There might be multiple items I want to see on one map, but if the streets run diagonal to the paper, they won't all fit. I would either have to zoom out, thus losing the finer points of the map, or create two maps which overlap one another.
Go pull out a state map (if you have one). The portions which show major cities all have their maps aligned N/S.
In fact, pull out any map. Every map I have ever looked at has always been aligned N/S, regardless of the underlying structure.
Google was dragging their feet on turn-by-turn navigation, so they had to go.
It's not just turn-by-turn, it's the very basic ability to rotate a map. I gives tours of New York to relatives once or twice a year and I use Google Maps to plan our route and find things.
If you pull up Manhattan, you will see that the streets do not align with N/S or E/W. So if you want to print a map of the location, the streets are diagonal and you have to fiddle with things to get the right size and resolution to print what you want.
After searching, on Google no less, I found this idea has been asked for since at least 4 years ago. Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how it can be so difficult to allow a person to rotate a map clock or counter-clock wise.
Lackadaisical attitude since you're near the beach why not enjoy it and drug use commensurate with the lackadaisical lifestyle. There's a reason Jamaica isn't a powerhouse in anything except murders, drug use and beaches.
There was an article on CNN's web site the other day from a supposed comedian about how he was challenged to go an entire day without his phone.
He wrote about how he was able to look around as he walked around New York, observing other people, looking in shop windows, etc, all for about 15 minutes when he started to get anxious that maybe someone, somewhere was trying to contact him. Maybe by voice, maybe by email.
So he made a big production of trying to finding a Net cafe wherein he was able to check his email and found, contrary to his narcissism, only some generic emails but nothing of importance.
He also regaled us with his commentary on finding a pay phone in New York, and how it smelled and looked like a latrine, and when he called his voice mail, miracles of miracles, there were no messages.
So yes, smarthphones may have "banished" boredom, but it has created a whole host of other problems with people having separation anxiety if they're not hooked in for five minutes.
What I meant was, Romney talks about people needing to take responsibility for their lives rather than expecting the government to give them a handout yet has no problem with the government bailing out irresponsible people from Goldman Sachs, AIG et al.
On the other hand, the people complaining about the bailouts are the ones who pushed for mandatory health coverage which others have to pay for. They see no contradiction about smoking like a chimney, routinely drinking until they're drunk, eating and drinking metric buttloads of foods which aren't good for them, and forcing others to pay for their irresponsibilities.
So while there are no sides in the truest sense, each "side" likes to talk about taking responsibility for ones actions but don't follow their own advice.
At some point every person has to take responsibility for their own choices.
No we don't. Someone else will pick up the tab. At least that's the going opinion on here. Drink too much soda? So what? Someone else will pay for your diabetes medication.
Too fat because you overeat and don't exercise? Don't worry, someone else will pay for either liposuction or a stomach band. Or both.
Your liver on the fritz because you think it's great to get blotted every weekend? Don't worry, your transplant is covered by your neighbor.
This goes along with the lack of corporate responsibility in which one can take wild, unsubstantiated risks without fear because the taxpayer will be there to bail you out. And don't you complain about having to bail these hacks out, they deserve those bonuses for the great job they're doing.
For all the talk about taking responsibility for ones actions, it's amazing how both sides don't lead by example.
This 'check everything' from home will soon take a hit on the beauty of traveling, and being places worth seeing.
If you believe what some on here write, they're too busy doing other things to go shopping for food or clothes, music, tvs, heck, just about everything, which is why they sit in their dark rooms and order everything via these interwebs. It's too much of a hassle to go out into the world and spend time interacting with other people.
This is essentially the same thing. Why bother go and experience something with other people around when you can sit in your dark room and stare at a small, luminous screen with everything at your fingertips.
Don't bother. A majority of people on here don't believe in personal responsibility. They believe they can do whatever they want without consequence because someone else will pick up the tab.
Actually, that is a good question. If one takes the view that the eating of any product which comes from an animal as wrong, then the logical conclusion would be no, they don't swallow.
I guess it depends on how far one goes to stand by their beliefs.
