"He or she" is proper English for referring to one person of unknown gender. It's much better than "they", because "they" is plural. It's only sloppiness that has allowed that to become acceptable usage.
No it's not. It only came into the English language through those trying to be "politically correct" in order to try to be "gender inclusive" instead of using the masculine encapsulation, and even then it was because they wanted to emphasize gender in the process - showing off their "inclusivity" by including both genders. The proper way to do that is to use "they".
Before that the term was never used to refer to an unknown person. Go study your grammar and English language history.
You can't use one method in one sentence and another method in the next sentence while referring to the same unknown person. Consistency is key.
Sure you can. People do it all the time. We've rejected the patriarchal view that "he" is always the way to refer to someone when you don't know their gender, and "it" objectifies people and is insulting.
People do so because they were not taught correctly because of the whole PC movement and their grammatical incorrectness. Keep in mind, this is not for referring to any specific person - it is for referring to an unknown person or group people. If you are referring to a specific person then yes you must use the correct gender.
Also, see my other posts in this thread - if you want to use the feminine to encapsulate that's fine too. Just be consistent. You have choices; but none of them are "he or she" if you want proper English grammar.
Just because people do, doesn't make it correct or right.
Honestly, if your (or anyone) tried to publish or reviewing that kind of grammar under something I was editing, I'd call it out and make you correct it.
or know that "he or she" is not grammatically correct when trying to be "gender neutral" which should use the neutral gender (it for singular or they for plural).
I would hope you would be aware that referring to someone as an "it" (for example, when not clear from the name what gender the person is, or the person is trans) can be pretty insulting, right?
Which is why it is normal to use "they" instead. It's up to the writer.
That may be. However, "he or she" is still a very awkward expression, and still grammatically incorrect however socially acceptable it may have become. It is a construct defined by people that do not understand grammar, and foisted on others.
The grammatically correct method is to use "it" or "they", though more typically "they" for both singular and plural as it contains both "he and she" and is the proper way to refer to an unknown person.
Historically the English language, like many languages, used the masculine to encapsulate both genders as well, and that too is grammatically correct. You could also use the feminine that way if you like, but there's not much history in that. Either of these are still better grammar than using "he or she".
So choose your method of proper grammar:
it or they
masculine encapsulation
feminine encapsulation
and then be consistent in what you are writing. You can't use one method in one sentence and another method in the next sentence while referring to the same unknown person. Consistency is key.
That's not supposed to mean you get 20 weeks of vacation each year.
That's a myth. Teachers will often have to be working several weeks after students are no longer in the classroom, as well as return several weeks before students do. Further, depending on the school those teachers may have to find seasonal work for the summer in order to keep their income high enough to pay the bills over the summer break.
Just saying, summer vacation is not necessarily very much of a vacation for teachers.
Several weeks ? Try one week after and one week before.. My mother was a teacher for 35 years.. She was off pretty much all summer.
I've known a few teachers that had to start 4 weeks before students did; while others that only had to 1 week before. So it varies.
in about the same time frame where English classes should be less about grammar and more about comprehension of literary works
Why should English classes be more about works of fiction and theatre by dead white European males and less about communicating your own ideas to other people?
Who said what materials? Does it really matter whether it is a translation of Homer's Ilyiad, Shakespear, or Godfrey Mutiso Gorry? The point is that you're looking at larger works to understand how language works in bigger and bigger pieces instead of small, isolated samples so you can learn about the bigger picture of writing instead of remaining in an isolated box.
And often covering such materials will lead to improvements in your own writing. That's not to say that writing would not be included, just that it would be more writing papers instead of diagraming sentences. So you will certainly be using your grammar and writing skills.
(FYI - this is coming from someone that is a relatively slow reader too.)
That's not supposed to mean you get 20 weeks of vacation each year.
That's a myth. Teachers will often have to be working several weeks after students are no longer in the classroom, as well as return several weeks before students do. Further, depending on the school those teachers may have to find seasonal work for the summer in order to keep their income high enough to pay the bills over the summer break.
Just saying, summer vacation is not necessarily very much of a vacation for teachers.
Even back in the 80s, I had a teacher fail me on a programming assignment because I was using things she hadn't taught yet. This isn't a 'new' problem. It's difficult for teachers to stay on top of the required curriculum and still have time to be continually training.
