Yet, you show disdain for homeschooling based on no evidence, just a gut feeling. See ancedotal evidence above.
I show disdain for anyone thinking their system is the best. As a user of that system and no other, you aren't in the best position to judge it.
Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to.
No, they do not go because we live in reality.
Um, ok. I'm not in favor of church attendance, but you really have a chip on your shoulder about this one. So you have no opinion on whether your children go to church? They just don't go because you exist "in reality," whatever that means...?
Come on, be honest. You are making decisions for your children (or at least, you have). There's nothing wrong with that (or at a minimum, particularly new or different from other parents). The experiences they don't have at church are being denied them. Again, fine! But don't pretend you aren't imposing your ideas on them, like all parents do. The same goes for home schooling. Your children don't get the experience of public school, for better or worse. But when I suggested as much, you called it "bullshit."
The funny thing is, I am an atheist, as you apparently are, and I am not a fan of public schools, as you apparently are not. Yet, when I dare to suggest that home schooling is not the perfect solution and that public school may actually provide some social skills that home schooling does not, you freak out. So who is being irrational, here?
I do recognize that there are other ways to provide social skills to children than public school. It's an oft-cited recommendation (by "experts" of child rearing) of choosing home schooling that it should be supplemented by other social exercises. It's precisely because they don't get those thing from home-schooling that this is needed. Which is all I'm saying. (Oh, and that parents never really know how or what their kids are doing. Maybe that's what angers you so.)
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school.
Here is another bullshit statement, being atheist denies my children the social skills they could learn in church activities.
Actually, this is true as well. I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing that children don't learn those skills, just that they are denied the chance to learn them. Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to. Fine! The result of my experiences at church is that I am now an atheist. It's not a comment on whether public schools are good, just that you are denying them an experience that others have (good or bad).
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
Wow, that anecdotal evidence is stunning.
It's not evidence, it's my experience. I list it in contrast to the experience you shared of having your well-adjusted kids.
As a parent of non-homeschooled children, I think you are too far away from the situation to make an assessment. No offense, but my kids are well adjusted and you just don't know it.
I am not a parent. I was, however, a child. And I remember what being in public school was like and did to me. I'm certainly not an advocate for public school.
Your kids may be very well adjusted. Unfortunately, I don't think you can be objective about that. And even if you could, your "anecdotal evidence" is as useless as mine.
Once again, I'm not an advocate for one system or the other. I just doubt either system is as good as its proponents think it is.
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school.
Here is another bullshit statement, being atheist denies my children the social skills they could learn in church activities.
Actually, this is true as well. I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing that children don't learn those skills, just that they are denied the chance to learn them. Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to. Fine! The result of my experiences at church is that I am now an atheist. It's not a comment on whether public schools are good, just that you are denying them an experience that others have (good or bad).
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
Wow, that anecdotal evidence is stunning.
It's not evidence, it's my experience. I list it in contrast to the experience you shared of having your well-adjusted kids.
As a parent of non-homeschooled chidlren, I think you are too far away from the situation to make an assessment. No offense, but my kids are well adjusted and you just don't know it.
I am not a parent. I was, however, a child. And I remember what being in public school was like and did to me. I'm certainly not an advocate for public school.
Your kids may be very well adjusted. Unfortunately, I don't think you can be objective about that. And even if you could, your "anecdotal evidence" is as useless as mine.
Once again, I'm not an advocate for one system or the other. I just doubt either system is as good as its proponents think it is.
As the parent of public-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
I'm not a parent, of public or privately schooled children. I'm just suspicious of parents who are convinced that their method are the best possible methods. Oh, and I'm an atheist. So my children will not be church-reared.
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that.
You are defeating your own argument. Make a case for either socializing kids through public school or not, but don't do what most people here on Slashdot do and just argue through opinion and folklore. I have been through the public school system, and I personal don't have any strong opinions on either home-schooling or public schooling. What I have been doing here (in this thread) is commenting out the obvious fallacies.
