You don't seem to know what an asshole is. An asshole is someone who says something that is incredibly stupid, and the gets aggressive when they are called out on it. You said something incredibly stupid. You take the stance that no one should contradict you because "it was a joke". Clearly you don't think it is a joke. You are completely serious. You say so in the post following this one. So, not only are you stupid. You are also a liar.
And yet you ingest an industrial solvent every day, and the whole while think it is healthy? A chemical that has specifically been used to kill people when they have been sentenced to death. The quote you used is ridiculous. It is only funny in the "look how stupid the quote is. And see how dumb the people that take it seriously are." kind of way.
Given that I can live with multiple women, have sex with them, have children with them, and in all ways other than legal, I can be married to them. Yes, why not poly-marriage?
The real problem is that we have a secular property partnership that has been mixed and confused with a religious ceremony. It has been suggested that gay couples should be offered an marriage equivalent. A 'civil union'. That is half the correct answer that would be all wrong if implemented alone. The real answer is to just declare ALL existing marriages to be civil unions, and remove any legal standing to "marriage". Let people make the fiduciary responsibilities of 'civil union' to whoever they want, and let the churches worry about what a 'marriage is. Each denomination can decide for themselves what a marriage is. Anyone outside of the group has no more need or requirement to acknowledge the marriage than they do a declaration of BFFs.
You are wrong about that though. While we have been getting the word out on obesity for decades, we have also seen HUGE changes in behavior from it. The problem is that much of the advice is counter productive, and a major reason for people getting heavier.
First, the normally accepted definition of "obese" is stupid to begin with. This is what is considered obese by our government/medical/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html
That's right. 100% of the time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was considered "obese".
Then you have to look at how people are told to avoid "obesity". Exercise more, eat less, avoid fat, stick to sugar. That is the advice they are given. This advice is actively harmful. Not everyone has the same genetics. I, for example, have a lean body mass that places me only 10 pounds below the "overweight" mark. That is with very little exercise. I also pack on muscle extremely easily form exercise, so if I were to actually go to the gym 3 times a week, my lean body mass would be pushing me over the "overweight" mark. My body fat on the other hand is regulated almost exclusively by diet. A lack of fat, and almost any sugar makes my body store fat.
So, the currently "accepted" healthy lifestyle that is supposed to keep me from being fat has me starving (in the literal sense, not the "I'm really hunger" sense) in an attempt to force my body burn fat that my body is storing due to a diet that is exactly the opposite of what it needs. Then if I successfully starve off my fat, I am starving (again literally) my body in an attempt to remove the muscle that the exercise is putting on. I would be waging a battle in my body between putting muscle on through exercise, and eating it away through starvation to get below the "overweight" threshold.
No sane person could see that as healthy. All the while, our society/government/medical/insurance industries would be patting the guy next to me on the back while he sits with this 30% body fat because he happens to be a couple of inches taller, and his body doesn't produce muscle.
Using fear as a motivator doesn't solve a problem if you are using fear to chase people directly into the problem you are trying to avoid.
I hate when people try to rationalize a chemical being bad because it was "Originally classified" as something bad, or "was develeped as" something bad. Neither of those are legitimate arguments. Those arguments are exactly why the DHMO jokes are funny. http://www.dhmo.org/
Are you saying that those evil public utilities are undercutting good hard working companies? That is almost as bad as allowing cities to install wifi.
I am making the very reasonable assumption that while you might not confess to someone over email, you very well might make arrangements, or make off hand comments to other people that would have given a reasonably intelligent person a good idea as to what you were doing. You clearly have a lot of denial going on, and your rationalization that your wife shouldn't be checking up on you is clearly part of that.
Your explanation is exactly why she should have your passwords. You were being destructive, and her trust in you was misplaced. You have show that you are willing to hide things for her that she should know. Sure you say that NOW your not hiding anything, but no doubt that is what you said before also.
It is going to be aimed at white people all of the time. Your belief that it wouldn't shows just how racist you are. Here is a hint. There is not great white conspiracy. White people are not handed club cards as they exit the womb. Wealth and power does generally pass down through families and there was a time that the wealth and power was held exclusively by people that were white. All it takes is one generation of a family to screw the wealth up, and everyone below them is now on the other side of the fence, and contrary to popular racist beliefs, not all white people come from those families that had wealth in the past. What you think is a race issue is not. It is a economic issue.
Are there racists out there? Of course there are. You are proof of that. Even though there are racists, it doesn't do any good to dismiss the danger to white people if you want this item banned. Instead of telling all of the white people that THEY have nothing to fear from this (which isn't true), you should be trying to be more racially inclusive and point out that this poses a risk that we all share.