That will often be the case because they want to ensure you understand what they are teaching.
For instance, in my networking class I already had a full C/C++ network library that I personally wrote for Linux/POSIX using a similar interface design as the Windows WinSock2 API. However the professor said I could use it only after we had covered the lower level functionality in order to ensure I knew what I was doing, which I did; so my library got used for the second 2/3rds of the class instead of all of it. A little annoying, but sometimes you just have to get over it and deal with it.
I also had a TA that took points off because I used "while(True) {...}" instead of "for (;;;) {}" for an infinite loop. The professor gave me back the points because it was not part of the assignment to do an infinite loop in that manner.
That said, a good teacher will know when to learn from the student and how to allow the students to go beyond what they are teaching.
I'm pretty sure I knew math, science and sometimes English better than my teachers through high school. Experienced teachers know how to deal with students like us - how would this be any different?
The real difference is you thought you knew math, science and sometimes English, but when it really came down to it, masters-level mathematics could be whipped out to gently remind you, or perhaps break down some English sentence structure to show your actual understanding vs. what you think you know.
Experienced teachers know the difference between knowledge and wisdom. The difference today is you don't have students going home spending another 4 - 6 hours every day tinkering with math or English like you might with computing.
Math and Science yes; but English? If you're Elementary and Middle School English teachers did their job right, then most students should have a very firm grasp of the English language grammatically by about 8th or 9th grade, and could easily surpass their teachers in about the same time frame where English classes should be less about grammar and more about comprehension of literary works.
The sad truth is that due to the experiments with learning since the 1970's there are many English teachers (at all levels, even collegiate) that cannot do even basic sentence diagraming, or know that "he or she" is not grammatically correct when trying to be "gender neutral" which should use the neutral gender (it for singular or they for plural).
Windows 10 is where the enterprise is going. I literally just got out of a meeting where we were discussing our goals for the year and Office 2013 and probably Windows 10 (depending on launch date and apparent buginess) are on the list. As far as your MBP, that's fine for you if you work in IT, but if you think most businesses are going to give every worker drone an expensive Mac with about 5-10x the support cost (as in I have numbers that show our Mac users cost that much more depending on their level of competence/IT independance) you're delusional.
Windows 10 won't hit the enterprise for 2-3 years after its release as enterprises are slow to adopt new operating systems until they can show the software they rely on works correctly on the new operating system (either through upgrades or migration to replacements) and is sufficiently secure in their environment. Testing often takes at least 1 year, followed by 6-12 months of planning before the early roll-outs begin.
So, no. You won't really see Windows 10 in the enterprise. Yes, you'll see some smaller outfits using it, but not the "big boys". Of course, the "big boys" will have their own Volume Licenses so they'll simply image over whatever comes on the computers they purchase to get the system they want.
IAAL: I always told clients that it is far better not to have a written record of what you said and did. It is always to your advantage to have to rely on your self serving memories than to have your memory contradicted by written evidence.
There are some documents that you must retain by law. You should work with your counsel and accountants to identify those categories of documents and to retain them. But not one day longer than necessary.
That said. notes and drafts are very seldom subject to legal retention guidelines. Once a document is finalized, notes and drafts should be destroyed.
Finally, the easiest document to deal with is one that was not created. Business processes should be engineered to avoid document creation to the extent possible.
Very true. It has bitten people more often than not having the written record.
Though you're final drafts should also have a note about their taking precedence over any previous versions, drafts, notes, etc so as to establish their finality on the matter to prevent issues like with SCOG v Novell where SCOG claimed that the drafters knew the intentions that were suppose to be reflected yet the document clearly stated that it was the final work as intended.
Just make sure that anything past your legal retention limit is only retained offline.
That won't help much against an attack by an insider, who will have access to the off-line repositories. Of course doing that would reveal that it was an insider attack rather than an outside hack, but the damage would still be done.
It will also fairly quickly point out who the attacker is since the offline copies are usually locked up securely that only a very few people have access to, access that is logged.
This is the GOP you're talking about. They're not interested in anything that isn't 100% of what they want...
TFTFY.
Incorrect. The House passed numerous bills since 2010 and made numerous concessions to Democrats. Only the Democrats (Reid, Obama) would not negotiate.
It's well documented.