I'm not making an argument for one or the other. I'm commenting based on my experiences. It's not important to me to convince people that public school is good. I don't think it is. It may provide some skills, however.
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school. Similar skills could be learned elsewhere, in clubs, church, or other organizations, obviously. But, unfortunately, a lot of the time these other opportunities aren't given to home-schooled children. So they grow up different from the rest of us. And when we meet them, we think they are weird, naive, etc. Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with them or home-schooling per se. They just didn't have the same experiences we did.
Being put in a public situation without your parents around with many people of your own age gives you a chance to learn to adapt to what other people are/can be like. It's not always pretty. You may not encounter some of these things in other places, like church, where the environment is often very different. Or, you may. There's not guarantee one way or the other.
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
As the parent of home-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that. It did, however, give me a chance to see what people are like, and I think that experience, wherever you have to get it, is important. And maybe you have provided this for your children. If so, good job. But it's quite hard, IMO, to substitute for 30+hours per week of interaction with a few clubs.
For a rational person, there's no difference between Google toolbar in FF and Google toolbar in IE.
True. However, toolbars are just one small subsection of addins. Firefox doesn't just support toolbars, which are an extension of the window menu interface--it supports addins, which are an extension of the entire interface, including the render component.
Now, IE7 supports more types of addins than IE6. But IE6 did not support Firefox style addins (which used to be called "extensions" as they extended the behavior of the browser), it only supported additional toolbars. Technically a toolbar is an addin, but it doesn't really represent extensibility to the browser, just the menus.
At this point the two systems are essentially equal in capability, based on IE7 addins I have tried. However, the number of available addins is a different debate.
Or would you rather have OSS software do the same as proprietary software vendors and work around problems forever but never fixing them? Saw that shiny 'run in IE7 mode' button in IE8? that's what you'll get...
Poor example. This is Microsoft fixing a problem by adhering to standards. Unfortunately, their previous software was buggy and didn't follow standards, and people designed for that flawed system. Now they are trying to force everyone into standards compliance, but offering a backwards compatibility mode the only way they can without harming future standards compliance. I fail to see how this represents working around problems forever and not fixing them.
Not that microsoft doesn't do this...but I don't see this as being a great example.
And standards are great, as long as they are documented, but standards aren't always as good as something that "just works." You can design something to spec, but if that spec hasn't considered all usability cases, the spec does not save the app from being bad.
In my opinion, although IE5 was horrible at following standards, it was a superior browser at the time to other alternatives because of its speed and basic compatibility with all sites. Now-a-days I am using Firefox for other reasons. A spec used by 20% of the world vs. a de facto spec used by 80% is not necessarily better (to take w3c vs IE as an example). That's why Firefox has "quirks mode," and it's basically the same idea as "run in ie7" but really worse, because it does even less to encourage writing to standards.
Your attempts to make it a "certifiable pain in the ass" will be rendered as useless as the attempts to an DRM "uncrackable" will be. Instead of having to find a way to crack the DRM, they will start with one. Their only job will be to make it quick and easy. And if the "pain in the ass" method is too ugly to automate, they will properly crack your DRM and make it even easier. Since an exploit is already known, a "proper" crack might even be easier to create.
And Fairplay has been cracked for ages, but Apple keeps changing it to make it a PITA to always have access to the latest crack. That's where the future of DRM lies: change the codes every week and have devices that can download the latest codes. Pretty soon it just sucks to be an uncertified client. Sure, you can always find a way around it if you really need to (say you need to move your entire iTunes library to another computer because your old computer is being upgraded), but for casual piracy, not worth it.
Any intelligent company now is not trying to make money on their proprietary code.
Maybe that's so, but I don't know how you can be sure. Granted, Microsoft has made some bad decisions, but I'm pretty sure they are "trying to make money on their proprietary code" and it's working. In fact tons of software companies make money on closed source. Or you do you mean selling the actual code and not the finished product?
You're right, your approach is definitely an improvement. It wraps the condition in such a way to make the programmer at least consider the problem. Unfortunately, programmers are lazy, and they will always find poor ways of handling errors they trap. But at least you are giving them the option and making it clear.
