Um, and these would be? I'm a non-developer MS sysadmin who works with Windows all day, but uses Linux on all my home computers. I can't think of any... other than to use for managing users who are stuck in a Microsoft ecosystem. Once Powershell for linux gets a working method for creating a remote shell (specifically, to Office365), there won't even be that left.
I've been driving for over 30 years, and I've never used GPS. A quick look over a map beforehand and a sense of direction is really enough. I can recall maybe two or three times when a GPS would have even been at all useful. That includes driving in a foreign country.
If Trump had done nothing other than invest his initial "small loan" in index funds, reinvesting the dividends, he would be worth 12 billion dollars today. Even if he is worth the 4 billion he claims he is worth, he is still something of a failure as a businessman.
Wouldn't the statistical number of people who were shot which selected from among only those who were shot be 100%?
A statistical measure of the percentage of people who were shot who own guns isn't necessarily flawed on it's face. I'll grant that taken on it's own, it's not very meaningful. However, if the percentage of gun ownership among shooting victims is higher than the percentage of gun ownership in the general population, you just might have a correlation.
True story: I once had to use ToString() to convert a variable. GetType() indicated the original variable was already a string, but the function it was being passed to would not accept it until the string was converted to a string.
You don't use the same password for your email as you use for your bank account because you want to make sure that when one is compromised, the other is not.
If a thief has your email, then most likely they can use that to reset your bank account password.
Trump's comments (heck, Trump himself) is a good example of why a government that "serves the interests of a small coterie of oligarchs" is a bad thing. Why nobody notices that he himself is the bad thing that he is pointing out is a marvelous mystery.
Replacing a secret oligarch with an overt one, whose interests clearly and directly align with foreign countries which are not US allies. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
The opinion of law enforcement is one I'm actually interested in. Their input into how difficult something is to police is certainly useful in finding the best working solutions. (It's also possible that their input on a given matter is useless, but the only way to know is to listen to it.)
It's the lobbying bit that's the problem. Instead of gathering input from various groups and crafting the best workable solution, you often get the solution that best appeases the highest bidders.
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
... leading to some rather unrealistic expectations and standards. It's not exactly a documentary...
As opposed to the realistic expectations set by movies, television commercials, and other mass media? Teach your children to use their brains. The rest will take care of itself.
Having ratings applied by a secret cadre hasn't made them all that meaningful either. "Rated PG due to scenes of minor peril." What the fuck does that mean? Is that really useful for information for deciding if you should watch "Ice Age" with your 6 year old? Is the mild peril in "Ice Age" slightly less mild or more perilous than the G-rated "The Lion King"?
PS: I can remember (barely) when movies didn't have ratings. Shocking, right? Oh, and when ratings were new, people understood they were guidelines that had little real meaning. My father took me to see at least one R rated film before I was 10, the only lasting impact of which was an appreciation for the films of Alfred Hitchcock.
I have the impression that most of the time when people say they want to protect children from being exposed to something, what they really want is to protect themselves from having to answer questions that make them uncomfortable.
I have three grown children who grew up in an internet connected house. I never used a filtering system of any kind. Do you know how much of a problem I had with them accessing content they shouldn't have? None. Zero. I suppose parents actually have it a little harder now that 9 year olds have smartphones, but not much.
(Ok, there was that one time when my son was about 10 and and found a naked she-hulk drawing while searching for superhero pictures. We all thought it was pretty funny, but if you want to count that as a "problem', then have fun.)
Nice try. I wasn't disputing anything the article said. I was intentionally adding a point not covered in the article but likely a contributing factor.
Nice try. But the phrase "sounds like you are acknowledging" contains actual words, which have an actual meaning. In other words, that's not what you did at all. To make it crystal clear, you said that it "sounded like" the AC you replied to said a thing, when in fact nothing they said sounded like that thing at all.
On the other hand, I didn't say you were disputing anything. I've no idea why you think I did.
Pot, meet kettle. There was nothing in the statement which you responded to which in any way indicates even the existence of a welfare state. Your assertion otherwise says quite a bit about your own biases. (Hint: It's entirely possible for wages to be too low to be worth working for, even in the absence of a welfare state.)
What stops me from buying the reduced price phone, and then installing cyanogenmod on it, and avoiding the ads? I'm sure there will other simpler methods for disabling the ads as well.
I think I see the misapprehension you are suffering from. You think the number of things which are fun and interesting to all people is greater than zero. It isn't.
Automatic transmissions were invented for non-drivers. Everyone should have to use a manual transmission equipped car to pass their driving test.
So, you're saying that if you get in an accident, and the other car is an automatic transmission, the person behind the wheel of that vehicle couldn't be held liable? After all, the only driver involved was yourself...