Now, that's not to say the GOP didn't stop negotiations on some points; but what's the point of negotiating at all if you know the other side won't? There is none. So Reid and Obama's lack of negotiations brought everything to a stand still and gave the GOP zero reason to even try negotiating - especially after getting burned by trying (documented).
If Obama, or for that matter any leader at a time when Presidential and Congressional approval ratings are in the basement, were smart, he would
* sit down behind closed doors with leaders of both parties and major caucuses
* get a list of general things almost everyone agrees should pass in some form and for which a consensus bill can probably be reached
* quickly negotiate a broad "consensus bill" for everything in the above list
* quickly get the bills pushed through both houses of Congress, giving the small-minority voices that are against the bills or which favor won't-pass amendments a chance to speak and be heard.
* hold bipartisan signing ceremonies
* ???
* PROFIT in higher approval ratings for both the White House and Congress
Okay, I was kidding about the ???/PROFIT part but those inside the beltway really do need to realize there is a lot that they do agree on and they and America are better off getting the things that need to get done done rather than sticking to their guns just to spite the other party.
This is Obama you're talking about. He's not interested in anything that isn't 100% of what he wants. Reid did good in hiding that by not allowing anything through the Senate that Obama wouldn't sign; but that protection is no longer there.
Of all the laws that hasn't been put forth that is most sorely needed in the market, it's a law to prevent private companies from using SSNs for ID numbers, customer identification and credit granting. How many people have had to spend thousands of dollars and years in court trying to get their identities back and repair the damage to their credit because they know a name, DoB, address and SSN?
That is technically already law; the problem is there is an executive order that allows for an expanded use, which essentially turned SSN (which was only suppose to be used for Tax and SS benefits and nothing else) into a National ID number, thus leading to the problems you see with it today.
The word you (and others) are looking for is "route-able", not "public".
There are a lot of IANA-assigned (i.e., "public") IPs that aren't routable from all other arbitrary IP addresses, while many places have made private IPs routable for some or all of their network, just like North Korea has done.
Typically the "public" IP is considered "route-able"; but regardless, I was trying to stay within the bounds of the OP's request of:
translate this for the people that do not understand network speak.
The term "route-able" would be considered "network speak"; thus I avoided it.
There are some addresses on the internet that are only associated (except for misuse) with 1 device, these are "public IP".
There are some addresses on the internet that are intended to be associated with multiple devices, these are "private IP".
That has nothing to do with it.
All IP addresses are only suppose to point to one device; though a device may have multiple IP addresses. The difference is whether or not they are publically visible and routeable.
There is nothing saying that North Korea didn't take a part of the 10.a.b.c range and define it as a public network within their country. So they are not necessarily segregating the whole country. Simply put - there is not enough information to substantiate whether the whole country is in a private range, or if they just utilized part of the private range for some country specific services, and made that range public within the country.
Can someone translate this for the people that do not understand network speak.
Network Addresses, known as IP Addresses, are allocated into several groupings, namely Public, Private, Multicast, Local, and non-usable.
The addresses are also allocated in blocks - A, B, and C - which has to do with how many addresses are available in the block purchased.
The Private group consists of addresses 10.a.b.c, 192.168.x.y, and 172.16.x.y. These are considered class A, B, and C respectively. These addresses are suppose to only be used on private networks - e.g in your home, office, etc - as such, networks are typically configured to now be able to route to them. So if your at location A 10.0.0.1 will be a different server specifically on their network than if you were at location B.
The Local group is similar and consists of 127.a.b.c, though typically only 127.0.0.1 is used. The big difference is that it will never route off the computer you are using.
The Multicast group is a special group reserved at the upper end of the IPv4 spectrum. It was suppose to be for things like Video distribution where you have one sender and many receivers so as to optimize the network by allowing everyone to listen to the same stream - kind of like a TV over-the-air broadcast. However, they've been reclaiming addresses from it for the Public group because the Internet is basically not configured to support Multicast functionality.
The Public group is pretty much everything else except the a special IP address in the 169.a.b.c range that is "do not use" range.
So essentially, North Korea is making the entire country look like your work office or home network. At least, that's the claim.
Since then, there has been no chance of anything passing. Nothing has passed since then, aside from naming a few post offices and re-authorizing existing laws. I agree that the Democrats don't expect this bill to pass, and that this is more publicity stunt than serious attempt at legislation, but they might well be willing to pass it (or something like it) if they could. But they can't; the last Congress was the least productive in history and this Congress may manage to be even worse.
