hour news cycle becomes a massively self-referential thing, and that it exists to feed itself on itself and the listener. It has to make things seem important to survive, any little deviation or difference suddenly becomes big news in order to garner the attention needed to keep the advertising dollars rolling in. As a consequence it needs inflammatory people that are willing to say disgusting things, which in-turn destroys polite discourse and factionalizes people that really don't come into this with any stake in it to begin with.
Turn off your TV, turn off your radio, stop visiting political websites and listening to political podcasts. Go do something for yourself that you choose to do, and the circle-jerk will reduce.
No we're not!
How dare you drag down this discussion that way!
Again, it's my observation that the bulk of the inflammatory or doublespeak speech comes from the right, rather than from the left. "Obamacare", "Class warfare", "Job creators", "tax-and-spend Democrats", "job-killing", "Death panels", etc.
I'd like to know what the positions of the Republicans are. They're so loaded with these words that I really don't know what their positions are.
It's nice to want things.
Thing about it is, if China's ruling party could hold on to power without committing further abuses then time would probably actually be on their side for forgetting about Tiananmen. After all, my own country committed terrible atrocities throughout its existence and we simply look at those transgressions in a historical context, but between limiting the amount of time that our leaders are in power (at least the President) and peacefully transitioning between those leaders makes it easier to let go. China doesn't have any of that going for them.
Yes, but one can test for heavy metals and other toxic substances. He's just establishing a baseline. If it works at all on this very small scale then it's evidence that greater (ie, more expensive) trials may be worthwhile.
The ideas of robotic missions that land on asteroids could include an experiment that attempts to set up some grow chambers pressed against the asteroid, to see if anything can be made to grow directly on one. But, they'd only accept the proposal to try it once it's been demonstrated in a lesser capacity.
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
It doesn't help your case that there were incidents of people subscribing to the tea party mentality physically throwing teabags on to people or into crowds, and that many self-identified with the word "teabag" until Maddow pointed out its previous slang meaning...
I donno, I see a lot more people that had an XBox that later bought an Xbox360, and now bought an XBox One, and others that bought a Playstation, then a Playstation 2, then a Playstation 3, and then a Playstation 4...
Come to think of it, we haven't heard much from Sega lately, have we?
Customers that become loyal often will stay loyal if the company continues to produce. When that company stops producing things that the customer wants, they jump ship. If the company never really gets anything off the ground in the first place then there aren't even enough fans to keep it rolling.
I love how people look to nitpick the details while missing the point.
The point is, if real-time functionality is a requirement , whatever the application may be, then it shuold be the ISP's job to QoS their network to make the real-time protocols run that way, and it shouldn't matter from whom the subscriber is retrieving the content. The subscriber has paid the ISP to have a solid, reliable Internet connection, and the ISP should deliver that solid, reliable Internet connection with the intent to provide the best experience for the customer.
The party providing the content has paid their ISP for their connection already. That party should not have to pay another ISP for connections. If there's a financial burden involved then it needs to be worked out between backbone providers and ISPs, and between ISPs and their direct subscribers.
Actually, it's the fault of the citizens of the school district or state in how they choose to fund education and who they choose the put on their schoolboards, and the fault of parents for their lack of involvement in the lives of their children.
If you aren't willing to tax yourselves to pay for the educational system that you claim you want then you do not deserve that educational system.
I have a choice of two companies for consumer-grade high-speed Internet in my area. One is the phone company, the other is the cable TV company. They don't really compete with each other in the sense that I cannot get the same speed from both.
Back when the common-carrier thing applied to DSL, I had my DSL line through the phone company, but my account was through an ISP. The DSLAM pointed me to that ISP in the CO, instead of to the phone company's network. That arrangement suited me just fine, as I had a business-grade account with the ISP, and it cost me almost the same for that arrangement with five static IPs and full control over my reverse-resolve as going through the phone company for a residential-grade setup would have.
