I really need a disclaimer here: I'm married and monogamous (4 years and counting) and therefore am no longer on the dating scene, but some quick advice here:
"Hot" is more about malleable things such as attitude, dress, hygiene, and behavior than it is about genetics and physicalities. Once you fully grok that -- not just understand, but grok -- the rules of the game change entirely in your favor.;)
Men and women do think differently, and that has been all but exhaustively proven scientifically. However, as a rule, men and women do equally well on broad measures of intelligence. And while men and women differ as to what areas they tend to do well in, either can do mathematics equally well. It's just that men and women will generally take (and may even require) different approaches to learning. It's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class. There are girls, and then there are girls.
I'll bet the girls in your class are saying the same thing about the guys. No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass: the fact is that people interested in higher math tend to be geeky because they're more interested in math than say, what Gina wore to the party last night.
True, but I haven't heard anybody argue that process statutes are unconstitutional.
You have now. This is the blurb from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of These United States of America:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If you ask me, I don't think the Founding Fathers had "business processes" in mind when they wrote this. Understandably at the writing of the Constitution, there were no audio recordings or video recordings or computer software. But business processes did exist, and if the intention was to count their creators among "authors and inventors," I should think that they would have done so, don't you?
Obviously he means "human translation from Chinese to English" as opposed to "BabelFish translation" or "Google translation," the implication being that human translations into English (from any language), are far more accurate, since they take into account subtle nuances of human language that machines cannot, and therefore make far better reading.
No, the sad thing is that this started in February, 2009, this guy has just learned of it... and Slashdot is treating it as current news.
No, he talked about on his blog earlier, something to the effect of "Nothing to see here, move along." and then discovered that he could not uninstall it after the fact, months later. This blog was more or less an apology to his regular readership. That's why it's important to RTFA.
Disabling it keeps it from working, sure. If it didn't, Mozilla would have some 'splainin' to do.
Do we get upset when Ubuntu includes their own Firefox extension?
No, because Ubuntu tells us about it ahead of time. Microsoft installed it without notice, in a browser that was installed after the fact. What if a Vista update included an add-on for World of Warcraft? How would you feel about that?
The new twist is that the article's author just realized that the extension can't be easily uninstalled:
I'm here to report a small side effect from installing this service pack that I was not aware of until just a few days ago: Apparently, the.NET update automatically installs its own Firefox add-on that is difficult -- if not dangerous -- to remove, once installed.
Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC." I'm not sure I'd put things in quite such dire terms, but I'm fairly confident that a decent number of Firefox for Windows users are rabidly anti-Internet Explorer, and would take umbrage at the very notion of Redmond monkeying with the browser in any way.
Big deal, you say? I can just uninstall the add-on via Firefox's handy Add-ons interface, right? Not so fast. The trouble is, Microsoft has disabled the "uninstall" button on the extension. What's more, Microsoft tells us that the only way to get rid of this thing is to modify the Windows registry, an exercise that -- if done imprecisely -- can cause Windows systems to fail to boot up.
The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.
But the decision to ban Scientology's IP's was perfectly in line with a reasonable prior policy. That's what makes this is OK, not the fact that Wikipedia is private property.
Well, I do know that the decision was based on a very reasonable prior policy (abuse the system and get your IP address(es) banned), and I agree that Wikipedia owes a lot of its existence to the community and that they have a duty to the community to not push a personal agenda, that's all a given.
But that's all besides the point: the Church of Scientology simply has no leg to stand on here. Wikipedia, for whatever reasons and policies are enacted, has every right to tell the CoS to piss off, espoecially if they are being abusive.
The goal of Scientology is a sane world, without criminals, without psychiatric terror, without war. Ultimately, the goal of Scientology is sanity itself. Only the insane would attempt to stop Scientology. With this brutal decision, not only is Wikipedia criminally attacking the world's most ethical people, members of the Scientology religion, but it is preventing Scientologists from presenting our religion in the most positive and truthful light. There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry.