Nothing has passed since then b/c Democrat controlled Senate brought only the minimal it had to to a vote; anything they didn't like they didn't bring to a vote; saving Obama from having to veto anything; and then blaming it on the Republicans and the House for not giving them what they wanted.
You're right, failing to uphold net neutrality and reform immigration is not what we should be upset about. Failing to punish NSA treason, close Gitmo and protect the environment (all issues that did exist during the Democrat supermajority) is what we should be upset about!
If you think the Dems would be able to do that...well, I got a bridge to sell you.
Closing Gitmo was never feasible. Obama ran on it because he didn't know any better and it sounded good. But once you learn the details, it neigh impossible without letting everyone loose, and most of the people in there are people no one wants let loose.
As far as the NSA is concerned, the liberals/Dems are far more likely to support what the NSA was doing since they are in favor of a "Nanny State" to start with; and they're too tied to corporations to let anything major get through as far as the environment is concerned.
...and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
fleet age
You'd be surprised how many airlines operate how many big jets close to that age... and I doubt they see 30 as EOL. Some airlines, in the north, operate planes averaging 80 years old, but its well understood you don't want to be flying in anything else that in cold, the old planes are the safest. I don't think that translates to the big jets (like Boeing 700 series) though. Chances are about equal you've never been on a Boeing that is under 30 years old.
Boeing 777 series is not yet 30 years old, and 787 (which not many have been on yet) is only a couple years old; and many sub-models of various other 700 series are also not 30 years old yet. And that's just Beoing. Airbus has similar aircraft.
So there is probably a 50/50 chance for people having been on an aircraft under 30 years of age versus one that is over 30 years of age.
So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.
Which is why I wasn't trying to disprove God's existence; I'm just saying, all theologies that have made promises about what God does, have so far been false.
Then you chose a poor example to use.
Though even then, God does not always do the same thing every time. The Bible, for instance, records many miracles in both Old and New Testaments; however, it is generally accepted that miracles as done then are not done commonly today. So the lack of a miracle does not negate there being a God.
Likewise, for many other things that have "so far been false". It may be able to be shown to be false, but a negative test does not disprove the existence of God.
As the parent to your post was saying, you cannot DISprove God (negative test), only prove (positive test) that God does exist.
Think of it this way, can we test that you do not exist by asking you do something and you simply say "no"?
For instance, do you not exist because you do not choose to give anyone reading your comment $100?
Same for God.
"Conservative types" tend not to care terribly about issues like food quality or about the political consequences of allowing the corn equivalent of Microsoft. In either case, they will be all for allowing "job creators" to completely run amok.
Funny since it's primarily the agricultural lobby, environmentalists, and liberal dems pushing corn-based ethanol. Most in the US don't want it - especially since it is raising prices on anything that uses other corn derivatives.
God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Well, up to a point. Many theologies try to make claims that amount to predictions: God will answer your prayers etc. So far, none of these have passed the test, thus demonstrating that whether God is real or not, the theologies that try to make us believe that he is, are not true.
Oh, so because you didn't get the answer that you wanted God no longer exists?
Sorry, doesn't work that way. An "answer to prayer" may be the answer you wanted, or it may not be.
For instance, praying that God make your bank account contain a million dollars out of thing air will probably not make that happen; thus a negative (no) answer. That doesn't mean that God didn't answer your prayer - just that he chose to answer it in the negative instead of the affirmative.
So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.
Most people would long have abandoned a concept with such a poor track record. The only reason why some people hold on to this, as far as I can see, is bullying: every time you dare raise the question of why God never answers even the most reasonable prayers, or the most desperate ones, or indeed any prayers at all, you are met with "How dare you test God?!? Who are you to demand any proof of God?!?". Bullying, plain and simple. If God was real and cared about us, he wouldn't be so petty, I'm sure.
Sad when people respond that way; but it goes to show their lack of understanding of what an "answered prayer" means. Too often people expect that an answer is only the answer they are looking for, when the answer may just as well be the opposite.
This is actually demonstrated Biblically as well - when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) where he asked that what needed to be done be taken from him if at all possible. The answer was clearly "no" - he didn't get what he prayed for, but rather submitted himself to that response.
