2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.
Yeah, maybe a short walk or something (10-15 mins). Not over an hour each way on a crowded train or sitting in a series of traffic jams.
I don't have a smartphone (=mobile tracking and spying device), so I still use a Palm Pilot to manage my calendar and contacts (jpilot interface on Linux).
That is so old fashioned and needlessly awkward that it must make you some sort of hipster.
As for the software Zune being "better", I think you'll have a hard to proving that objectively even allowing for the fact that iTunes is widely regarded as rather poor quality
I have never even seen a Zune, but I can say with a six sigma level of confidence that its software is better than iTunes.
My cat fell asleep on my keyboard and wrote a piece of software as it was dreaming about hunting birds that was better than iTunes.
I'm going to say it: I loved the brown version. It was beautiful. Whether it was ahead of its time, or behind its time, or just too niche, I don't know. I just know it looked fantastic in person and literally like crap in pictures. As for other compelling reasons: the Zune had better sound quality, better software, and a better screen than the iPod.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think what you just said is illegal.
For example I could get a cordless drill from a no-name manufacturer but then 5 years later I won't be able to get replacement batteries most likely.
Say you have a choice between a cheap cordless drill for GBP50 that will last 5 years, or an expensive one for GBP200 that lasts 30 years. Clearly the latter is a better choice.
But your choice is actually determined by how much cash you have at the time.
That's why it is so horrible being poor. You know that not only do you have crappier stuff than other people, but it's actually costing you more.
Ironic that they have specific bans on homosexuality, swearing, and erotic content, as hearing the term 'faceglory' just makes me think of 'glory shots' (aka 'money shots')
It's like an initiation test. Anyone who smirks when they're asked to say the name doesn't get to enter.
People tend to self-segregate into their preferred echo chambers. Hence the reason you can't make a pro-gun comment on HuffPo, or an pro-choice argument on FOX News, without being attacked by the general populations therein
Whereas on slashdot you can say exactly what you like as long as it's not in favour of Microsoft.
But that's fair enough, you don't expect people to be even-handed about Hitler either.
while we are at it, let's ask the question, is it a good thing for a journalist to cover unspeakable and unambiguous evil and try to pretend being fair is a good thing?
imagine a reporter touring an active, functioning concentration camp, watching forced labor, "medical" experimentation, rape, mass executions, and writing glowingly of the benefit to the nation of all the free labor, recovered dental fillings, and letting sadistic psychopaths work out their villany on a small subset of the population instead of on the entire population, giving those aspects equal time and attention as the horror and injustice of the attrocity that it represents.
now imagine praising such an one as being an unbiased journalist. can you do it?
Being unbiased does not mean giving every conceivable opinion the exact same weight.
If you're reporting a football match, you do not need to include the opinions of people who are indifferent to football or hate football, or those who think that it is a symbolic re-enacting of Christ's life, or those who simply don't understand it, or those who think all life is an illusion, or those who think all life is an illusion except football...
Baking a cake for a gay couple does not violate any scriptures or doctrines.
But because of the absurd US obsession with freedom of religion, all someone has to do is say "it's against my religion" and suddenly that trumps everything else.
And you're wrong about religion; our society makes special exceptions for religion all the time.
Well, it shouldn't.
The Amish, for example, are religiously opposed to insurance. Therefore, they don't participate in Social Security, which is mandatory for everyone else.
I'm not American so I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, then your laws are stupid. Do you let ISIL sympathisers behead passers-by because their religion says it's required?
It was more than a little sad; it was wrong. Eich probably would have donated anonymously, but California didn't allow him to do so. Some assholes looked up his name on a government-published list and then just persecuted him for no reason other than they disagreed with his political views.
While it is understandable that he might want to hide his repellently reactionary right wing beliefs from decent people, it would also be completely cowardly. If you believe in something enough to doante money to it, you should have the courage of your convictions and stand up and defend those beliefs
Do you really think that if someone had (hypothetically) been exposed as having donated to a "paedophiles for kiddie rape" [*] campaign, then no one would have had the right to criticise him for it?
In fact, a lot of rightwing people don't think being homophobic is wrong, and try to squirrel out of it by introducing issues of anonymity, free speech or whatever.
[*] or whatever seems particularly horrible to you,
Not really. Excluding someone from a restaurant they go by every day because of that person's race is a significant inconvenience for that person, yet serving black people isn't against anyone's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments. On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.
Just because two situations look the same at first glance doesn't mean they are.
There are plenty of racists who find "evicence" for their beliefs in the Bible and can therefore call it a religious commandment.
The main point is that it doesn't matter a flying fuck what people's religious beliefs are, it is what society as a whole decides is acceptable. Your religion might say that anyone with red hair should be killed, that does not give you a right to murder redheads and escape the punishment of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.
Yeah, maybe a short walk or something (10-15 mins). Not over an hour each way on a crowded train or sitting in a series of traffic jams.
I don't have a smartphone (=mobile tracking and spying device), so I still use a Palm Pilot to manage my calendar and contacts (jpilot interface on Linux).
That is so old fashioned and needlessly awkward that it must make you some sort of hipster.
As for the software Zune being "better", I think you'll have a hard to proving that objectively even allowing for the fact that iTunes is widely regarded as rather poor quality
I have never even seen a Zune, but I can say with a six sigma level of confidence that its software is better than iTunes.
My cat fell asleep on my keyboard and wrote a piece of software as it was dreaming about hunting birds that was better than iTunes.
I'm going to say it: I loved the brown version. It was beautiful. Whether it was ahead of its time, or behind its time, or just too niche, I don't know. I just know it looked fantastic in person and literally like crap in pictures. As for other compelling reasons: the Zune had better sound quality, better software, and a better screen than the iPod.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think what you just said is illegal.
