The difference is that an overweight by body fat person can't fight.
Very large muscular people, OTOH, look really intimidating and you're unlikely to want to ask them to move.
The body fat person is already likely dosing themselves with food to overcome depression and/or anxiety disorder, so they already have no id. They'll move like cattle.
But on Southwest, like every other carrier, I already feel like cattle... mooo.
Demand goes way beyond the UI. It's the content. Ecosystems that are convenient to use. Media re-use capabilities. Connectivity. Lack of captivity to a single vendor or communications supplier. It's the experience, not simply the physical device.
They already do things that are impulsive. We teach them, and try to help them understand that what we're teaching them will help them; hopefully it does.
You perhaps mistakenly believe that I think that teaching creationism is acceptable. It is, but only in the context that it exists as a contrasting viewpoint, and one not based in referential science. Teaching children faith is up to their parents and no one else, unless they designate them; that's what Sunday schools (etc) are for.
Like you, I get a choice. The evangelists cited as the source of this mess aren't trying to do that at all. I was baptized a Catholic. It took me a long time to figure out that the unerring source of dogma was just people trying to figure out their world. That's my opinion. Yours can be whatever. But like the old phrase goes, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Some people believe that the world is flat, too. The 'some people' rubric flatly flies in the face of the fact that faith-based (Genesis-based) creationism doesn't agree at all with evidence that science has found. Trying to mosh the two contrasting theories together makes little sense. What these Texans are trying to do is to blithely shove their 'faith' down other people's throats as fact. What are the facts? I'm happy to have presented, both sides of the evidence to children and let them understand both. Their parents can teach them which version of the faith-based versions they believe, and let the schools present the rest of the evidence. Let the storm begin.
Hold this thread up to three women where you work. Ask them. I don't think you're going to believe me. You seem to be playing yourself as a victim, in a defensive posture as a caucasian male. I'm one, too.
It takes a while to see across your own boundaries, and empathize with the history that robs non-caucasian-people and especially women of opportunity. When the lightbulb goes off, you'll be ready to see how to enable people and their successes. You'll be vastly enriched once you do, perhaps not monetarily, but rather in character.
>>When did we start disagreeing? >>You seem to have decided I'm someone you've talked to before.
WRT sentence 1, above: our basic philosophies are different. WRT sentence 2, above: we have not conversed before, so far as I know.
Differences, viz:
>>The the name may be "Old boy network" but in reality what it actually is is people who know each other. >>As in if I have a choice between 2 people and I know or a friend of mine knows one of them and can vouch for how competent they are then I'm more likely to hire them.
I'll use this as an example. There are a lot of social business situations where women have been excluded..... in some situations, minorities, as well. Golf and sports are one such place. Yes, you can choose who you socialize with. In business socializing, business takes place. Exclude women from those activities (oh, geez, gotta pick up the kids from the day care, huh? Well, see ya maybe next time) and you discriminate.
The dividing line is thin, and difficult to identify. Generally, if you're organizing an activity that has the ability to exclude one gender or another, you're discriminating.
Off the company clock, do whatever you want.
A secondary barb directed specifically at your understanding of women and access to capital:
For centuries in the west, women didn't inherit property at all. Nothing. Today, raising capital is more difficult for women because they didn't start with as much.
Sadly/. doesn't provide a good way to interact with complex data and philosophy.... I'll stop here.
Good old boy implies an X and Y set of chromosomes. Women aren't given a chance. Testosterone rules, estrogen drools. Nepotism is when you hire a relative.
Sex discrimination is still all too rampant today. Women get passed over, excluded from, and are given different expectation sets than male counterparts.
The good old boys aren't necessarily related. They're just a club that would prefer their own company to the exclusion of women.
You can ignore history if you want, and try to rationalize away the fact that minorities don't make it to the directors and boards of major corporations because they were unqualified.
I believe in choosing the best person for the job. In reality, what happens is that people also choose people that they're comfortable with. For a long time in the boardroom, that meant caucasians and not non-caucasians. Only in the past decade has that changed.
The US elected a president of color. It showed how things have changed. Yet when you travel to conferences, trade shows, conventions, people of color are often absent.
Racism is favoring one race or another to the detriment of another. This is still done today. The holy-of-holies in Silicon Valley are just as contemptuous in this regard as the boneheads in Birmingham Alabama or the stars-and-bars wavers in Columbia SC.
There is no neutrality, no color-blind world as you see it. Instead, people use subtle cultural inclusion and exclusion cues to be around those that they want to be. Integration is tough, and it takes courage, and the simple count of people of color in top management at Fortune 500s will tell you the truth about who wishes to hire whom. Call it racially unbalanced statistics, but the epithet of calling it racism is a lie.