...after you have had a few kids of you own. Most find that these ideas while they sound nice fail to actually perform any sort of useful discipline, utterly failing the child, the parents, and ultimately society.
Slashdot Mirror
"He or she" is proper English for referring to one person of unknown gender. It's much better than "they", because "they" is plural. It's only sloppiness that has allowed that to become acceptable usage.
No it's not. It only came into the English language through those trying to be "politically correct" in order to try to be "gender inclusive" instead of using the masculine encapsulation, and even then it was because they wanted to emphasize gender in the process - showing off their "inclusivity" by including both genders. The proper way to do that is to use "they".
Before that the term was never used to refer to an unknown person. Go study your grammar and English language history.
You can't use one method in one sentence and another method in the next sentence while referring to the same unknown person. Consistency is key.
Sure you can. People do it all the time. We've rejected the patriarchal view that "he" is always the way to refer to someone when you don't know their gender, and "it" objectifies people and is insulting.
People do so because they were not taught correctly because of the whole PC movement and their grammatical incorrectness. Keep in mind, this is not for referring to any specific person - it is for referring to an unknown person or group people. If you are referring to a specific person then yes you must use the correct gender.
Also, see my other posts in this thread - if you want to use the feminine to encapsulate that's fine too. Just be consistent. You have choices; but none of them are "he or she" if you want proper English grammar.
Just because people do, doesn't make it correct or right.
Honestly, if your (or anyone) tried to publish or reviewing that kind of grammar under something I was editing, I'd call it out and make you correct it.
or know that "he or she" is not grammatically correct when trying to be "gender neutral" which should use the neutral gender (it for singular or they for plural).
I would hope you would be aware that referring to someone as an "it" (for example, when not clear from the name what gender the person is, or the person is trans) can be pretty insulting, right?
Which is why it is normal to use "they" instead. It's up to the writer.
The grammatically correct method is to use "it" or "they", though more typically "they" for both singular and plural as it contains both "he and she" and is the proper way to refer to an unknown person.
Historically the English language, like many languages, used the masculine to encapsulate both genders as well, and that too is grammatically correct. You could also use the feminine that way if you like, but there's not much history in that. Either of these are still better grammar than using "he or she".
So choose your method of proper grammar:
and then be consistent in what you are writing. You can't use one method in one sentence and another method in the next sentence while referring to the same unknown person. Consistency is key.
That's not supposed to mean you get 20 weeks of vacation each year.
That's a myth. Teachers will often have to be working several weeks after students are no longer in the classroom, as well as return several weeks before students do. Further, depending on the school those teachers may have to find seasonal work for the summer in order to keep their income high enough to pay the bills over the summer break.
Just saying, summer vacation is not necessarily very much of a vacation for teachers.
Several weeks ? Try one week after and one week before .. My mother was a teacher for 35 years .. She was off pretty much all summer.
I've known a few teachers that had to start 4 weeks before students did; while others that only had to 1 week before. So it varies.
in about the same time frame where English classes should be less about grammar and more about comprehension of literary works
Why should English classes be more about works of fiction and theatre by dead white European males and less about communicating your own ideas to other people?
Who said what materials? Does it really matter whether it is a translation of Homer's Ilyiad, Shakespear, or Godfrey Mutiso Gorry? The point is that you're looking at larger works to understand how language works in bigger and bigger pieces instead of small, isolated samples so you can learn about the bigger picture of writing instead of remaining in an isolated box.
And often covering such materials will lead to improvements in your own writing. That's not to say that writing would not be included, just that it would be more writing papers instead of diagraming sentences. So you will certainly be using your grammar and writing skills.
(FYI - this is coming from someone that is a relatively slow reader too.)
That's not supposed to mean you get 20 weeks of vacation each year.
That's a myth. Teachers will often have to be working several weeks after students are no longer in the classroom, as well as return several weeks before students do. Further, depending on the school those teachers may have to find seasonal work for the summer in order to keep their income high enough to pay the bills over the summer break.
Just saying, summer vacation is not necessarily very much of a vacation for teachers.
Even back in the 80s, I had a teacher fail me on a programming assignment because I was using things she hadn't taught yet. This isn't a 'new' problem. It's difficult for teachers to stay on top of the required curriculum and still have time to be continually training.
That will often be the case because they want to ensure you understand what they are teaching.