It was like when I made the comment about Rogue. Since she can't touch anyone without draining them of their life force, what would happen if the attempt would be made to artificially impregnate her? Would her body kill the sperm (more than a woman's body does naturally) or could she become pregnant? If so, what would happen to the kid? Would, because half it is related to her, her body allow it to develop or would it drain its life force?
Yeah, too much thinking for a fantasy story, but like yours, it does pose valid points.
Speaking from personal experience, the last person you want randomly installing software is a developer. You would think that because they work in IT they would know what they're doing, but you would be seriously wrong.
Time and time again I, or the folks I work with, have had to figure out what the developer did when we gave them admin rights to install software and now have a problem. It's tedious, time consuming and generally fruitless as the developer doesn't remember what they did. In the end, we end up having to remove the software anyway and start from scratch, now having wasted two to three times as much effort to do it right than letting a developer do it themselves.
How is saying someone that smokes should be responsible for their own actions? How is saying getting drunk every weekend is irresponsible?
Those aren't generalizations. Those are facts. We know the effects of smoking and constantly drinking too much. We know what happens when you shoot heroin or smoke crack.
People chose to do those things. No one forced them. It is irresponsible, despite all the evidence, to keep doing something which is known to produce issues at some point.
And no, I shouldn't have to keep quiet when I'm the one who gets penalized for other people being irresponsible. You want to smoke? Fine. Just don't expect me to pay to have your lung removed or undergo cancer treatment because of your choice.
It's funny how people seem to think they can do what they want without any repercussions, the liberal/libertarian viewpoint generally espoused here, yet somehow, despite them wanting to do what they want, these same people seem to think I need to be their caretaker when their choices land them in trouble.
I thought we were against personal responsibility on this site. Every time I talk about taking personal responsibility for one's health by not smoking, not doing drugs, not getting drunk every weekend, I get panned.
So we want people to take personal responsibility for their lives when it comes to global warming but not when it comes to their health.
It would be nice if people would make up their minds as to when we're supposed to be responsible for our actions and when we can let others pick up the tab.
I live within the 10 mile "danger" zone (cue Kenny Loggins) and lived through the initial incident in 79. In fact, I was out delivering papers every day during the entire incident.
This is nothing to be mentioned on a tech site. It has no relevance whatsoever other than the fact that the system did what it was supposed to.
Stop the panicking and hyperbole about how bad nuclear energy is. Compared to the amount of health related issues coal has produced, nuclear energy ranks about as dangerous as rabbit attacks
no, you can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt.
Yes, you can in civil cases. See Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002). So long as you continue to violate the conditions of your contempt charge, you can be held. No Eighth Amendment issue.
As to the U.N. stuff, forget about it. Holding someone indefinitely for not following a court order is not cruel or unusual, tortuous, degrading or anything remotely similar while Article 99 only refers to prisoners during war times.
So yes, you an be held in court, indefinitely, if you choose to ignore a court order.
If people wouldn't go around murdering others for sneakers, money or just for lulz, there wouldn't be a need for the death penalty, would there?
I would like to include rape for the death penalty but the Supreme Court has said no, that's too cruel.
The same goes for robbery, theft, vandalism, fraud, bribery, and the whole lot of stupid things that people do. The only reason we have laws prohibiting you from doing something is because someone has done it. It's like the warning labels on hair dryers which say not to use in a shower or bath tub because, someone, somewhere, did it and now we have to warn people to use common sense.
If people didn't murder each other, common sense says there wouldn't be a need for the death penalty.
It is if the private organization says it is. You may not like it, but since you are on their property, they make the rules. Stop thinking you are allowed to do what you want where you want when you are on someone else's property. You can't. Private property, private rules. You can go to court to contest their rules, but you will lose.
You might also want to look up what the real definition of felony abduction is. In every case, holding someone with justification is not felony abduction. Further, in most cases, felony abduction generally includes some intent to harm a person, hide that person from someone or related matters, none of which would be done in cases of you taking a picture where you are not allowed to.
Holding someone because they violated your rules is not felony abduction. If that were the case, then people making citizens arrests would be committing felony abductions when they hold someone until the police arrive. Or, to use the museum analogy, if someone writes on a painting and they are held, your logic says that would be felony abduction even though in both cases, taking a picture or writing on a painting, someone has violated the museum rules.