No, it's a fact. There's a white aristocracy that ruled the US for centuries. It's only now waking up to encompassing those from other races. Go look at the racial composite of the Fortune 500, and the top 100 private corps in the USA. Doesn't quite reflect the population, does it?
We'll agree there are too many white guys, and it's a good ole boys club.
I'd rather have a CEO that was competent, having watched so many steer a ship into the docks or simply capsize it.
I'd rather have a CTO that had guts (balls, tits, doesn't matter) than one that will simply cave to a PHB because of the mortgage, blah blah blah.
The skills require a lot of talent. The fact that stockholders can't put their fingers around executive management's throats is another problem. People are hunter gatherers and their greedy. The warrors (that's what a lot of execs think of themselves as) are into it for the smell of blood (finaincial hemmoraging, mostly).
Talent? They all need talent. Payton Manning or Steve Jobs. They're worth it. Jobs is much more of a control-freak proctological oriffice than Manning, but they bring home the points and profits. That's what they get paid for. Both might be overrated, but tell that to the stockholders.
We saw this coming in 2028, and needed to have them shut this down so that they'd lose a year. This alters the timeline sufficiently. If all goes well, no other adjustments will need to be backdated until 2013. Where's Shroedinger's cat, by the way?
Maybe you want to just understand why, and when you find a common denominator possibility, you jump on it, wanting to be a simple answer.
Like Mencken said, complex problems have easy and understandable answers, and they're wrong.
I wanted to find why a relative of mine has autism. Sure would be nice if we could blame it on the vaccine he got in 1963. But it wasn't. Like the retractions, many many things have been bandied about and none of them appear to be the cause. Was it his mother's smoking? Bad diet? He was a normal toddler, then it all went away. Years later, he can't live on his own. Do I want to know why?? Sure. But the Lancet published bad research that lots of people latched onto as a probable reason without knowing how low the sample size was, and so on. We still don't know. I wish we did.
I know the iPhone's processor. The iPad is said to use most all of the current software, so I'm clued into what the A4 is and what it does to be able to accomplish that feat.
Therefore, if Apple doesn't lock down the OS running the A4, it'll get ringed by the first clever Rumanian that tries it.
Worse, no one makes a decent power-saving GPU kit. So gaming is going to be tough-- this is a raster-rendering, not vector-rendering design.
And if I worked near the same building as you, I'd be watching my stock price. It just started tilting south.
>Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications.....
We'll have to disagree. I like its gaming CPU (the A4???) and its delicious nVidia or even ATI GPU subsystem.
And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.
And so I question why you say this is a misunderstanding. Apple wants to prevent rooting, ring violations, and other basic security violations. Understandable. And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.
See? The Jedi stuff wears off when you consider the facts.
Sorry-- the iPad is a netbook wanna be with a business plan that aids Apple. It has a nice touchscreen, it's flat, and it connects to stuff. It's incapable of multi-task, multi-thread and uses nifty little programlettes from the iPhone. Well, iPhoey.
Point 1: yeah, use a Mac if you want to have lotsa desktop VMs. Easy to do. I don't know of a hackintosh VM, but if there were, I might use it-- although you can rehost VMs on VMware on Xserve. That's the only combo I know of.
As to your second point, you catch my drift. Microsoft's stuff was work in progress, with everyone guessing, controlled press leaks, and so on, all to get mindshare to the exclusion of other stuff. The tactic worked. In this case, Apple allowed lots of people to say a little about this, and that, while the public was looking to Apple's come-lately exercise, did so to the exclusion of buying other stuff.
The hardware is only one fraction of what they do. The rest is the buy-in from media and content controllers. It's a great idea, but in the meantime, chances of a little-guy getting payoff for earnest efforts become slimmer and slimmer. In a way, the Gates and Jobs squad has become like the market dominators that spawned the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The chances for anyone, Silicon Valley or garage in Shenzen get really small.
I wish there was a patch you could wear for that. You'd go down to the corner drug store. Instead of nicotine, it'd be an Apple Patch. You'd have to remove the Apple sticker from the back of your 93 Metro. And you'd be forced to put your iPod into a Nokia shell. Then, an opaque black patch would go over the Apple logo on your MacBook Pro. Finally, you'd have to run Ubuntu in a virtual machine, full screen, until you finally let go.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that an overweight by body fat person can't fight.
Very large muscular people, OTOH, look really intimidating and you're unlikely to want to ask them to move.
The body fat person is already likely dosing themselves with food to overcome depression and/or anxiety disorder, so they already have no id. They'll move like cattle.
But on Southwest, like every other carrier, I already feel like cattle... mooo.
Demand goes way beyond the UI. It's the content. Ecosystems that are convenient to use. Media re-use capabilities. Connectivity. Lack of captivity to a single vendor or communications supplier. It's the experience, not simply the physical device.