It has. No one is downloading songs anymore. Didn't you notice?
But seriously, it will take time. The piracy market will always exist, and that's just the way it is. But it probably would have been much smaller if DRM-free downloads had beaten Napster out the door. Hell, even DRM-laden downloads probably would have worked. But it's been nearly 10 years now of free music, and up til now it's been better than pay-for options. So it will take some time to get people to gravitate toward legals options.
This isn't evidence that people didn't break the law primarily because legal options sucked. It just means that once someone decides to live "illegally," they are less likely to revert to completely lawful behavior, out of habit if nothing else.
If songs always cost 10cents, though, I'm guessing the pirate market would dry up quite a bit. It just wouldn't be worth the work.
The point is that you fixing your code doesn't make the calling code any better. If you returned a null pointer, he could check for that. If you throw an exception, he can handle it. Or he can just dump a stacktrace, just like he could fail to catch a null pointer exception.
Formalizing ways to handle problems does not eliminate problems. It just describes a process by which to handle them. In contrast, if null pointers were not allowed, this would be a problem that simply couldn't occur.
Currently, Lenovo charges the same price for Vista Business and Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro. I order this option all the time. They also offer the same price for Vista Ultimate vs. Vista Ultimate downgraded to XP Pro.
While I'm not crazy about this setup, you must remember that you are effectively buying two license. At any time, you have the right to upgrade to Vista for free. Yes, you shouldn't have to buy the Vista license, but Lenovo at least is not charging business customers anything extra at the moment.
Your assumption is not based on the facts. The Iowa votes do not get awarded in this way unless enough states pass similar legislation. This means that Iowa is "voting" for the national popular vote to be instituted, and if enough states "vote" this way, it will be. Once (if) that happens, that Iowa's popular votes will simply be part of the national popular vote. There will be no "multiplier" effect.
-Dan
Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.
Interesting that you use the word, "illegal," to describe an action that you are essentially claiming to be legal. Huh...
Which part of that three word phrase is the operative word? Is it enough that the person is "foreign"? Or just someone we call an "enemy"? Or do they have to have committed an act of "terror" (a fairly hard word to clearly define)?
Also, how can you determine that someone is a "foreign enemy terrorist" in time to commit this "illegal search" legally? Oh, I get it, ignore civil liberties first, and apologize later if the person wasn't a terrorist.
Your statement seems designed to suggest that illegal acts are ok if the "victim" is not someone we care about. How about we replace "foreign enemy terrorists" with "rapists," or "criminals"? Still ok?
The question is, why are his hormones imbalanced? It's not that common in males. Artificially altering hormones is extremely common for cancer treatments, however, so maybe this story is true but hides the bigger truth that he is having hormone therapy for cancer.
You have a lot of good points here. However, every time you speak about sex offenders, you just refer to them as "rapists."
Giving your email address to the cops is too extreme a punishment for raping someone?
Maybe not, but for urinating in public, it might be. Also, this is not "giving your e-mail address," it is giving your e-mail account and password! Why are you deliberately understating the punishment?
Rape is not equivalent to speaking Hebrew. One is part of your heritage. The other is a violent act. You don't get punished for being Jewish. You do get punished for raping someone.
Public urination is not equivalent to rape, either.
Stop pretending it's wrong to punish rapists. Rape is the single most psychologically damaging thing you can do to a person. It's worse than torture.
Stop assuming all sex offenders are violent rapists.
Rapists are not an ethnic minority
The also do not represent all sex offenders.
There is something wrong with being a rapist...
Agreed.
I count that you have referred to "rapists," "raping," or "rape" 15 times in this post. You have not mentioned any lesser offenses except to respond to a mention of public urination. It seems you are obsessed with rape to the point of reacting to all arguments as if they refer to treating rapists better. But this is not just about rapists!