You are free to do what you want on your property. You are slightly less free to do what you want when out in public. You have the least amount of freedom when on someone else's property.
he doesn't watch television, use a computer, have any electrical device in his house, doesn't use lights of any kind, and has shielded his house from any and all radio sources?
Did he also request that we snuff out the Sun and stars, not to mention getting rid of the naturally occurring radioactivity in the soil around him?
What about cars/trucks that drive by his house or the street lights? Did he request to have them stopped?
I am offering my services to prove once and for all that these people cannot tell when a wi-fi or similar device is on or off. I will offer my entire life's savings to anyone who can tell, greater than random chance, whether a device is on or off.
the worst they could do is refuse to let you back in.
And make you delete the picture. If you refuse, they can hold you as you are on their property, subject to their rules.
You then have the right to go to court and try to convince a judge and/or jury that you should be able to take pictures of paintings on private property which has explicit rules about what you can and can't do on their property.
Contrary to popular belief, just because you can walk into a museum without paying (some you can, others you must pay) does not mean you get to do what you want. You are in a public area subject to the rules of a private organization. Just like a casino. Anyone, of age, can walk into a casino and gamble. However, they have the right to both refuse you entry, for any reason (as you stated) and hold you for detention if they believe you are violating their rules, even to the point of taking any of your winnings.
You can whine all you want about your right to do this and that, but when you are on someone else's property, it's their rules. Either obey or suffer the consequences. If you don't like the rules, open your own museum and let people have at it.
If people are too lazy to extract the contents of a can into a pan, there are other issues to consider than just what lines a can.
But as I keep getting modded down when I talk about personal responsibility in healthcare, I guess that goes out the window as well when talking about safely handling food.
Slashdot Mirror
There might be multiple items I want to see on one map, but if the streets run diagonal to the paper, they won't all fit. I would either have to zoom out, thus losing the finer points of the map, or create two maps which overlap one another.
Go pull out a state map (if you have one). The portions which show major cities all have their maps aligned N/S.
In fact, pull out any map. Every map I have ever looked at has always been aligned N/S, regardless of the underlying structure.
Google was dragging their feet on turn-by-turn navigation, so they had to go.
It's not just turn-by-turn, it's the very basic ability to rotate a map. I gives tours of New York to relatives once or twice a year and I use Google Maps to plan our route and find things.
If you pull up Manhattan, you will see that the streets do not align with N/S or E/W. So if you want to print a map of the location, the streets are diagonal and you have to fiddle with things to get the right size and resolution to print what you want.
After searching, on Google no less, I found this idea has been asked for since at least 4 years ago. Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how it can be so difficult to allow a person to rotate a map clock or counter-clock wise.
Lackadaisical attitude since you're near the beach why not enjoy it and drug use commensurate with the lackadaisical lifestyle. There's a reason Jamaica isn't a powerhouse in anything except murders, drug use and beaches.
And yes, I heard the whoosh.
There was an article on CNN's web site the other day from a supposed comedian about how he was challenged to go an entire day without his phone.
He wrote about how he was able to look around as he walked around New York, observing other people, looking in shop windows, etc, all for about 15 minutes when he started to get anxious that maybe someone, somewhere was trying to contact him. Maybe by voice, maybe by email.
So he made a big production of trying to finding a Net cafe wherein he was able to check his email and found, contrary to his narcissism, only some generic emails but nothing of importance.
He also regaled us with his commentary on finding a pay phone in New York, and how it smelled and looked like a latrine, and when he called his voice mail, miracles of miracles, there were no messages.
So yes, smarthphones may have "banished" boredom, but it has created a whole host of other problems with people having separation anxiety if they're not hooked in for five minutes.
What I meant was, Romney talks about people needing to take responsibility for their lives rather than expecting the government to give them a handout yet has no problem with the government bailing out irresponsible people from Goldman Sachs, AIG et al.
On the other hand, the people complaining about the bailouts are the ones who pushed for mandatory health coverage which others have to pay for. They see no contradiction about smoking like a chimney, routinely drinking until they're drunk, eating and drinking metric buttloads of foods which aren't good for them, and forcing others to pay for their irresponsibilities.
So while there are no sides in the truest sense, each "side" likes to talk about taking responsibility for ones actions but don't follow their own advice.
is anything like their punctuation, grammar or spell-check, I see bad things in the future.
