Windows 7 is broken for engineering/development
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
CAD tools, lab tools both shrink wrap and otherwise work with XP and they have no plans of upgrading. Some of it is because there's not enough money in it to do so, some of it is because of signed drivers costing a fortune for these tiny shops to produce.
Then there's inhouse tools which typically require custom device drivers and what not for running low level hardware tests (I work at a large server maker), also which have either API changes at the device level, or which bitch about signed drivers. Yes this can be turned off, but typically we give this stuff off to people who aren't terribly computer literate and it becomes difficult to get things working.
Windows 7 is fine for goofing off with, certainly way better than Vista, but it's still not ready for prime time.
I think the issue is that in vanilla wow many of the quests had a storyline and seemed to foreshadow a plot. The higher you get, the less plot there is and the ore it turns into "collect 100 beetle wings".
I saw the questions another way: 1) Can you imagine a situation where people are getting what they deserve? 2) Can you imagine a situation in which people are being treated more poorly than they deserve?
But then I scored rather low on this test. This test is dumb. I conclude from this only that college students measuring empathy are stupider now than they used to be.
While the existence of an all-powerful deity or deities is not falsifiable - a hell of a lot of conclusions that people come to based on that premise are. When the actions they take because of those conclusions are destructive then they do need to be opposed.
More "one bad apple" logic. Does this sound right?
Violence in movies and video games may cause certain individuals to go attempt to mimic what they saw in these entertainment mediums. We should therefore ban violence in movies and video games.
Proving them self-contradicting doesn't prove them wrong, nor does it prove them to be valueless concepts. All you've really done is called people out on their hypocrisy, which is going to get you uninvited from a lot of otherwise good luncheon's.
Put another way, why do we care what scientists think of religion? It's a lot like asking a an illiterate what he thinks of Moby Dick. It's not that scientists are necessarily antagonistic of religion, it's that they are every bit as ignorant as the rest of us.
The part that may get me in trouble is that some scientists ARE priests/monks/clerics/shaman and FEEL as though they know more about spirituality than the next guy, but we really have no way to validate the merits of their claim. And this is why the discussion is a waste of time.
I think you can make the argument that viewers who pay money for the content, are providing financial incentive for the people who are out making the naughty videos. If the content is being downloaded on a non-ad supported, otherwise unpaid medium (basically pirating), then I'm not sure the viewer is really doing anything wrong although it's illegal. The person doing the dirty deed is doing so at a loss, and at great risk to himself...this would discourage bottom dwellers pretty significantly, leaving just those who can't control themselves.
But I can definitely see the argument that paying for this material, in any fashion, direct or indirect is as bad as actually filming it. It is the same argument as paying someone to go kill for you. You are causing a child to be harmed, whether you do it yourself or not.
If the law were more reasonable, and prosecution had to establish clearly that you came to be in posession of this contraband by paying for it somehow, I think it would be more fair.
I suspect you've seen teenage girls nekkid on the internets, to some people that's "child" porn. I don't particularly think there's anything about being turned on by that which is sociopathic, but it is generally illegal for a reason.
A lot of us don't pay attention to anything but the show itself. I didn't read writer interviews, etc. I watched the show alone. It was clearly about the island. The character drama seemed to me to be "filler", often with the intent of exposing more information about the island and it's brand of magic.
I argue if you just watched the show alone, you would not have concluded it was a character drama. If you watch seasons 1-6 you'll see it as a mystery/suspense centered around the island. The only part of the show that made SENSE was the character drama, but that's not what it was ABOUT.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I agree with everything you said, except the part about the show not being about the island. Because that's all a good number of us cared about.
I could go on, but there's ample documentation that Christianity, Judaism, most other religions and even athiests have their extremists. You may not belong to these groups, you may think they're forgetting a lesson or two from whatever doctrine they claim adherence to, but to outsiders it's all the same.
Really? I read the article yesterday and I don't even remember his name anymore.It's not a big deal unless he stole the phone to begin with. Most hardware companies have policies that proto-hardware must not leave the lab, but that's all they are, policies. Sometimes people get fired but usually they get a stern talking to and a nastygram in their yearly review.
More to the point: he left a FOURTH generation phone that adds absolutely nothing to the product line that wasn't already there. If anything he released a lackluster phone for people to not buy sooner, rather than later.
Some of those "scum" are our friends and family. They weren't sociopaths, though usually not wealthy, not rocket scientists and often with some personal problems. The ones I know joined the army because it was that or poverty. True sociopaths aren't desireable in the military. Their lack of empathy for anyone other than themselves makes them a liability to their own side.