They already do things that are impulsive. We teach them, and try to help them understand that what we're teaching them will help them; hopefully it does.
You perhaps mistakenly believe that I think that teaching creationism is acceptable. It is, but only in the context that it exists as a contrasting viewpoint, and one not based in referential science. Teaching children faith is up to their parents and no one else, unless they designate them; that's what Sunday schools (etc) are for.
Like you, I get a choice. The evangelists cited as the source of this mess aren't trying to do that at all. I was baptized a Catholic. It took me a long time to figure out that the unerring source of dogma was just people trying to figure out their world. That's my opinion. Yours can be whatever. But like the old phrase goes, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Some people believe that the world is flat, too. The 'some people' rubric flatly flies in the face of the fact that faith-based (Genesis-based) creationism doesn't agree at all with evidence that science has found. Trying to mosh the two contrasting theories together makes little sense. What these Texans are trying to do is to blithely shove their 'faith' down other people's throats as fact. What are the facts? I'm happy to have presented, both sides of the evidence to children and let them understand both. Their parents can teach them which version of the faith-based versions they believe, and let the schools present the rest of the evidence. Let the storm begin.
Mod parent up. He actually RTFA and surmised the problem.
And given the MitM attack, there's no fixing this one easily at all. 2600 ought to have the details shortly.
One thinks that this is a rootkit server looking for a kernel marked X.
Hold this thread up to three women where you work. Ask them. I don't think you're going to believe me. You seem to be playing yourself as a victim, in a defensive posture as a caucasian male. I'm one, too.
It takes a while to see across your own boundaries, and empathize with the history that robs non-caucasian-people and especially women of opportunity. When the lightbulb goes off, you'll be ready to see how to enable people and their successes. You'll be vastly enriched once you do, perhaps not monetarily, but rather in character.
>>When did we start disagreeing?
>>You seem to have decided I'm someone you've talked to before.
WRT sentence 1, above: our basic philosophies are different.
WRT sentence 2, above: we have not conversed before, so far as I know.
Differences, viz:
>>The the name may be "Old boy network" but in reality what it actually is is people who know each other.
>>As in if I have a choice between 2 people and I know or a friend of mine knows one of them and can vouch for how competent they are then I'm more likely to hire them.
I'll use this as an example. There are a lot of social business situations where women have been excluded..... in some situations, minorities, as well. Golf and sports are one such place. Yes, you can choose who you socialize with. In business socializing, business takes place. Exclude women from those activities (oh, geez, gotta pick up the kids from the day care, huh? Well, see ya maybe next time) and you discriminate.
The dividing line is thin, and difficult to identify. Generally, if you're organizing an activity that has the ability to exclude one gender or another, you're discriminating.
Off the company clock, do whatever you want.
A secondary barb directed specifically at your understanding of women and access to capital:
For centuries in the west, women didn't inherit property at all. Nothing. Today, raising capital is more difficult for women because they didn't start with as much.
Sadly /. doesn't provide a good way to interact with complex data and philosophy.... I'll stop here.
We must continue to disagree, and as I believe your premise is wrong, I cannot answer it.
Part of the inability of women to get into business is precisely the fact that they haven't the same access to capital.
Men who place business above family are the vile scum of the earth.
This is nice an anecdotal.
There is a glass ceiling and it's real. Ask any woman not on medication. Sorry.... lots are because of unrealized expectations.
No.
Good old boy implies an X and Y set of chromosomes. Women aren't given a chance. Testosterone rules, estrogen drools. Nepotism is when you hire a relative.
Sex discrimination is still all too rampant today. Women get passed over, excluded from, and are given different expectation sets than male counterparts.
The good old boys aren't necessarily related. They're just a club that would prefer their own company to the exclusion of women.
We must disagree.
You can ignore history if you want, and try to rationalize away the fact that minorities don't make it to the directors and boards of major corporations because they were unqualified.
I believe in choosing the best person for the job. In reality, what happens is that people also choose people that they're comfortable with. For a long time in the boardroom, that meant caucasians and not non-caucasians. Only in the past decade has that changed.
The US elected a president of color. It showed how things have changed. Yet when you travel to conferences, trade shows, conventions, people of color are often absent.
Racism is favoring one race or another to the detriment of another. This is still done today. The holy-of-holies in Silicon Valley are just as contemptuous in this regard as the boneheads in Birmingham Alabama or the stars-and-bars wavers in Columbia SC.
There is no neutrality, no color-blind world as you see it. Instead, people use subtle cultural inclusion and exclusion cues to be around those that they want to be. Integration is tough, and it takes courage, and the simple count of people of color in top management at Fortune 500s will tell you the truth about who wishes to hire whom. Call it racially unbalanced statistics, but the epithet of calling it racism is a lie.