At some point every person has to take responsibility for their own choices.
No we don't. Someone else will pick up the tab. At least that's the going opinion on here. Drink too much soda? So what? Someone else will pay for your diabetes medication.
Too fat because you overeat and don't exercise? Don't worry, someone else will pay for either liposuction or a stomach band. Or both.
Your liver on the fritz because you think it's great to get blotted every weekend? Don't worry, your transplant is covered by your neighbor.
This goes along with the lack of corporate responsibility in which one can take wild, unsubstantiated risks without fear because the taxpayer will be there to bail you out. And don't you complain about having to bail these hacks out, they deserve those bonuses for the great job they're doing.
For all the talk about taking responsibility for ones actions, it's amazing how both sides don't lead by example.
This 'check everything' from home will soon take a hit on the beauty of traveling, and being places worth seeing.
If you believe what some on here write, they're too busy doing other things to go shopping for food or clothes, music, tvs, heck, just about everything, which is why they sit in their dark rooms and order everything via these interwebs. It's too much of a hassle to go out into the world and spend time interacting with other people.
This is essentially the same thing. Why bother go and experience something with other people around when you can sit in your dark room and stare at a small, luminous screen with everything at your fingertips.
Don't bother. A majority of people on here don't believe in personal responsibility. They believe they can do whatever they want without consequence because someone else will pick up the tab.
The reason no one would care about Men's Warehouse is because no one cares about Men's Warehouse. It's a schlock operation with crappy inventory.
I saw that after I posted but couldn't reply to myself because of the enforced time delay.
That makes much better sense that what was posted in the original story (which shouldn't surprise anyone).
2 million seconds is 33,333 minutes which is 555 hours which is 23 days. You mean they took an exposure for 23 days to get this image?
I'm not saying it can't be done, only that this seems a bit off.
and there's a market for it.
Sort of like glow-in-the-dark fish as nightlights or glow-in-the-dark tampons?
Actually, that is a good question. If one takes the view that the eating of any product which comes from an animal as wrong, then the logical conclusion would be no, they don't swallow.
I guess it depends on how far one goes to stand by their beliefs.
It was like when I made the comment about Rogue. Since she can't touch anyone without draining them of their life force, what would happen if the attempt would be made to artificially impregnate her? Would her body kill the sperm (more than a woman's body does naturally) or could she become pregnant? If so, what would happen to the kid? Would, because half it is related to her, her body allow it to develop or would it drain its life force?
Yeah, too much thinking for a fantasy story, but like yours, it does pose valid points.
could be trained to crush my kidney stones.
Drink more water. Not Mountain Dew or Jolt or whatever else. And not mixed with coffee, tea, cocoa or other additives. Straight water.
You'll be amazed at the results.
Speaking from personal experience, the last person you want randomly installing software is a developer. You would think that because they work in IT they would know what they're doing, but you would be seriously wrong.
Time and time again I, or the folks I work with, have had to figure out what the developer did when we gave them admin rights to install software and now have a problem. It's tedious, time consuming and generally fruitless as the developer doesn't remember what they did. In the end, we end up having to remove the software anyway and start from scratch, now having wasted two to three times as much effort to do it right than letting a developer do it themselves.
How is saying someone that smokes should be responsible for their own actions? How is saying getting drunk every weekend is irresponsible?
Those aren't generalizations. Those are facts. We know the effects of smoking and constantly drinking too much. We know what happens when you shoot heroin or smoke crack.
People chose to do those things. No one forced them. It is irresponsible, despite all the evidence, to keep doing something which is known to produce issues at some point.
And no, I shouldn't have to keep quiet when I'm the one who gets penalized for other people being irresponsible. You want to smoke? Fine. Just don't expect me to pay to have your lung removed or undergo cancer treatment because of your choice.
It's funny how people seem to think they can do what they want without any repercussions, the liberal/libertarian viewpoint generally espoused here, yet somehow, despite them wanting to do what they want, these same people seem to think I need to be their caretaker when their choices land them in trouble.
I thought we were against personal responsibility on this site. Every time I talk about taking personal responsibility for one's health by not smoking, not doing drugs, not getting drunk every weekend, I get panned.