Can we agree that if the law had been written to refer to violent, forcible rape, or child molestation only, there would be a lot less argument here? You are defending the suggested laws as if they only deal with these extreme offenses, but ignoring that they cover all the lesser ones as well. Isn't that a fairly egregious oversight?
Not to mention: erroneous convictions, violating the principles of ex post facto, and ne bis in idem. Not that I feel sorry for rapists, but deciding after they have been convicted, punished, and released that a new penalty also applies to them goes against our legal principles.
If you can point to even one public urinator who's having this happen to them, I will make it my personal crusade to fix it.
We have your personal commitment to fix any problems these laws cause for public urinators. In the meantime, though, we should pass them because philanthropists such as yourself will make sure no one undeserving gets hurt? Great.
Intel can open source its garbage accelerators all they want. Even with the best drivers, they still can barely handle 3d. I wouldn't be surprised if mesa outperformed their drivers.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that they open source their drivers, but it's not a competing product.
The only time that open sourcing a driver has historically been resisted by a high profile company is when the driver did a lot of the work (software modems, for example). Nobody cares about open sourcing a mouse driver, and nobody cares about open sourcing a CGA video adapter driver.
If we just consider 1., I think it's fairly straightforward to delineate between acceptable and unacceptable images; pictures of children taking a bath or running around naked (which children do, and which parents find charming for some reason) were clearly not taken in circumstances where children were exploited.
I have to disagree with this; there is no evidence to support the claim that parents photographing their children is not exploitation. The children do not consent or even understand the dangers involved, and in fact are often blackmailed later in life with these very photos.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an advocate for one system or the other.
Yet, you show disdain for homeschooling based on no evidence, just a gut feeling. See ancedotal evidence above.
I show disdain for anyone thinking their system is the best. As a user of that system and no other, you aren't in the best position to judge it.
Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to.
No, they do not go because we live in reality.
Um, ok. I'm not in favor of church attendance, but you really have a chip on your shoulder about this one. So you have no opinion on whether your children go to church? They just don't go because you exist "in reality," whatever that means...?
Come on, be honest. You are making decisions for your children (or at least, you have). There's nothing wrong with that (or at a minimum, particularly new or different from other parents). The experiences they don't have at church are being denied them. Again, fine! But don't pretend you aren't imposing your ideas on them, like all parents do. The same goes for home schooling. Your children don't get the experience of public school, for better or worse. But when I suggested as much, you called it "bullshit."
The funny thing is, I am an atheist, as you apparently are, and I am not a fan of public schools, as you apparently are not. Yet, when I dare to suggest that home schooling is not the perfect solution and that public school may actually provide some social skills that home schooling does not, you freak out. So who is being irrational, here?
I do recognize that there are other ways to provide social skills to children than public school. It's an oft-cited recommendation (by "experts" of child rearing) of choosing home schooling that it should be supplemented by other social exercises. It's precisely because they don't get those thing from home-schooling that this is needed. Which is all I'm saying. (Oh, and that parents never really know how or what their kids are doing. Maybe that's what angers you so.)
-Dan
That's the point. Repression of sex in general led to aberrance, such as child prostitution. Suppression of underage sex wasn't the problem.
-Dan
My bad, poorly quoted on the previous copy
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school.
Here is another bullshit statement, being atheist denies my children the social skills they could learn in church activities.
Actually, this is true as well. I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing that children don't learn those skills, just that they are denied the chance to learn them. Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to. Fine! The result of my experiences at church is that I am now an atheist. It's not a comment on whether public schools are good, just that you are denying them an experience that others have (good or bad).
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
Wow, that anecdotal evidence is stunning.
It's not evidence, it's my experience. I list it in contrast to the experience you shared of having your well-adjusted kids.
As a parent of non-homeschooled children, I think you are too far away from the situation to make an assessment. No offense, but my kids are well adjusted and you just don't know it.
I am not a parent. I was, however, a child. And I remember what being in public school was like and did to me. I'm certainly not an advocate for public school.
Your kids may be very well adjusted. Unfortunately, I don't think you can be objective about that. And even if you could, your "anecdotal evidence" is as useless as mine.
