less time bitching about clearly worse(for me) design that's designed to promote advertising and not a useful site layout? And more time working for free on an idea that would ultimately be rejected, even if completed?
Where else by Anonymous Coward could we get such brilliant suggestions? Let's just ignore perfectly valid criticism because it annoys you, the mysteriously ambiguous person who doesn't go as far as suggesting there's anything positive about the new design, just how much they don't like those whiners who dare to have an opinion.
Dear slashdot editors, everyone reads the comments, we know you're not letting beta articles through the firehose. Letting non-stories like this through instead don't help your case, it just makes you look like manipulators.
You assert this as a universal law, but I can think of plenty of actions that deliberalized markets that were coincident with increases in economic output. Which means your theory isn't the universal truth you think it is.
and I can point to massive de-regulation preceding giant crashes. Now, I'm not absolutist in my position enough to say that these were caustive, but I'm sure that your position is absolutely wrong.
It's worth noting that an important part of the culture that the kims enforced on north korea is "self reliance". Everyone is taught from a very young age that you can't depend on foreigners, and that everything should be produced in country. It makes sense, even without the massive censorship, that they'd do this whereas, say, China wouldn't.
*NB this is an understanding I've mostly gained from reading the axis of evil tour, not from expertise or in-depth sociological research
I feel like it's more a consequence of cognitive dissonance than cognitive dissonance itself, but I suppose quibbling over such details is just being puerile, huh?
Well, I have to admit, a lot of times, the petitions getting that kind of response are asking the executive to do things like enforce a state law, ignore legally passed congressional legislation(like with pot), or interfere with a standing court case, all of which are blatantly unconstitutional(not that everything Obama has done has been in the strictest interpretation of the constitution, but they're not directly contrary).
Those kinds of petitions are just depressing reminders of just how dumb "we the people" tend to be. Admittedly, some things are "I'm not interested in doing this because it's against my agenda as president, and here are some nice words written by a staffer to disguise that." But most of the trite dismissive responses are entirely appropriate, from what I've seen.
This petition seems a little more legitimate since it's asking Obama to exercise an executive authority specifically outlined in legislation. Then again, we might get told once again how the internet isn't a truck.
Yeah, they fuck up by not doing that. I feel no personal moral compunction against killing any creature incapable of self-awareness. When such prohibitions actively harm those that do meet that criteria, I begin to see injustice.
Not really. Net neutrality removes a barrier to entry for the market. One that doesn't exist yet, "pay off local ISPs to allow traffic" would be a necessary step for starting a new web-based business.
I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.
If tech news has taught me anything, it's that assessing performance is never simple. I have no doubts that whatever site you migrated performs better, but that probably was the result of a single important factor to you.
This debate will not convince anyone, even if Ham doesn't successfully pull rhetorical tricks to make it appear to dumbasses that he's being intellectually honest(and he does, Gish Gallop is the word of the day). The only real result is that his failing museum will get enough publicity among culture warriors to pull it out of bankruptcy.
That's it. It's free financial support for a de-educator and nothing else.
Don't you understand? Disney's ability to take now-important cultural artifacts and lock them in their "vault" until they develop enough value to sell briefly again is for the artists who got their cut when it was made and won't see a dime of the new profits, so they keep making things, well past retirement.
I suspect that you're wrong, though, about the security. The president(and their families), vice president, foreign dignitaries, officials in dangerous locations, people running for president, and former presidents are the only federal officials that have security provided, as a matter of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares if you get it?
Yes, you do. Beta is terrible and ignoring it clearly isn't making it go away.,
less time bitching about clearly worse(for me) design that's designed to promote advertising and not a useful site layout? And more time working for free on an idea that would ultimately be rejected, even if completed?
Where else by Anonymous Coward could we get such brilliant suggestions? Let's just ignore perfectly valid criticism because it annoys you, the mysteriously ambiguous person who doesn't go as far as suggesting there's anything positive about the new design, just how much they don't like those whiners who dare to have an opinion.
than whoever planned slashdot beta.