For instance, in my networking class I already had a full C/C++ network library that I personally wrote for Linux/POSIX using a similar interface design as the Windows WinSock2 API. However the professor said I could use it only after we had covered the lower level functionality in order to ensure I knew what I was doing, which I did; so my library got used for the second 2/3rds of the class instead of all of it. A little annoying, but sometimes you just have to get over it and deal with it.
I also had a TA that took points off because I used "while(True) {...}" instead of "for (;;;) {}" for an infinite loop. The professor gave me back the points because it was not part of the assignment to do an infinite loop in that manner.
That said, a good teacher will know when to learn from the student and how to allow the students to go beyond what they are teaching.
I'm pretty sure I knew math, science and sometimes English better than my teachers through high school. Experienced teachers know how to deal with students like us - how would this be any different?
The real difference is you thought you knew math, science and sometimes English, but when it really came down to it, masters-level mathematics could be whipped out to gently remind you, or perhaps break down some English sentence structure to show your actual understanding vs. what you think you know.
Experienced teachers know the difference between knowledge and wisdom. The difference today is you don't have students going home spending another 4 - 6 hours every day tinkering with math or English like you might with computing.
Math and Science yes; but English? If you're Elementary and Middle School English teachers did their job right, then most students should have a very firm grasp of the English language grammatically by about 8th or 9th grade, and could easily surpass their teachers in about the same time frame where English classes should be less about grammar and more about comprehension of literary works.
The sad truth is that due to the experiments with learning since the 1970's there are many English teachers (at all levels, even collegiate) that cannot do even basic sentence diagraming, or know that "he or she" is not grammatically correct when trying to be "gender neutral" which should use the neutral gender (it for singular or they for plural).
Windows 10 is where the enterprise is going. I literally just got out of a meeting where we were discussing our goals for the year and Office 2013 and probably Windows 10 (depending on launch date and apparent buginess) are on the list. As far as your MBP, that's fine for you if you work in IT, but if you think most businesses are going to give every worker drone an expensive Mac with about 5-10x the support cost (as in I have numbers that show our Mac users cost that much more depending on their level of competence/IT independance) you're delusional.
Windows 10 won't hit the enterprise for 2-3 years after its release as enterprises are slow to adopt new operating systems until they can show the software they rely on works correctly on the new operating system (either through upgrades or migration to replacements) and is sufficiently secure in their environment. Testing often takes at least 1 year, followed by 6-12 months of planning before the early roll-outs begin.
So, no. You won't really see Windows 10 in the enterprise. Yes, you'll see some smaller outfits using it, but not the "big boys". Of course, the "big boys" will have their own Volume Licenses so they'll simply image over whatever comes on the computers they purchase to get the system they want.
IAAL: I always told clients that it is far better not to have a written record of what you said and did. It is always to your advantage to have to rely on your self serving memories than to have your memory contradicted by written evidence.
There are some documents that you must retain by law. You should work with your counsel and accountants to identify those categories of documents and to retain them. But not one day longer than necessary.
That said. notes and drafts are very seldom subject to legal retention guidelines. Once a document is finalized, notes and drafts should be destroyed.
Finally, the easiest document to deal with is one that was not created. Business processes should be engineered to avoid document creation to the extent possible.
Very true. It has bitten people more often than not having the written record.
Though you're final drafts should also have a note about their taking precedence over any previous versions, drafts, notes, etc so as to establish their finality on the matter to prevent issues like with SCOG v Novell where SCOG claimed that the drafters knew the intentions that were suppose to be reflected yet the document clearly stated that it was the final work as intended.
That won't help much against an attack by an insider, who will have access to the off-line repositories. Of course doing that would reveal that it was an insider attack rather than an outside hack, but the damage would still be done.
It will also fairly quickly point out who the attacker is since the offline copies are usually locked up securely that only a very few people have access to, access that is logged.
This is the GOP you're talking about. They're not interested in anything that isn't 100% of what they want...
TFTFY.
Incorrect. The House passed numerous bills since 2010 and made numerous concessions to Democrats. Only the Democrats (Reid, Obama) would not negotiate. It's well documented.
Now, that's not to say the GOP didn't stop negotiations on some points; but what's the point of negotiating at all if you know the other side won't? There is none. So Reid and Obama's lack of negotiations brought everything to a stand still and gave the GOP zero reason to even try negotiating - especially after getting burned by trying (documented).