Once again, I'm not an advocate for one system or the other. I just doubt either system is as good as its proponents think it is.
-Dan
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school.
Here is another bullshit statement, being atheist denies my children the social skills they could learn in church activities.
Actually, this is true as well. I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing that children don't learn those skills, just that they are denied the chance to learn them. Your children will not have the experience of going to church, because you don't want them to. Fine! The result of my experiences at church is that I am now an atheist. It's not a comment on whether public schools are good, just that you are denying them an experience that others have (good or bad).
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
Wow, that anecdotal evidence is stunning.
It's not evidence, it's my experience. I list it in contrast to the experience you shared of having your well-adjusted kids.
As a parent of non-homeschooled chidlren, I think you are too far away from the situation to make an assessment. No offense, but my kids are well adjusted and you just don't know it.
I am not a parent. I was, however, a child. And I remember what being in public school was like and did to me. I'm certainly not an advocate for public school.
Your kids may be very well adjusted. Unfortunately, I don't think you can be objective about that. And even if you could, your "anecdotal evidence" is as useless as mine.
Once again, I'm not an advocate for one system or the other. I just doubt either system is as good as its proponents think it is.
-Dan
As the parent of public-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
I'm not a parent, of public or privately schooled children. I'm just suspicious of parents who are convinced that their method are the best possible methods. Oh, and I'm an atheist. So my children will not be church-reared.
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that.
You are defeating your own argument. Make a case for either socializing kids through public school or not, but don't do what most people here on Slashdot do and just argue through opinion and folklore. I have been through the public school system, and I personal don't have any strong opinions on either home-schooling or public schooling. What I have been doing here (in this thread) is commenting out the obvious fallacies.
I'm not making an argument for one or the other. I'm commenting based on my experiences. It's not important to me to convince people that public school is good. I don't think it is. It may provide some skills, however.
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school. Similar skills could be learned elsewhere, in clubs, church, or other organizations, obviously. But, unfortunately, a lot of the time these other opportunities aren't given to home-schooled children. So they grow up different from the rest of us. And when we meet them, we think they are weird, naive, etc. Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with them or home-schooling per se. They just didn't have the same experiences we did.
Being put in a public situation without your parents around with many people of your own age gives you a chance to learn to adapt to what other people are/can be like. It's not always pretty. You may not encounter some of these things in other places, like church, where the environment is often very different. Or, you may. There's not guarantee one way or the other.
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
As the parent of home-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
Personally, I hated public school and thought it was a complete waste of time. I still think that. It did, however, give me a chance to see what people are like, and I think that experience, wherever you have to get it, is important. And maybe you have provided this for your children. If so, good job. But it's quite hard, IMO, to substitute for 30+hours per week of interaction with a few clubs.
-Dan
Are you serious? The strength is just the size of the pill. Four smaller (200mg) pills add up to one larger pill. And trust me, 200mg is OTC.
-Dan
For a rational person, there's no difference between Google toolbar in FF and Google toolbar in IE.
True. However, toolbars are just one small subsection of addins. Firefox doesn't just support toolbars, which are an extension of the window menu interface--it supports addins, which are an extension of the entire interface, including the render component.
Now, IE7 supports more types of addins than IE6. But IE6 did not support Firefox style addins (which used to be called "extensions" as they extended the behavior of the browser), it only supported additional toolbars. Technically a toolbar is an addin, but it doesn't really represent extensibility to the browser, just the menus.
At this point the two systems are essentially equal in capability, based on IE7 addins I have tried. However, the number of available addins is a different debate.
-Dan
Or would you rather have OSS software do the same as proprietary software vendors and work around problems forever but never fixing them? Saw that shiny 'run in IE7 mode' button in IE8? that's what you'll get...
Poor example. This is Microsoft fixing a problem by adhering to standards. Unfortunately, their previous software was buggy and didn't follow standards, and people designed for that flawed system. Now they are trying to force everyone into standards compliance, but offering a backwards compatibility mode the only way they can without harming future standards compliance. I fail to see how this represents working around problems forever and not fixing them.