You seriously think that even one cop isn't going to use this tool illegally? You sound like a teenage girl who hands out her passwords as a sign of intimacy.
The way this tool will be used is simple. The cop will scan random people. If an item the cop disapproves of (even if it is legal) shows up, the cop will approach the person for questioning "because they behaved suspiciously". After a few questions, the cop will claim "probable cause", and move forward from there. At no time will the use of the scanner be claimed as the reason for the confrontation.
The only way that these devices should even be considered is if they log every time they are used, the police are required to give an explanation prior to it's use, and the logs are in a read only environment that has no mechanism for the police department to tamper with the data. A simple audio recorder that time stamps the event and lets the cop say "Making arrest on 4th st." into the device before it will scan should be enough to keep cops from abusing this.
That would be the difference between A asking B for their password, and B offering A their password. The first instance is a sign of distrust. The second is a sign of trust.
As for your sister, maybe it didn't last because the boyfriend's suspicious were founded. Do you think your sister would tell you if she were banging her next door neighbor while her boyfriend was at work? While there are some people that are unreasonably jealous, more often than not, when someone thinks their significant other is cheating, that is because they either are cheating, or are preparing to.
My son runs on Windows, so I don't think it is a Windows thing. I can't say that the problem reports are made up, but we have all seen it happen. I'm not convince that we are not seeing that here.
I have to ask though, how useful can 150 tabs open be? It seems like the amount of effort required to find the tabs would take as much time as just opening the page. Are those pages running active content, and that is why you keep them open?
Because as great as an android phones and tablets are, they are crappy for 99% of the games out there. Phones and tablets are pretty much only replacements for hand held consoles for the people that wouldn't have bought a hand held console anyway. Maybe when Android has gamepad support built in (I believe that is ics) AND tablet, phone and software developers start supporting it heavily, then maybe it would be a replacement. Today it is not.
There are plenty of good games on the Wii. At least as many as on other platforms. For Christmas, we got an Xbox 360 + Kinect. We hooked it up, appreciated how much fun it was for about a 1/2 hour, and then spent the next 3 hours playing Fortune Street on the Wii.
It is hard to say what will happen with the next generation of systems. A faster Wii with HDMI and 1080p would make up for any deficiencies that the Wii is currently showing, and depending on how fast, it could easily surpass the 360 and PS3. When Sony and MS come out with their next consoles, the public may be in the same position that they were in with the current systems. An inexpensive system with lots of fun games, or an expensive system that may look a little prettier, but doesn't have anything special to offer.
That said, I do think there should be significant fair use rights for works like this
That is the key point. Keeping that speech under lock and key is saying that the speech is not something that should be spread as far and wide as possible. I think that most people would say that this is a problem.
Was this just to see what would happen, or are you actually using 340 tabs. I hear about people running huge numbers of tabs, but I would think that over a certain number of tabs, the time you would save by having the page preloaded would be dwarfed by the time spend trying to find the tab in the mess tabs.
I regularly hear these stories about how Firefox grinds to a halt if it is left open. I am not the type to load lots of windows, and I shut down the browser when not using it, but my son on the other hand leaves his browser open for weeks at a time, with various flash games running the entire time. He never has these slowdowns or crashes the other people regularly report. Not with Firefox. Not with Flash.
Ahh the good old days. When saving your program meant you wrote down your hex on a sheet of paper so that you could type it in again the next time you wanted to run the program. I do have to admit that I did avoid punch cards. I predate magnetic media, but was too young to have access to punch-card readers prior to the magnetic media hitting the streets.
Gotcha! I read that backwards and thought you were saying that you wouldn't buy a TV if it came with features you didn't use, and you assumed that meant it was costing more. My mistake.
Of course you corrected me. You explained that when it happens on Apple products, it isn't a problem with the phone, it is a problem with me, and having applications just work on Android is my imagination. I understand.
Ahhh....When software doesn't run on Apple, it is my fault. When software doesn't run on Android, it is Android's fault. That makes WAY more sense. Your right. Not taking accepting that any incompatibility between iOS products is my fault, is clearly a sign of fanboyism.
I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use
You may be doing just that by insisting that parts not be included. This is the same debate that went on when things like Network/serial ports/video/audio started being included on motherboards. When adding good enough audio added $80 to the cost of a motherboard, it was bad to include it on every board. When the audio started adding less than $1 the situation changed. It became came cheaper to make one version of the board with audio than it was to do a separate run of boards without audio. Thus, manufacturing boards with audio and not using it was actually less expensive than not having audio at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to know what an asshole is. An asshole is someone who says something that is incredibly stupid, and the gets aggressive when they are called out on it. You said something incredibly stupid. You take the stance that no one should contradict you because "it was a joke". Clearly you don't think it is a joke. You are completely serious. You say so in the post following this one. So, not only are you stupid. You are also a liar.