If Obama, or for that matter any leader at a time when Presidential and Congressional approval ratings are in the basement, were smart, he would
* sit down behind closed doors with leaders of both parties and major caucuses * get a list of general things almost everyone agrees should pass in some form and for which a consensus bill can probably be reached * quickly negotiate a broad "consensus bill" for everything in the above list * quickly get the bills pushed through both houses of Congress, giving the small-minority voices that are against the bills or which favor won't-pass amendments a chance to speak and be heard. * hold bipartisan signing ceremonies * ??? * PROFIT in higher approval ratings for both the White House and Congress
Okay, I was kidding about the ???/PROFIT part but those inside the beltway really do need to realize there is a lot that they do agree on and they and America are better off getting the things that need to get done done rather than sticking to their guns just to spite the other party.
This is Obama you're talking about. He's not interested in anything that isn't 100% of what he wants. Reid did good in hiding that by not allowing anything through the Senate that Obama wouldn't sign; but that protection is no longer there.
Of all the laws that hasn't been put forth that is most sorely needed in the market, it's a law to prevent private companies from using SSNs for ID numbers, customer identification and credit granting. How many people have had to spend thousands of dollars and years in court trying to get their identities back and repair the damage to their credit because they know a name, DoB, address and SSN?
That is technically already law; the problem is there is an executive order that allows for an expanded use, which essentially turned SSN (which was only suppose to be used for Tax and SS benefits and nothing else) into a National ID number, thus leading to the problems you see with it today.
made that range public within the country.
The word you (and others) are looking for is "route-able", not "public".
There are a lot of IANA-assigned (i.e., "public") IPs that aren't routable from all other arbitrary IP addresses, while many places have made private IPs routable for some or all of their network, just like North Korea has done.
Typically the "public" IP is considered "route-able"; but regardless, I was trying to stay within the bounds of the OP's request of:
translate this for the people that do not understand network speak.
The term "route-able" would be considered "network speak"; thus I avoided it.
There are some addresses on the internet that are only associated (except for misuse) with 1 device, these are "public IP".
There are some addresses on the internet that are intended to be associated with multiple devices, these are "private IP".
That has nothing to do with it.
All IP addresses are only suppose to point to one device; though a device may have multiple IP addresses. The difference is whether or not they are publically visible and routeable.
There is nothing saying that North Korea didn't take a part of the 10.a.b.c range and define it as a public network within their country. So they are not necessarily segregating the whole country. Simply put - there is not enough information to substantiate whether the whole country is in a private range, or if they just utilized part of the private range for some country specific services, and made that range public within the country.
Can someone translate this for the people that do not understand network speak.
Network Addresses, known as IP Addresses, are allocated into several groupings, namely Public, Private, Multicast, Local, and non-usable.
The addresses are also allocated in blocks - A, B, and C - which has to do with how many addresses are available in the block purchased.
The Private group consists of addresses 10.a.b.c, 192.168.x.y, and 172.16.x.y. These are considered class A, B, and C respectively. These addresses are suppose to only be used on private networks - e.g in your home, office, etc - as such, networks are typically configured to now be able to route to them. So if your at location A 10.0.0.1 will be a different server specifically on their network than if you were at location B.
The Local group is similar and consists of 127.a.b.c, though typically only 127.0.0.1 is used. The big difference is that it will never route off the computer you are using.
The Multicast group is a special group reserved at the upper end of the IPv4 spectrum. It was suppose to be for things like Video distribution where you have one sender and many receivers so as to optimize the network by allowing everyone to listen to the same stream - kind of like a TV over-the-air broadcast. However, they've been reclaiming addresses from it for the Public group because the Internet is basically not configured to support Multicast functionality.
The Public group is pretty much everything else except the a special IP address in the 169.a.b.c range that is "do not use" range.
So essentially, North Korea is making the entire country look like your work office or home network. At least, that's the claim.
Since then, there has been no chance of anything passing. Nothing has passed since then, aside from naming a few post offices and re-authorizing existing laws. I agree that the Democrats don't expect this bill to pass, and that this is more publicity stunt than serious attempt at legislation, but they might well be willing to pass it (or something like it) if they could. But they can't; the last Congress was the least productive in history and this Congress may manage to be even worse.