Not that microsoft doesn't do this...but I don't see this as being a great example.
And standards are great, as long as they are documented, but standards aren't always as good as something that "just works." You can design something to spec, but if that spec hasn't considered all usability cases, the spec does not save the app from being bad.
In my opinion, although IE5 was horrible at following standards, it was a superior browser at the time to other alternatives because of its speed and basic compatibility with all sites. Now-a-days I am using Firefox for other reasons. A spec used by 20% of the world vs. a de facto spec used by 80% is not necessarily better (to take w3c vs IE as an example). That's why Firefox has "quirks mode," and it's basically the same idea as "run in ie7" but really worse, because it does even less to encourage writing to standards.
-Dan
Man, I screwed up that first sentence. Should have said, "as useless as the attempts to make DRM 'uncrackable'..."
Your attempts to make it a "certifiable pain in the ass" will be rendered as useless as the attempts to an DRM "uncrackable" will be. Instead of having to find a way to crack the DRM, they will start with one. Their only job will be to make it quick and easy. And if the "pain in the ass" method is too ugly to automate, they will properly crack your DRM and make it even easier. Since an exploit is already known, a "proper" crack might even be easier to create.
And Fairplay has been cracked for ages, but Apple keeps changing it to make it a PITA to always have access to the latest crack. That's where the future of DRM lies: change the codes every week and have devices that can download the latest codes. Pretty soon it just sucks to be an uncertified client. Sure, you can always find a way around it if you really need to (say you need to move your entire iTunes library to another computer because your old computer is being upgraded), but for casual piracy, not worth it.
-Dan
Any intelligent company now is not trying to make money on their proprietary code.
Maybe that's so, but I don't know how you can be sure. Granted, Microsoft has made some bad decisions, but I'm pretty sure they are "trying to make money on their proprietary code" and it's working. In fact tons of software companies make money on closed source. Or you do you mean selling the actual code and not the finished product?
-Dan
You're right, your approach is definitely an improvement. It wraps the condition in such a way to make the programmer at least consider the problem. Unfortunately, programmers are lazy, and they will always find poor ways of handling errors they trap. But at least you are giving them the option and making it clear.
-Dan
It has. No one is downloading songs anymore. Didn't you notice?
But seriously, it will take time. The piracy market will always exist, and that's just the way it is. But it probably would have been much smaller if DRM-free downloads had beaten Napster out the door. Hell, even DRM-laden downloads probably would have worked. But it's been nearly 10 years now of free music, and up til now it's been better than pay-for options. So it will take some time to get people to gravitate toward legals options.
This isn't evidence that people didn't break the law primarily because legal options sucked. It just means that once someone decides to live "illegally," they are less likely to revert to completely lawful behavior, out of habit if nothing else.
If songs always cost 10cents, though, I'm guessing the pirate market would dry up quite a bit. It just wouldn't be worth the work.
-Dan
The point is that you fixing your code doesn't make the calling code any better. If you returned a null pointer, he could check for that. If you throw an exception, he can handle it. Or he can just dump a stacktrace, just like he could fail to catch a null pointer exception.
Formalizing ways to handle problems does not eliminate problems. It just describes a process by which to handle them. In contrast, if null pointers were not allowed, this would be a problem that simply couldn't occur.
-Dan
And then the programmer wraps your code with a try catch loop and throws your exception...which is only slightly better than a null pointer exception.
-Dan
I lured the cat into hitting cancel, but he missed! What now!!?
-Dan
Currently, Lenovo charges the same price for Vista Business and Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro. I order this option all the time. They also offer the same price for Vista Ultimate vs. Vista Ultimate downgraded to XP Pro.
While I'm not crazy about this setup, you must remember that you are effectively buying two license. At any time, you have the right to upgrade to Vista for free. Yes, you shouldn't have to buy the Vista license, but Lenovo at least is not charging business customers anything extra at the moment.