Ha. They don't see a userbase made of people, they see ad revenue levels.
I wonder what could have happened to all that "good will".
Dear slashdot editors, everyone reads the comments, we know you're not letting beta articles through the firehose. Letting non-stories like this through instead don't help your case, it just makes you look like manipulators.
Liberalize markets, rate of growth increases.
You assert this as a universal law, but I can think of plenty of actions that deliberalized markets that were coincident with increases in economic output. Which means your theory isn't the universal truth you think it is.
and I can point to massive de-regulation preceding giant crashes. Now, I'm not absolutist in my position enough to say that these were caustive, but I'm sure that your position is absolutely wrong.
It's worth noting that an important part of the culture that the kims enforced on north korea is "self reliance". Everyone is taught from a very young age that you can't depend on foreigners, and that everything should be produced in country. It makes sense, even without the massive censorship, that they'd do this whereas, say, China wouldn't.
*NB this is an understanding I've mostly gained from reading the axis of evil tour, not from expertise or in-depth sociological research
I feel like it's more a consequence of cognitive dissonance than cognitive dissonance itself, but I suppose quibbling over such details is just being puerile, huh?
Yeah, well beta slashdot conflicts with good taste.
They're confused by the part that conflicts with their ideology.
I think that's a little extreme. Power storage isn't an impossible task.
I didn't watch either of them, and even I know that was the world cup, not the Olympics.
One with a tremendous amount of hypocrites? And I'm not even pretending that's just the US, humans have a slight tendency towards hypocrisy.
Well, I have to admit, a lot of times, the petitions getting that kind of response are asking the executive to do things like enforce a state law, ignore legally passed congressional legislation(like with pot), or interfere with a standing court case, all of which are blatantly unconstitutional(not that everything Obama has done has been in the strictest interpretation of the constitution, but they're not directly contrary).
Those kinds of petitions are just depressing reminders of just how dumb "we the people" tend to be. Admittedly, some things are "I'm not interested in doing this because it's against my agenda as president, and here are some nice words written by a staffer to disguise that." But most of the trite dismissive responses are entirely appropriate, from what I've seen.
This petition seems a little more legitimate since it's asking Obama to exercise an executive authority specifically outlined in legislation. Then again, we might get told once again how the internet isn't a truck.
Yeah, they fuck up by not doing that. I feel no personal moral compunction against killing any creature incapable of self-awareness. When such prohibitions actively harm those that do meet that criteria, I begin to see injustice.
Not really. Net neutrality removes a barrier to entry for the market. One that doesn't exist yet, "pay off local ISPs to allow traffic" would be a necessary step for starting a new web-based business.
Only about 100 countries have a party by that name. It's completely obvious which one is meant in context, but come on, be less ignorant.
Do you? I mean we ignored shakers, and they pretty much went away. We ignored flat-earthers and they're not exactly flooding with members.
I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.
If tech news has taught me anything, it's that assessing performance is never simple. I have no doubts that whatever site you migrated performs better, but that probably was the result of a single important factor to you.
This debate will not convince anyone, even if Ham doesn't successfully pull rhetorical tricks to make it appear to dumbasses that he's being intellectually honest(and he does, Gish Gallop is the word of the day). The only real result is that his failing museum will get enough publicity among culture warriors to pull it out of bankruptcy.
That's it. It's free financial support for a de-educator and nothing else.
Coordinated Universal Time. aka Greenwich mean time. aka what time it is in England, the place calling the shots when time zones were invented.
To get eastern time from UTC, subtract 5.
Don't you understand? Disney's ability to take now-important cultural artifacts and lock them in their "vault" until they develop enough value to sell briefly again is for the artists who got their cut when it was made and won't see a dime of the new profits, so they keep making things, well past retirement.
I suspect that you're wrong, though, about the security. The president(and their families), vice president, foreign dignitaries, officials in dangerous locations, people running for president, and former presidents are the only federal officials that have security provided, as a matter of law.