I think the parent post is correct, you dehumanize the enemy and then they're easy to kill. If everyone in the field is a probable terrorist, insurgent, enemy soldier, then the odds of you making a decision that gets you and yours killed drop. I've seen the video, it's easy for me to armchair quarterback it, but I can understand why it happened. This is the price of war, and why you don't do so lightly. War and civilized life, the morality and ethics we debate are unrelated. War is anarchy in its purest form, and it's not meant to leave you feeling good and why we rely on the rule of law and governments.
It would be best if we removed soldiers from Iraq, as we have seen soldiers don't make a good police force.
A lot of this attitude comes from exceptionally rude drivers and exceptionally low speed limits. Most of our roads (compared to Europe) are wide, straight and multilane. You can drive far faster than the speed limit without any risk, and you factor this into account when determining where to live. We elect to live as far into the suburbs as we can to a) get the lowest cost house we can and b) avoid city congestion. The faster you can go, the farther you can live, the farther your income stretches, the happier you are. This is less true for young single people, who may like urban life at any cost.
Next, particularly in the south, drivers are incredibly rude. They will sit in the left lane while traffic piles up behind them, and not think of getting to the right. My mom's attitude is "I'm going the speed limit, you all can just be patient", which is infuriating if you're behind her. This causes all sorts of bad behavior, the most systemic is the need to pass on the right. Passing on the right, or being the faster vehicle in the right lane, is dangerous precisely because visibility to the rear is limited. If slower traffic is always in the right lane, and you always pass in the left lane, when switching into the right lane you can be reasonably sure you won't hit someone you didn't see. If traffic is going arbitrary speeds in any lane, then it's a free for all, your eyes have to look everywhere and you reduce your margin of error.
In any event this article makes us mad not because WE OWN THE ROAD, but because most of us want to go faster, not slower. The amount of time we spend on the road is pure overhead and something to reduce. The problem are the inevitable conflicts between small business interests, which tend to want main thoroughfares going right past their door and want this "town center" idea where you can park and wander through town from shop to shop; versus commuter interests, who mostly want to go from dense business area to residential area, with as limited access between as possible. The small business interests intentionally wish to impede your commute such that you're going slow, you may as well stop and shop on your way home, and are just using this pedestrian accident thing as a scapegoat. If they did not attempt to get in the way of commuters, there would also be fewer accidents. Even here in Texas, home of the land yacht, when they opened up the new tollway around Austin all you heard was business owners bitching and moaning that traffic didn't flow by them anymore. I had 0 sympathy since they were largely located halfway to nowhere, neither near residential centers nor business centers, where people may use free time to shop. But I'm sure they'd love to have had this study when they were trying to kill the road.
The problem is that there are a few vague terms being used such as addictive and fattening. Everything can be addictive and or fattening in the right circumstances. I recognize that poison goes the same way, and in fact most medicine are poisonous in large quantities. However most of these foods are things we eat pretty much in the maximum quantity possible without exploding, and while we do get fat and we do develop cravings, there is no evidence that we're unable to control these things.
As a teenager and college student I probably lived entirely on McDonalds, I almost never eat it as an adult. Whatever addiction there might be, cannot be that strong. Clearly we don't understand addiction well enough to be drawing conclusions about danger. Similarly, though I am not in great shape, at times in my life I have been able to lose weight and keep it off for years at a time by eating well and mostly excersize, the latter being the key element missing from my otherwise sedate life.
All I'm saying here is that all this stuff places the blame everywhere but where it should be: on us. It's up to us to stop eating shit, it's up to us to exercise and maintain our weight. And, more to the point, if we do not choose to do so because it's inconvenient, or because we like our lifestyle, it's our concern. If someone starts robbing your house and killing your children to get their next double cheeseburger fix, then we can talk.
As an owner of this breed of TV I caution you that it does not stream any arbitrary content via network. It does not have a web browser for example and doesn't do Hulu (but it will do youtube...really...really....slowly). It is DLNA based, and seems to only work on "authorized" content. The TV has great capabilities, it can play back hi-def matroska videos...but only from a USB key! For some reason if you try to do this via DLNA it won't accept it.I've heard some clever people have figured out how to work around this, I'm not one of them or serious enough about it to give it more than a few hours. This is not for the faint of heart.
Slashdot Mirror
CAD tools, lab tools both shrink wrap and otherwise work with XP and they have no plans of upgrading. Some of it is because there's not enough money in it to do so, some of it is because of signed drivers costing a fortune for these tiny shops to produce.
Then there's inhouse tools which typically require custom device drivers and what not for running low level hardware tests (I work at a large server maker), also which have either API changes at the device level, or which bitch about signed drivers. Yes this can be turned off, but typically we give this stuff off to people who aren't terribly computer literate and it becomes difficult to get things working.