So we want people to take personal responsibility for their lives when it comes to global warming but not when it comes to their health.
It would be nice if people would make up their minds as to when we're supposed to be responsible for our actions and when we can let others pick up the tab.
I live within the 10 mile "danger" zone (cue Kenny Loggins) and lived through the initial incident in 79. In fact, I was out delivering papers every day during the entire incident.
This is nothing to be mentioned on a tech site. It has no relevance whatsoever other than the fact that the system did what it was supposed to.
Stop the panicking and hyperbole about how bad nuclear energy is. Compared to the amount of health related issues coal has produced, nuclear energy ranks about as dangerous as rabbit attacks
no, you can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt.
Yes, you can in civil cases. See Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002). So long as you continue to violate the conditions of your contempt charge, you can be held. No Eighth Amendment issue.
As to the U.N. stuff, forget about it. Holding someone indefinitely for not following a court order is not cruel or unusual, tortuous, degrading or anything remotely similar while Article 99 only refers to prisoners during war times.
So yes, you an be held in court, indefinitely, if you choose to ignore a court order.
If people wouldn't go around murdering others for sneakers, money or just for lulz, there wouldn't be a need for the death penalty, would there?
I would like to include rape for the death penalty but the Supreme Court has said no, that's too cruel.
The same goes for robbery, theft, vandalism, fraud, bribery, and the whole lot of stupid things that people do. The only reason we have laws prohibiting you from doing something is because someone has done it. It's like the warning labels on hair dryers which say not to use in a shower or bath tub because, someone, somewhere, did it and now we have to warn people to use common sense.
If people didn't murder each other, common sense says there wouldn't be a need for the death penalty.
Photography is not illegal
It is if the private organization says it is. You may not like it, but since you are on their property, they make the rules. Stop thinking you are allowed to do what you want where you want when you are on someone else's property. You can't. Private property, private rules. You can go to court to contest their rules, but you will lose.
You might also want to look up what the real definition of felony abduction is. In every case, holding someone with justification is not felony abduction. Further, in most cases, felony abduction generally includes some intent to harm a person, hide that person from someone or related matters, none of which would be done in cases of you taking a picture where you are not allowed to.
Holding someone because they violated your rules is not felony abduction. If that were the case, then people making citizens arrests would be committing felony abductions when they hold someone until the police arrive. Or, to use the museum analogy, if someone writes on a painting and they are held, your logic says that would be felony abduction even though in both cases, taking a picture or writing on a painting, someone has violated the museum rules.
You are free to do what you want on your property. You are slightly less free to do what you want when out in public. You have the least amount of freedom when on someone else's property.
he doesn't watch television, use a computer, have any electrical device in his house, doesn't use lights of any kind, and has shielded his house from any and all radio sources?
Did he also request that we snuff out the Sun and stars, not to mention getting rid of the naturally occurring radioactivity in the soil around him?
What about cars/trucks that drive by his house or the street lights? Did he request to have them stopped?
I am offering my services to prove once and for all that these people cannot tell when a wi-fi or similar device is on or off. I will offer my entire life's savings to anyone who can tell, greater than random chance, whether a device is on or off.
the worst they could do is refuse to let you back in.
And make you delete the picture. If you refuse, they can hold you as you are on their property, subject to their rules.
You then have the right to go to court and try to convince a judge and/or jury that you should be able to take pictures of paintings on private property which has explicit rules about what you can and can't do on their property.
Contrary to popular belief, just because you can walk into a museum without paying (some you can, others you must pay) does not mean you get to do what you want. You are in a public area subject to the rules of a private organization. Just like a casino. Anyone, of age, can walk into a casino and gamble. However, they have the right to both refuse you entry, for any reason (as you stated) and hold you for detention if they believe you are violating their rules, even to the point of taking any of your winnings.
You can whine all you want about your right to do this and that, but when you are on someone else's property, it's their rules. Either obey or suffer the consequences. If you don't like the rules, open your own museum and let people have at it.
If people are too lazy to extract the contents of a can into a pan, there are other issues to consider than just what lines a can.
But as I keep getting modded down when I talk about personal responsibility in healthcare, I guess that goes out the window as well when talking about safely handling food.