Nothing has passed since then b/c Democrat controlled Senate brought only the minimal it had to to a vote; anything they didn't like they didn't bring to a vote; saving Obama from having to veto anything; and then blaming it on the Republicans and the House for not giving them what they wanted.
You're right, failing to uphold net neutrality and reform immigration is not what we should be upset about. Failing to punish NSA treason, close Gitmo and protect the environment (all issues that did exist during the Democrat supermajority) is what we should be upset about!
If you think the Dems would be able to do that...well, I got a bridge to sell you.
Closing Gitmo was never feasible. Obama ran on it because he didn't know any better and it sounded good. But once you learn the details, it neigh impossible without letting everyone loose, and most of the people in there are people no one wants let loose.
As far as the NSA is concerned, the liberals/Dems are far more likely to support what the NSA was doing since they are in favor of a "Nanny State" to start with; and they're too tied to corporations to let anything major get through as far as the environment is concerned.
...and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
fleet age You'd be surprised how many airlines operate how many big jets close to that age... and I doubt they see 30 as EOL. Some airlines, in the north, operate planes averaging 80 years old, but its well understood you don't want to be flying in anything else that in cold, the old planes are the safest. I don't think that translates to the big jets (like Boeing 700 series) though. Chances are about equal you've never been on a Boeing that is under 30 years old.
Boeing 777 series is not yet 30 years old, and 787 (which not many have been on yet) is only a couple years old; and many sub-models of various other 700 series are also not 30 years old yet. And that's just Beoing. Airbus has similar aircraft.
So there is probably a 50/50 chance for people having been on an aircraft under 30 years of age versus one that is over 30 years of age.
So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.
Which is why I wasn't trying to disprove God's existence; I'm just saying, all theologies that have made promises about what God does, have so far been false.
Then you chose a poor example to use.
Though even then, God does not always do the same thing every time. The Bible, for instance, records many miracles in both Old and New Testaments; however, it is generally accepted that miracles as done then are not done commonly today. So the lack of a miracle does not negate there being a God.
Likewise, for many other things that have "so far been false". It may be able to be shown to be false, but a negative test does not disprove the existence of God. As the parent to your post was saying, you cannot DISprove God (negative test), only prove (positive test) that God does exist.
Think of it this way, can we test that you do not exist by asking you do something and you simply say "no"?
For instance, do you not exist because you do not choose to give anyone reading your comment $100?
Same for God.
"Conservative types" tend not to care terribly about issues like food quality or about the political consequences of allowing the corn equivalent of Microsoft. In either case, they will be all for allowing "job creators" to completely run amok.
Funny since it's primarily the agricultural lobby, environmentalists, and liberal dems pushing corn-based ethanol. Most in the US don't want it - especially since it is raising prices on anything that uses other corn derivatives.
God cannot, however, be DISproven. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Well, up to a point. Many theologies try to make claims that amount to predictions: God will answer your prayers etc. So far, none of these have passed the test, thus demonstrating that whether God is real or not, the theologies that try to make us believe that he is, are not true.
Oh, so because you didn't get the answer that you wanted God no longer exists?
Sorry, doesn't work that way. An "answer to prayer" may be the answer you wanted, or it may not be.
For instance, praying that God make your bank account contain a million dollars out of thing air will probably not make that happen; thus a negative (no) answer. That doesn't mean that God didn't answer your prayer - just that he chose to answer it in the negative instead of the affirmative.
So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.
Most people would long have abandoned a concept with such a poor track record. The only reason why some people hold on to this, as far as I can see, is bullying: every time you dare raise the question of why God never answers even the most reasonable prayers, or the most desperate ones, or indeed any prayers at all, you are met with "How dare you test God?!? Who are you to demand any proof of God?!?". Bullying, plain and simple. If God was real and cared about us, he wouldn't be so petty, I'm sure.
Sad when people respond that way; but it goes to show their lack of understanding of what an "answered prayer" means. Too often people expect that an answer is only the answer they are looking for, when the answer may just as well be the opposite.
This is actually demonstrated Biblically as well - when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) where he asked that what needed to be done be taken from him if at all possible. The answer was clearly "no" - he didn't get what he prayed for, but rather submitted himself to that response.
...after you have had a few kids of you own. Most find that these ideas while they sound nice fail to actually perform any sort of useful discipline, utterly failing the child, the parents, and ultimately society.