Windows 7 is fine for goofing off with, certainly way better than Vista, but it's still not ready for prime time.
24800 experience for escaping from the prison warden, they get to keep their clothes and choose between steel handcuffs or plastic ties!
I think the issue is that in vanilla wow many of the quests had a storyline and seemed to foreshadow a plot. The higher you get, the less plot there is and the ore it turns into "collect 100 beetle wings".
The duckbilled platypus.
There ought to be very little doubt about the integrity of Intelligent Design after that.
I saw the questions another way:
1) Can you imagine a situation where people are getting what they deserve?
2) Can you imagine a situation in which people are being treated more poorly than they deserve?
But then I scored rather low on this test. This test is dumb. I conclude from this only that college students measuring empathy are stupider now than they used to be.
While the existence of an all-powerful deity or deities is not falsifiable - a hell of a lot of conclusions that people come to based on that premise are. When the actions they take because of those conclusions are destructive then they do need to be opposed.
More "one bad apple" logic. Does this sound right?
Violence in movies and video games may cause certain individuals to go attempt to mimic what they saw in these entertainment mediums. We should therefore ban violence in movies and video games.
Proving them self-contradicting doesn't prove them wrong, nor does it prove them to be valueless concepts. All you've really done is called people out on their hypocrisy, which is going to get you uninvited from a lot of otherwise good luncheon's.
Put another way, why do we care what scientists think of religion? It's a lot like asking a an illiterate what he thinks of Moby Dick. It's not that scientists are necessarily antagonistic of religion, it's that they are every bit as ignorant as the rest of us.
The part that may get me in trouble is that some scientists ARE priests/monks/clerics/shaman and FEEL as though they know more about spirituality than the next guy, but we really have no way to validate the merits of their claim. And this is why the discussion is a waste of time.
I believe in Mexico it'd be called the "Gulf of Messo"
Now available in premium unleaded!
Why focus on opposing religion since you can't prove it wrong? The whole topic is a waste of time.
I think you can make the argument that viewers who pay money for the content, are providing financial incentive for the people who are out making the naughty videos. If the content is being downloaded on a non-ad supported, otherwise unpaid medium (basically pirating), then I'm not sure the viewer is really doing anything wrong although it's illegal. The person doing the dirty deed is doing so at a loss, and at great risk to himself...this would discourage bottom dwellers pretty significantly, leaving just those who can't control themselves.
But I can definitely see the argument that paying for this material, in any fashion, direct or indirect is as bad as actually filming it. It is the same argument as paying someone to go kill for you. You are causing a child to be harmed, whether you do it yourself or not.
If the law were more reasonable, and prosecution had to establish clearly that you came to be in posession of this contraband by paying for it somehow, I think it would be more fair.
I suspect you've seen teenage girls nekkid on the internets, to some people that's "child" porn. I don't particularly think there's anything about being turned on by that which is sociopathic, but it is generally illegal for a reason.
A lot of us don't pay attention to anything but the show itself. I didn't read writer interviews, etc. I watched the show alone. It was clearly about the island. The character drama seemed to me to be "filler", often with the intent of exposing more information about the island and it's brand of magic.
I argue if you just watched the show alone, you would not have concluded it was a character drama. If you watch seasons 1-6 you'll see it as a mystery/suspense centered around the island. The only part of the show that made SENSE was the character drama, but that's not what it was ABOUT.
I agree with everything you said, except the part about the show not being about the island. Because that's all a good number of us cared about.
A lot of time and money is actually spent dealing with this problem during server development.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged.
Largely Christian supported - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Go Church! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
It's even got a wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
I could go on, but there's ample documentation that Christianity, Judaism, most other religions and even athiests have their extremists. You may not belong to these groups, you may think they're forgetting a lesson or two from whatever doctrine they claim adherence to, but to outsiders it's all the same.
Really? I read the article yesterday and I don't even remember his name anymore.It's not a big deal unless he stole the phone to begin with. Most hardware companies have policies that proto-hardware must not leave the lab, but that's all they are, policies. Sometimes people get fired but usually they get a stern talking to and a nastygram in their yearly review.
More to the point: he left a FOURTH generation phone that adds absolutely nothing to the product line that wasn't already there. If anything he released a lackluster phone for people to not buy sooner, rather than later.
I think it's pretty obvious this is Weekly World News quality. But girl falls off wii fit and gets horny all the time? Instant headliner.
"We're afraid of our own democracy, it tends to interfere with corporate interests"
I know some straight men who said the same thing about sex with women to women, and they were later judged to be wrong.