For example I could get a cordless drill from a no-name manufacturer but then 5 years later I won't be able to get replacement batteries most likely.
Say you have a choice between a cheap cordless drill for GBP50 that will last 5 years, or an expensive one for GBP200 that lasts 30 years. Clearly the latter is a better choice.
But your choice is actually determined by how much cash you have at the time.
That's why it is so horrible being poor. You know that not only do you have crappier stuff than other people, but it's actually costing you more.
I'm pretty sure that most hipsters couldn't even tell you the names of two different Operating Systems, never mind install them on the same computer.
I was a hipster in 2007
That is so 2006.
Other than his first venture - Microsoft - none of his other investments make sense
"Other than being one of the richest men in the world, he's poor".
But this is probably not the time to boast of being an early Linux adopter?
I take it you missed the fact that they claim 100,000 people signed up in the first month? You are a few orders of magnitude off.
And how many of those were Portugese atheists loking for some prime trolling?
Actually, researchers of the Romance languages make a difference between Portuguese and Brazilian (and yes, there are some differences).
Well yeah "Portuguese" isn't a number like "Brazilian".
Ironic that they have specific bans on homosexuality, swearing, and erotic content, as hearing the term 'faceglory' just makes me think of 'glory shots' (aka 'money shots')
It's like an initiation test. Anyone who smirks when they're asked to say the name doesn't get to enter.
Why shouldn't evangelists get some "down time" too?
I think you'd have to be very careful how you used that phrase on a religious forum.
People tend to self-segregate into their preferred echo chambers. Hence the reason you can't make a pro-gun comment on HuffPo, or an pro-choice argument on FOX News, without being attacked by the general populations therein
Whereas on slashdot you can say exactly what you like as long as it's not in favour of Microsoft.
But that's fair enough, you don't expect people to be even-handed about Hitler either.
while we are at it, let's ask the question, is it a good thing for a journalist to cover unspeakable and unambiguous evil and try to pretend being fair is a good thing?
imagine a reporter touring an active, functioning concentration camp, watching forced labor, "medical" experimentation, rape, mass executions, and writing glowingly of the benefit to the nation of all the free labor, recovered dental fillings, and letting sadistic psychopaths work out their villany on a small subset of the population instead of on the entire population, giving those aspects equal time and attention as the horror and injustice of the attrocity that it represents.
now imagine praising such an one as being an unbiased journalist. can you do it?
Being unbiased does not mean giving every conceivable opinion the exact same weight.
If you're reporting a football match, you do not need to include the opinions of people who are indifferent to football or hate football, or those who think that it is a symbolic re-enacting of Christ's life, or those who simply don't understand it, or those who think all life is an illusion, or those who think all life is an illusion except football...
There are several known cases of teenagers who suddenly turn gay just by being accidentally exposed to some light musical theatre.
Baking a cake for a gay couple does not violate any scriptures or doctrines.
But because of the absurd US obsession with freedom of religion, all someone has to do is say "it's against my religion" and suddenly that trumps everything else.
And you're wrong about religion; our society makes special exceptions for religion all the time.
Well, it shouldn't.
The Amish, for example, are religiously opposed to insurance. Therefore, they don't participate in Social Security, which is mandatory for everyone else.
I'm not American so I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, then your laws are stupid. Do you let ISIL sympathisers behead passers-by because their religion says it's required?
It was more than a little sad; it was wrong. Eich probably would have donated anonymously, but California didn't allow him to do so. Some assholes looked up his name on a government-published list and then just persecuted him for no reason other than they disagreed with his political views.
While it is understandable that he might want to hide his repellently reactionary right wing beliefs from decent people, it would also be completely cowardly. If you believe in something enough to doante money to it, you should have the courage of your convictions and stand up and defend those beliefs
Do you really think that if someone had (hypothetically) been exposed as having donated to a "paedophiles for kiddie rape" [*] campaign, then no one would have had the right to criticise him for it?
In fact, a lot of rightwing people don't think being homophobic is wrong, and try to squirrel out of it by introducing issues of anonymity, free speech or whatever.
[*] or whatever seems particularly horrible to you,
Not really. Excluding someone from a restaurant they go by every day because of that person's race is a significant inconvenience for that person, yet serving black people isn't against anyone's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments. On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.
Just because two situations look the same at first glance doesn't mean they are.
There are plenty of racists who find "evicence" for their beliefs in the Bible and can therefore call it a religious commandment.
The main point is that it doesn't matter a flying fuck what people's religious beliefs are, it is what society as a whole decides is acceptable. Your religion might say that anyone with red hair should be killed, that does not give you a right to murder redheads and escape the punishment of the law.
No one is immune to the desire to persecute. In the US, today, the "liberal" LGBT crowd are persecuting those who don't wish to do business with them.
Persecuting them by pointing out their beliefs to everyone and refusing to use their business?
Funny how free speech becomes evil when it's used by "the left" or women or gays.
While there were many problems with the French and Russian Revolutions , wanting to destroy the power of the Church wasn't one of them.
(Or what some medical "ethicists" are pushing for - "abortions" up to age 5 or 6?
You are either high on drugs or have a mental illness, and in either case there's not much point in arguing with you.
I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion.
Science and rationality are the enemies of religion if religion strays into their territory.
I don't particularly care if someone believes in astrology, but I wouldn't really want them to be teaching astronomy to my kids.
if people want to live a certain way, let them live that way.
If they're adults, there is nothing you can do to stop them. That does not mean they should be allowed to brainwash children.
Jesuits and ISIL have a lot in common: they both know that if you get a kid young enough you can make him believe anything.