And yet you ingest an industrial solvent every day, and the whole while think it is healthy? A chemical that has specifically been used to kill people when they have been sentenced to death. The quote you used is ridiculous. It is only funny in the "look how stupid the quote is. And see how dumb the people that take it seriously are." kind of way.
Given that I can live with multiple women, have sex with them, have children with them, and in all ways other than legal, I can be married to them. Yes, why not poly-marriage?
The real problem is that we have a secular property partnership that has been mixed and confused with a religious ceremony. It has been suggested that gay couples should be offered an marriage equivalent. A 'civil union'. That is half the correct answer that would be all wrong if implemented alone. The real answer is to just declare ALL existing marriages to be civil unions, and remove any legal standing to "marriage". Let people make the fiduciary responsibilities of 'civil union' to whoever they want, and let the churches worry about what a 'marriage is. Each denomination can decide for themselves what a marriage is. Anyone outside of the group has no more need or requirement to acknowledge the marriage than they do a declaration of BFFs.
You are wrong about that though. While we have been getting the word out on obesity for decades, we have also seen HUGE changes in behavior from it. The problem is that much of the advice is counter productive, and a major reason for people getting heavier.
First, the normally accepted definition of "obese" is stupid to begin with. This is what is considered obese by our government/medical/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html
That's right. 100% of the time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was considered "obese".
Then you have to look at how people are told to avoid "obesity". Exercise more, eat less, avoid fat, stick to sugar. That is the advice they are given. This advice is actively harmful. Not everyone has the same genetics. I, for example, have a lean body mass that places me only 10 pounds below the "overweight" mark. That is with very little exercise. I also pack on muscle extremely easily form exercise, so if I were to actually go to the gym 3 times a week, my lean body mass would be pushing me over the "overweight" mark. My body fat on the other hand is regulated almost exclusively by diet. A lack of fat, and almost any sugar makes my body store fat.
So, the currently "accepted" healthy lifestyle that is supposed to keep me from being fat has me starving (in the literal sense, not the "I'm really hunger" sense) in an attempt to force my body burn fat that my body is storing due to a diet that is exactly the opposite of what it needs. Then if I successfully starve off my fat, I am starving (again literally) my body in an attempt to remove the muscle that the exercise is putting on. I would be waging a battle in my body between putting muscle on through exercise, and eating it away through starvation to get below the "overweight" threshold.
No sane person could see that as healthy. All the while, our society/government/medical/insurance industries would be patting the guy next to me on the back while he sits with this 30% body fat because he happens to be a couple of inches taller, and his body doesn't produce muscle.
Using fear as a motivator doesn't solve a problem if you are using fear to chase people directly into the problem you are trying to avoid.
Psychological disorder diagnosis gets even worse when you consider that as frequently as not, being PC is used as a diagnosis method.
I hate when people try to rationalize a chemical being bad because it was "Originally classified" as something bad, or "was develeped as" something bad. Neither of those are legitimate arguments. Those arguments are exactly why the DHMO jokes are funny. http://www.dhmo.org/
Are you saying that those evil public utilities are undercutting good hard working companies? That is almost as bad as allowing cities to install wifi.
If that what lets you sleep at night now.
I am making the very reasonable assumption that while you might not confess to someone over email, you very well might make arrangements, or make off hand comments to other people that would have given a reasonably intelligent person a good idea as to what you were doing. You clearly have a lot of denial going on, and your rationalization that your wife shouldn't be checking up on you is clearly part of that.
Your explanation is exactly why she should have your passwords. You were being destructive, and her trust in you was misplaced. You have show that you are willing to hide things for her that she should know. Sure you say that NOW your not hiding anything, but no doubt that is what you said before also.
It is going to be aimed at white people all of the time. Your belief that it wouldn't shows just how racist you are. Here is a hint. There is not great white conspiracy. White people are not handed club cards as they exit the womb. Wealth and power does generally pass down through families and there was a time that the wealth and power was held exclusively by people that were white. All it takes is one generation of a family to screw the wealth up, and everyone below them is now on the other side of the fence, and contrary to popular racist beliefs, not all white people come from those families that had wealth in the past. What you think is a race issue is not. It is a economic issue.
Are there racists out there? Of course there are. You are proof of that. Even though there are racists, it doesn't do any good to dismiss the danger to white people if you want this item banned. Instead of telling all of the white people that THEY have nothing to fear from this (which isn't true), you should be trying to be more racially inclusive and point out that this poses a risk that we all share.