-Dan
Your assumption is not based on the facts. The Iowa votes do not get awarded in this way unless enough states pass similar legislation. This means that Iowa is "voting" for the national popular vote to be instituted, and if enough states "vote" this way, it will be. Once (if) that happens, that Iowa's popular votes will simply be part of the national popular vote. There will be no "multiplier" effect. -Dan
Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.
Interesting that you use the word, "illegal," to describe an action that you are essentially claiming to be legal. Huh...
Which part of that three word phrase is the operative word? Is it enough that the person is "foreign"? Or just someone we call an "enemy"? Or do they have to have committed an act of "terror" (a fairly hard word to clearly define)?
Also, how can you determine that someone is a "foreign enemy terrorist" in time to commit this "illegal search" legally? Oh, I get it, ignore civil liberties first, and apologize later if the person wasn't a terrorist.
Your statement seems designed to suggest that illegal acts are ok if the "victim" is not someone we care about. How about we replace "foreign enemy terrorists" with "rapists," or "criminals"? Still ok?
-Dan
Liberals hate guns so they vote "nay, guns are not allowed" but they like drugs so they vote "aye, throw out the warrantless search".
Read his post again. Liberal justices voted TO arrest legal cannabis patients.
The question is, why are his hormones imbalanced? It's not that common in males. Artificially altering hormones is extremely common for cancer treatments, however, so maybe this story is true but hides the bigger truth that he is having hormone therapy for cancer.
-Dan
Giving your email address to the cops is too extreme a punishment for raping someone?
Maybe not, but for urinating in public, it might be. Also, this is not "giving your e-mail address," it is giving your e-mail account and password! Why are you deliberately understating the punishment?
Rape is not equivalent to speaking Hebrew. One is part of your heritage. The other is a violent act. You don't get punished for being Jewish. You do get punished for raping someone.
Public urination is not equivalent to rape, either.
Stop pretending it's wrong to punish rapists. Rape is the single most psychologically damaging thing you can do to a person. It's worse than torture.
Stop assuming all sex offenders are violent rapists.
Rapists are not an ethnic minority
The also do not represent all sex offenders.
There is something wrong with being a rapist...
Agreed.
I count that you have referred to "rapists," "raping," or "rape" 15 times in this post. You have not mentioned any lesser offenses except to respond to a mention of public urination. It seems you are obsessed with rape to the point of reacting to all arguments as if they refer to treating rapists better. But this is not just about rapists!
Can we agree that if the law had been written to refer to violent, forcible rape, or child molestation only, there would be a lot less argument here? You are defending the suggested laws as if they only deal with these extreme offenses, but ignoring that they cover all the lesser ones as well. Isn't that a fairly egregious oversight?
Not to mention: erroneous convictions, violating the principles of ex post facto, and ne bis in idem. Not that I feel sorry for rapists, but deciding after they have been convicted, punished, and released that a new penalty also applies to them goes against our legal principles.
If you can point to even one public urinator who's having this happen to them, I will make it my personal crusade to fix it.
We have your personal commitment to fix any problems these laws cause for public urinators. In the meantime, though, we should pass them because philanthropists such as yourself will make sure no one undeserving gets hurt? Great.
-Dan
mod parent up
Intel can open source its garbage accelerators all they want. Even with the best drivers, they still can barely handle 3d. I wouldn't be surprised if mesa outperformed their drivers.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that they open source their drivers, but it's not a competing product.
The only time that open sourcing a driver has historically been resisted by a high profile company is when the driver did a lot of the work (software modems, for example). Nobody cares about open sourcing a mouse driver, and nobody cares about open sourcing a CGA video adapter driver.
-Dan
If we just consider 1., I think it's fairly straightforward to delineate between acceptable and unacceptable images; pictures of children taking a bath or running around naked (which children do, and which parents find charming for some reason) were clearly not taken in circumstances where children were exploited.
I have to disagree with this; there is no evidence to support the claim that parents photographing their children is not exploitation. The children do not consent or even understand the dangers involved, and in fact are often blackmailed later in life with these very photos.
-Dan