No, it's a fact. There's a white aristocracy that ruled the US for centuries. It's only now waking up to encompassing those from other races. Go look at the racial composite of the Fortune 500, and the top 100 private corps in the USA. Doesn't quite reflect the population, does it?
We'll agree there are too many white guys, and it's a good ole boys club.
I'd rather have a CEO that was competent, having watched so many steer a ship into the docks or simply capsize it.
I'd rather have a CTO that had guts (balls, tits, doesn't matter) than one that will simply cave to a PHB because of the mortgage, blah blah blah.
The skills require a lot of talent. The fact that stockholders can't put their fingers around executive management's throats is another problem. People are hunter gatherers and their greedy. The warrors (that's what a lot of execs think of themselves as) are into it for the smell of blood (finaincial hemmoraging, mostly).
Talent? They all need talent. Payton Manning or Steve Jobs. They're worth it. Jobs is much more of a control-freak proctological oriffice than Manning, but they bring home the points and profits. That's what they get paid for. Both might be overrated, but tell that to the stockholders.
We saw this coming in 2028, and needed to have them shut this down so that they'd lose a year. This alters the timeline sufficiently. If all goes well, no other adjustments will need to be backdated until 2013. Where's Shroedinger's cat, by the way?
Maybe you want to just understand why, and when you find a common denominator possibility, you jump on it, wanting to be a simple answer.
Like Mencken said, complex problems have easy and understandable answers, and they're wrong.
I wanted to find why a relative of mine has autism. Sure would be nice if we could blame it on the vaccine he got in 1963. But it wasn't. Like the retractions, many many things have been bandied about and none of them appear to be the cause. Was it his mother's smoking? Bad diet? He was a normal toddler, then it all went away. Years later, he can't live on his own. Do I want to know why?? Sure. But the Lancet published bad research that lots of people latched onto as a probable reason without knowing how low the sample size was, and so on. We still don't know. I wish we did.
Mod parent up. He's orthodox, but he's right.
Sorry for the meat metaphors, too.
That's my point. It's locked down.
I know the iPhone's processor. The iPad is said to use most all of the current software, so I'm clued into what the A4 is and what it does to be able to accomplish that feat.
Therefore, if Apple doesn't lock down the OS running the A4, it'll get ringed by the first clever Rumanian that tries it.
Worse, no one makes a decent power-saving GPU kit. So gaming is going to be tough-- this is a raster-rendering, not vector-rendering design.
And if I worked near the same building as you, I'd be watching my stock price. It just started tilting south.
Hmmm. Exact opposite.
>Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications.....
We'll have to disagree. I like its gaming CPU (the A4???) and its delicious nVidia or even ATI GPU subsystem.
Maybe you were thinking of bored (sic) games.
I know its processor capabilities well.
And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.
And so I question why you say this is a misunderstanding. Apple wants to prevent rooting, ring violations, and other basic security violations. Understandable. And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.
See? The Jedi stuff wears off when you consider the facts.
Sorry-- the iPad is a netbook wanna be with a business plan that aids Apple. It has a nice touchscreen, it's flat, and it connects to stuff. It's incapable of multi-task, multi-thread and uses nifty little programlettes from the iPhone. Well, iPhoey.
iSorry. iThe iPad iS iSimply iNot iThe iUltimate iGame iPlaying iPlatform.
Your Jedi Knight drivel changes nothing.
Point 1: yeah, use a Mac if you want to have lotsa desktop VMs. Easy to do. I don't know of a hackintosh VM, but if there were, I might use it-- although you can rehost VMs on VMware on Xserve. That's the only combo I know of.
As to your second point, you catch my drift. Microsoft's stuff was work in progress, with everyone guessing, controlled press leaks, and so on, all to get mindshare to the exclusion of other stuff. The tactic worked. In this case, Apple allowed lots of people to say a little about this, and that, while the public was looking to Apple's come-lately exercise, did so to the exclusion of buying other stuff.
The hardware is only one fraction of what they do. The rest is the buy-in from media and content controllers. It's a great idea, but in the meantime, chances of a little-guy getting payoff for earnest efforts become slimmer and slimmer. In a way, the Gates and Jobs squad has become like the market dominators that spawned the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The chances for anyone, Silicon Valley or garage in Shenzen get really small.
I wish there was a patch you could wear for that. You'd go down to the corner drug store. Instead of nicotine, it'd be an Apple Patch. You'd have to remove the Apple sticker from the back of your 93 Metro. And you'd be forced to put your iPod into a Nokia shell. Then, an opaque black patch would go over the Apple logo on your MacBook Pro. Finally, you'd have to run Ubuntu in a virtual machine, full screen, until you finally let go.