Some of those "scum" are our friends and family. They weren't sociopaths, though usually not wealthy, not rocket scientists and often with some personal problems. The ones I know joined the army because it was that or poverty. True sociopaths aren't desireable in the military. Their lack of empathy for anyone other than themselves makes them a liability to their own side.
I think the parent post is correct, you dehumanize the enemy and then they're easy to kill. If everyone in the field is a probable terrorist, insurgent, enemy soldier, then the odds of you making a decision that gets you and yours killed drop. I've seen the video, it's easy for me to armchair quarterback it, but I can understand why it happened. This is the price of war, and why you don't do so lightly. War and civilized life, the morality and ethics we debate are unrelated. War is anarchy in its purest form, and it's not meant to leave you feeling good and why we rely on the rule of law and governments.
It would be best if we removed soldiers from Iraq, as we have seen soldiers don't make a good police force.
Since when are lobotomies considered minimally invasive?
A lot of this attitude comes from exceptionally rude drivers and exceptionally low speed limits. Most of our roads (compared to Europe) are wide, straight and multilane. You can drive far faster than the speed limit without any risk, and you factor this into account when determining where to live. We elect to live as far into the suburbs as we can to a) get the lowest cost house we can and b) avoid city congestion. The faster you can go, the farther you can live, the farther your income stretches, the happier you are. This is less true for young single people, who may like urban life at any cost.
Next, particularly in the south, drivers are incredibly rude. They will sit in the left lane while traffic piles up behind them, and not think of getting to the right. My mom's attitude is "I'm going the speed limit, you all can just be patient", which is infuriating if you're behind her. This causes all sorts of bad behavior, the most systemic is the need to pass on the right. Passing on the right, or being the faster vehicle in the right lane, is dangerous precisely because visibility to the rear is limited. If slower traffic is always in the right lane, and you always pass in the left lane, when switching into the right lane you can be reasonably sure you won't hit someone you didn't see. If traffic is going arbitrary speeds in any lane, then it's a free for all, your eyes have to look everywhere and you reduce your margin of error.
In any event this article makes us mad not because WE OWN THE ROAD, but because most of us want to go faster, not slower. The amount of time we spend on the road is pure overhead and something to reduce. The problem are the inevitable conflicts between small business interests, which tend to want main thoroughfares going right past their door and want this "town center" idea where you can park and wander through town from shop to shop; versus commuter interests, who mostly want to go from dense business area to residential area, with as limited access between as possible. The small business interests intentionally wish to impede your commute such that you're going slow, you may as well stop and shop on your way home, and are just using this pedestrian accident thing as a scapegoat. If they did not attempt to get in the way of commuters, there would also be fewer accidents. Even here in Texas, home of the land yacht, when they opened up the new tollway around Austin all you heard was business owners bitching and moaning that traffic didn't flow by them anymore. I had 0 sympathy since they were largely located halfway to nowhere, neither near residential centers nor business centers, where people may use free time to shop. But I'm sure they'd love to have had this study when they were trying to kill the road.
The problem is that there are a few vague terms being used such as addictive and fattening. Everything can be addictive and or fattening in the right circumstances. I recognize that poison goes the same way, and in fact most medicine are poisonous in large quantities. However most of these foods are things we eat pretty much in the maximum quantity possible without exploding, and while we do get fat and we do develop cravings, there is no evidence that we're unable to control these things.
As a teenager and college student I probably lived entirely on McDonalds, I almost never eat it as an adult. Whatever addiction there might be, cannot be that strong. Clearly we don't understand addiction well enough to be drawing conclusions about danger. Similarly, though I am not in great shape, at times in my life I have been able to lose weight and keep it off for years at a time by eating well and mostly excersize, the latter being the key element missing from my otherwise sedate life.
All I'm saying here is that all this stuff places the blame everywhere but where it should be: on us. It's up to us to stop eating shit, it's up to us to exercise and maintain our weight. And, more to the point, if we do not choose to do so because it's inconvenient, or because we like our lifestyle, it's our concern. If someone starts robbing your house and killing your children to get their next double cheeseburger fix, then we can talk.
As an owner of this breed of TV I caution you that it does not stream any arbitrary content via network. It does not have a web browser for example and doesn't do Hulu (but it will do youtube...really...really....slowly). It is DLNA based, and seems to only work on "authorized" content. The TV has great capabilities, it can play back hi-def matroska videos...but only from a USB key! For some reason if you try to do this via DLNA it won't accept it.I've heard some clever people have figured out how to work around this, I'm not one of them or serious enough about it to give it more than a few hours. This is not for the faint of heart.