I've driven manual transmission cars. It's not fun or interesting and the benefits are marginal and unimportant to me. Then again, as far as I am concerned, a car is just a tool for getting from one place to another. I'm looking forward to them all being driverless.
There is still a moment before the egg can grow into a fetus, and moment after which it will grow into a fetus.
Well, let's pretend you're correct. The moment you are describing is different every time. So there's no useful to use it as a demarcation. And if you aren't using it as a demarcation, what are you using it for?
That moment is conception, even if you can't tell post facto when it occurred
The word I use for things which people give names to, but you can't verify the existence of, is fantasy.
Feel free to demonstrate the objective scientific point of transition from "not human" to "human". It doesn't, and can't, exist within the context of biology.
Therefore, if you don't accept that life begins at conception, there is no scientific point at which you can claim such a transition has happened for you -at all-, and logical consistency requires that you agree society should likewise be free to kill you at will.
Conception is a process. Biologically, there is no "moment of conception" as the Catholics like to pretend. Sometimes the egg implants first, sometimes the sperm fertilizes it first, and so on. There is no set order for all the various steps that take place during conception. (Some orderings have better success rates than others, but none have a 0% chance... Oh, and about 50% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted without any human interference. Who should we blame those on?) It's impossible to say life begins at conception because it's impossible to say when conception begins.
In other words, you are completely correct. There is no exact transition point. Which means there is nothing to do other than make one up, as best as we can.
Can you pinpoint the exact moment that a child becomes an adult? If not, I guess all two year olds should have the right to vote, drive, drink alcohol, and serve in the military.
Post-menopausal doesn't enter into it. The human female develops all the ova she will have available for reproduction by around the 20th week of gestation. I.e., before she is born. (I imagine to the Catholic church, aborting a female fetus is like killing two generations at once.)
Evolution, for the most part, doesn't give a shit what happens to you after 40.
I believe cancer is a result of humans drastically increasing the amount of entropy in our environment and that entropy finding its way into our bodies.
This statement contains the most convoluted misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics that I have ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
If I believe that Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely because of the things he has said and done.
all without losing the advantages of Windows 10
Um, and these would be? I'm a non-developer MS sysadmin who works with Windows all day, but uses Linux on all my home computers. I can't think of any... other than to use for managing users who are stuck in a Microsoft ecosystem. Once Powershell for linux gets a working method for creating a remote shell (specifically, to Office365), there won't even be that left.
I've been driving for over 30 years, and I've never used GPS. A quick look over a map beforehand and a sense of direction is really enough. I can recall maybe two or three times when a GPS would have even been at all useful. That includes driving in a foreign country.
If Trump had done nothing other than invest his initial "small loan" in index funds, reinvesting the dividends, he would be worth 12 billion dollars today. Even if he is worth the 4 billion he claims he is worth, he is still something of a failure as a businessman.
Worked for Nixon. Matter of fact it's been the basis of our defense since the 50s.
Define "worked". I don't remember a US victory in Vietnam.
Wouldn't the statistical number of people who were shot which selected from among only those who were shot be 100%?
A statistical measure of the percentage of people who were shot who own guns isn't necessarily flawed on it's face. I'll grant that taken on it's own, it's not very meaningful. However, if the percentage of gun ownership among shooting victims is higher than the percentage of gun ownership in the general population, you just might have a correlation.
What did it tell you? That they didn't disagree with the rest of it?
True story: I once had to use ToString() to convert a variable. GetType() indicated the original variable was already a string, but the function it was being passed to would not accept it until the string was converted to a string.
You don't use the same password for your email as you use for your bank account because you want to make sure that when one is compromised, the other is not.
If a thief has your email, then most likely they can use that to reset your bank account password.
Trump's comments (heck, Trump himself) is a good example of why a government that "serves the interests of a small coterie of oligarchs" is a bad thing. Why nobody notices that he himself is the bad thing that he is pointing out is a marvelous mystery.
Replacing a secret oligarch with an overt one, whose interests clearly and directly align with foreign countries which are not US allies. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Law enforcement should just enforce the laws, in my opinion. They should not be involved in lobbying for or against them, though.
http://www.republicreport.org/...
The opinion of law enforcement is one I'm actually interested in. Their input into how difficult something is to police is certainly useful in finding the best working solutions. (It's also possible that their input on a given matter is useless, but the only way to know is to listen to it.)
It's the lobbying bit that's the problem. Instead of gathering input from various groups and crafting the best workable solution, you often get the solution that best appeases the highest bidders.
It's probably a good idea for anyone with the responsibility of voting to look beyond the end of their nose once in awhile.
I think there might actually be a third option: Take responsibility, be a parent.