You seriously think that even one cop isn't going to use this tool illegally? You sound like a teenage girl who hands out her passwords as a sign of intimacy.
The way this tool will be used is simple. The cop will scan random people. If an item the cop disapproves of (even if it is legal) shows up, the cop will approach the person for questioning "because they behaved suspiciously". After a few questions, the cop will claim "probable cause", and move forward from there. At no time will the use of the scanner be claimed as the reason for the confrontation.
The only way that these devices should even be considered is if they log every time they are used, the police are required to give an explanation prior to it's use, and the logs are in a read only environment that has no mechanism for the police department to tamper with the data. A simple audio recorder that time stamps the event and lets the cop say "Making arrest on 4th st." into the device before it will scan should be enough to keep cops from abusing this.
Why are we assuming that the breach only stole code, and did not hide malicious code in the source?
That would be the difference between A asking B for their password, and B offering A their password. The first instance is a sign of distrust. The second is a sign of trust.
As for your sister, maybe it didn't last because the boyfriend's suspicious were founded. Do you think your sister would tell you if she were banging her next door neighbor while her boyfriend was at work? While there are some people that are unreasonably jealous, more often than not, when someone thinks their significant other is cheating, that is because they either are cheating, or are preparing to.
My son runs on Windows, so I don't think it is a Windows thing. I can't say that the problem reports are made up, but we have all seen it happen. I'm not convince that we are not seeing that here.
I have to ask though, how useful can 150 tabs open be? It seems like the amount of effort required to find the tabs would take as much time as just opening the page. Are those pages running active content, and that is why you keep them open?
Because as great as an android phones and tablets are, they are crappy for 99% of the games out there. Phones and tablets are pretty much only replacements for hand held consoles for the people that wouldn't have bought a hand held console anyway. Maybe when Android has gamepad support built in (I believe that is ics) AND tablet, phone and software developers start supporting it heavily, then maybe it would be a replacement. Today it is not.
There are plenty of good games on the Wii. At least as many as on other platforms. For Christmas, we got an Xbox 360 + Kinect. We hooked it up, appreciated how much fun it was for about a 1/2 hour, and then spent the next 3 hours playing Fortune Street on the Wii.
It is hard to say what will happen with the next generation of systems. A faster Wii with HDMI and 1080p would make up for any deficiencies that the Wii is currently showing, and depending on how fast, it could easily surpass the 360 and PS3. When Sony and MS come out with their next consoles, the public may be in the same position that they were in with the current systems. An inexpensive system with lots of fun games, or an expensive system that may look a little prettier, but doesn't have anything special to offer.
That said, I do think there should be significant fair use rights for works like this
That is the key point. Keeping that speech under lock and key is saying that the speech is not something that should be spread as far and wide as possible. I think that most people would say that this is a problem.
Was this just to see what would happen, or are you actually using 340 tabs. I hear about people running huge numbers of tabs, but I would think that over a certain number of tabs, the time you would save by having the page preloaded would be dwarfed by the time spend trying to find the tab in the mess tabs.
I regularly hear these stories about how Firefox grinds to a halt if it is left open. I am not the type to load lots of windows, and I shut down the browser when not using it, but my son on the other hand leaves his browser open for weeks at a time, with various flash games running the entire time. He never has these slowdowns or crashes the other people regularly report. Not with Firefox. Not with Flash.
Ahh the good old days. When saving your program meant you wrote down your hex on a sheet of paper so that you could type it in again the next time you wanted to run the program. I do have to admit that I did avoid punch cards. I predate magnetic media, but was too young to have access to punch-card readers prior to the magnetic media hitting the streets.
Gotcha! I read that backwards and thought you were saying that you wouldn't buy a TV if it came with features you didn't use, and you assumed that meant it was costing more. My mistake.
Of course you corrected me. You explained that when it happens on Apple products, it isn't a problem with the phone, it is a problem with me, and having applications just work on Android is my imagination. I understand.
That would be the last time I had 900 billion to spend on the problem.
Ahhh....When software doesn't run on Apple, it is my fault. When software doesn't run on Android, it is Android's fault. That makes WAY more sense. Your right. Not taking accepting that any incompatibility between iOS products is my fault, is clearly a sign of fanboyism.
I refuse to pay for features that I'm not going to use
You may be doing just that by insisting that parts not be included. This is the same debate that went on when things like Network/serial ports/video/audio started being included on motherboards. When adding good enough audio added $80 to the cost of a motherboard, it was bad to include it on every board. When the audio started adding less than $1 the situation changed. It became came cheaper to make one version of the board with audio than it was to do a separate run of boards without audio. Thus, manufacturing boards with audio and not using it was actually less expensive than not having audio at all.