I think that all physical infrastructure providers need to be common-carrier. Let the consumer decide who provides the account, even if that means that they have to pay a nominal cost for the line.
Don't confuse quality-of-service in general for anti-net-neutrality in particular.
Cisco is technically correct in that real-time or near-real-time services need higher priority than data transfers that don't need real-time synchronization or timing. If I'm watching a live TV program I need the network traffic carrying that program to get to me correctly, in real time, or watching the program live doesn't work. If I'm surfing the Internet to use web forums, mild reductions in performance won't really impact my experience. I do not have a problem with an ISP attempting to shape its traffic to give priority to content requiring real-time capability.
Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.
I expect that it's going to be nearly impossible for Valve/Steam to succeed with the mainstream with this development. Had there been no ready-to-use competitor it'd be one thing, but delaying launch to the point that the ready-made competitor can just come in and save the day pretty much destroys credibility, and once that credibility is lost it usually can't be earned back.
Looks like the developers picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...
I'm in the same boat actually. My desktop is a dual-Xeon box that's almost fourteen years old now, still uses AGP, and still plays the few games that I want to play quite well. I am planning on finally migrating to a new box (processors in the current one are only 32 bit so I'm capped at the ~4gb memory limit) but it's served me well for many, many years.
I'm typing this post on an old Dell Latitude D420, which still works fine for surfing the web, though I have to limit youtube-type video to lower resolutions to keep it smooth.
Some of the details of California's rules really seemed ripe for this ruling, but I don't think that it's ultimately necessary to throw out the entire concept. Case in point, two years? That is too short. The word "tenure" itself was based on an expectation that it would take ten years to get there.
On the other hand, teachers can only work with the students that they are assigned. The only way to fairly assess teacher performance is to compare not only the performance of the students during the year that they're assigned to that teacher, but to compare all other years both before and after.
The simplest way to do this is to remove assessment from the teacher's responsibilities. Let teachers teach, let section, unit, quarter, and semester tests be a function of the school district or the state, and use curriculum services to ensure that what the teachers are asked to teach actually matches what the district or state expects them to do. This frees up teacher time from rote grading of exams, and lets them spend more time on their lesson plans and on extra assistance if students need it.
The other advantage is that now one can track both the student's achievement across multiple teachers, and the teachers' achievement across multiple students over multiple years, and how those students have done as they've progressed through the grades. This allows the school district as the employer to identify teachers that are struggling or are bad-fits for the grades that they're teaching, or to identify teachers whose majority of students do poorly for the long term. It also lets the system identify teachers that receive severely underperforming students, to honestly assess how they do with students that come in to a school year without the fundamentals needed to succeed on the level that they're normally expected to.
It can also show exemplary teachers that take students that are highly underperforming and bringing them up to levels to succeed.
I'm so glad that I got the gaming bug out of my system when a ridiculously-priced video card was $300, and mainstream cards were in the $90-160 range...
This is ridiculous.
I really wish that this was possible, but some places like Costco don't take credit except from a single card (AMEX), and buying things at Costco with cash could itself be risky given the amount of cash one would need to carry. Plus they only take plastic at their fuel pumps.
More to the point, if I'm going to be stuck using a browser that looks exactly like Chrome, I may as well use Chrome.
I'm basically using Firefox for historical reasons, ie, I'm lazy and I'm disinclined to change without a real need to do so. But I've been forced to change before, from Mosiac, from Netscape Navigator, from Netscape Communicator, and from Mozilla. What's another change?
I was wondering the exact same thing. They don't like to make it known that they're the same company, so I wonder if they use the same CC processing system or not.
...if they used sane version numbers?
Probably something like 12.0.1...
I'm having flashbacks to the movie Airplane!...
Now arriving at version 29, version 29, version 30...
I found a replacement to make it look like the previous iteration of Firefox. You're definitely not the only person that doesn't like what they did.