... leading to some rather unrealistic expectations and standards. It's not exactly a documentary...
As opposed to the realistic expectations set by movies, television commercials, and other mass media? Teach your children to use their brains. The rest will take care of itself.
Having ratings applied by a secret cadre hasn't made them all that meaningful either. "Rated PG due to scenes of minor peril." What the fuck does that mean? Is that really useful for information for deciding if you should watch "Ice Age" with your 6 year old? Is the mild peril in "Ice Age" slightly less mild or more perilous than the G-rated "The Lion King"?
PS: I can remember (barely) when movies didn't have ratings. Shocking, right? Oh, and when ratings were new, people understood they were guidelines that had little real meaning. My father took me to see at least one R rated film before I was 10, the only lasting impact of which was an appreciation for the films of Alfred Hitchcock.
I have the impression that most of the time when people say they want to protect children from being exposed to something, what they really want is to protect themselves from having to answer questions that make them uncomfortable.
I have three grown children who grew up in an internet connected house. I never used a filtering system of any kind. Do you know how much of a problem I had with them accessing content they shouldn't have? None. Zero. I suppose parents actually have it a little harder now that 9 year olds have smartphones, but not much.
(Ok, there was that one time when my son was about 10 and and found a naked she-hulk drawing while searching for superhero pictures. We all thought it was pretty funny, but if you want to count that as a "problem', then have fun.)
Nice try. I wasn't disputing anything the article said. I was intentionally adding a point not covered in the article but likely a contributing factor.
Nice try. But the phrase "sounds like you are acknowledging" contains actual words, which have an actual meaning. In other words, that's not what you did at all. To make it crystal clear, you said that it "sounded like" the AC you replied to said a thing, when in fact nothing they said sounded like that thing at all.
On the other hand, I didn't say you were disputing anything. I've no idea why you think I did.
Pot, meet kettle. There was nothing in the statement which you responded to which in any way indicates even the existence of a welfare state. Your assertion otherwise says quite a bit about your own biases.
(Hint: It's entirely possible for wages to be too low to be worth working for, even in the absence of a welfare state.)
What stops me from buying the reduced price phone, and then installing cyanogenmod on it, and avoiding the ads? I'm sure there will other simpler methods for disabling the ads as well.
the whole thing has gone pear-shaped.
I think I see the misapprehension you are suffering from. You think the number of things which are fun and interesting to all people is greater than zero. It isn't.
Automatic transmissions were invented for non-drivers. Everyone should have to use a manual transmission equipped car to pass their driving test.
So, you're saying that if you get in an accident, and the other car is an automatic transmission, the person behind the wheel of that vehicle couldn't be held liable? After all, the only driver involved was yourself...
I've driven manual transmission cars. It's not fun or interesting and the benefits are marginal and unimportant to me. Then again, as far as I am concerned, a car is just a tool for getting from one place to another. I'm looking forward to them all being driverless.
There is still a moment before the egg can grow into a fetus, and moment after which it will grow into a fetus.
Well, let's pretend you're correct. The moment you are describing is different every time. So there's no useful to use it as a demarcation. And if you aren't using it as a demarcation, what are you using it for?
That moment is conception, even if you can't tell post facto when it occurred
The word I use for things which people give names to, but you can't verify the existence of, is fantasy.
Feel free to demonstrate the objective scientific point of transition from "not human" to "human". It doesn't, and can't, exist within the context of biology.
Therefore, if you don't accept that life begins at conception, there is no scientific point at which you can claim such a transition has happened for you -at all-, and logical consistency requires that you agree society should likewise be free to kill you at will.
Conception is a process. Biologically, there is no "moment of conception" as the Catholics like to pretend. Sometimes the egg implants first, sometimes the sperm fertilizes it first, and so on. There is no set order for all the various steps that take place during conception. (Some orderings have better success rates than others, but none have a 0% chance... Oh, and about 50% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted without any human interference. Who should we blame those on?) It's impossible to say life begins at conception because it's impossible to say when conception begins.
In other words, you are completely correct. There is no exact transition point. Which means there is nothing to do other than make one up, as best as we can.
Can you pinpoint the exact moment that a child becomes an adult? If not, I guess all two year olds should have the right to vote, drive, drink alcohol, and serve in the military.
Post-menopausal doesn't enter into it. The human female develops all the ova she will have available for reproduction by around the 20th week of gestation. I.e., before she is born. (I imagine to the Catholic church, aborting a female fetus is like killing two generations at once.)
Evolution, for the most part, doesn't give a shit what happens to you after 40.
I believe cancer is a result of humans drastically increasing the amount of entropy in our environment and that entropy finding its way into our bodies.
This statement contains the most convoluted misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics that I have ever seen.