<sarcasm mode="dripping">Whoa! Watch out for the Global Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Anti-Religion Conspiracy! They won't stop at nothing less than global domination!</sarcasm>
Talk about extreme paranoia! This guy's talking about pushing for a sane world and blaming the insane for stopping Scientology, when, obviously, this guy is the insane one.
Mr. Miscaivge: My wife, as a psychologist and therapist, works in the "Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry" and I can tell you with absolute certainty that these guys can't even agree on whether "Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder" is a real disease or not, let alone organize a global anti-religion conspiracy, seeking to destroy any religion (or anything really), let alone the Church of Scientology. You should seek professional help for that, it sounds like you're paranoid-delusional.
No kidding. It isn't like Jimmy Wales is sending out his WikiGestapoForces to round them up and send them to Auschwitz if they run down to corner espresso bar and fire up their wifi.
Besides, Wikipedia is private non-profit organization. It's their servers, it's their site, and they are fully within their rights to say who is and who is not welcome to use them. It's no different when the Church of Scientology comes knocking on your door passing out their pamphlets and you slam the door in their face and tell them to get lost. Private property is private property.
Well, your response applies slightly more to Linux (one would just have to implement a Linux kernel on the 8-bit CPU, which isn't likely to happen to anytime soon) and doesn't really apply to Vista at all. MIcrosoft would have to implement Vista, and unless there is sufficient market demand for this 8-bit CPU, they'll never do it, since the incentive for them to write an 8-bit Vista is approximately zero.
While it may be possible to write a Linux kernel for an 8-bit processor, this, too, is not likely, at least not a complete Linux kernel. Linux was pretty much designed and written from the ground up on a 32-bit processor with built-in low-level support for multitasking.
So, IOW, while you are theoretically correct, from a practical standpoint implementing Vista or Linux or any other modern OS, with the exception of FreeDOS, is virtually impossible. Hence, the GP's joke retains its original humor.
Just proves I really don't understand the progressive mind. I really wish you guys could settle what the rules are in such a way you could actually enumerate them in public. Which of course is exactly what will never happen because to speak them would give up the game as any sane person could only laugh.
Racist and sexist speech are politically incorrect, but only when the speaker is white and male. All others may proceed with their bigotted remarks; often these are deemed to be funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, such a device made out of iron isn't likely to work well.
*ducking*
Tampa International Airport (TPA) has free public WiFi.
I really need a disclaimer here: I'm married and monogamous (4 years and counting) and therefore am no longer on the dating scene, but some quick advice here:
"Hot" is more about malleable things such as attitude, dress, hygiene, and behavior than it is about genetics and physicalities. Once you fully grok that -- not just understand, but grok -- the rules of the game change entirely in your favor. ;)
Men and women do think differently, and that has been all but exhaustively proven scientifically. However, as a rule, men and women do equally well on broad measures of intelligence. And while men and women differ as to what areas they tend to do well in, either can do mathematics equally well. It's just that men and women will generally take (and may even require) different approaches to learning. It's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
My problem is the number of **attractive** girls taking my class. There are girls, and then there are girls.
I'll bet the girls in your class are saying the same thing about the guys. No, I'm not trying to be a smart ass: the fact is that people interested in higher math tend to be geeky because they're more interested in math than say, what Gina wore to the party last night.
And I say this as a fellow geek.
Come on people, CLEARLY the large long-necked dinosaurs kept their necks curled back and their heads resting on top of their backs.
+5 Insightful
"Suitable" time machine == capable of reaching speeds of 88.5 MPH and 121 Jigawatts of power.
doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?
Yes, yes it does..
Mmmm...yeah, but wasn't Constantinople sacked by the Turks, thereby causing the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire?
Oh, wait, I think I get it now... ;)
True, but I haven't heard anybody argue that process statutes are unconstitutional.
You have now. This is the blurb from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of These United States of America:
If you ask me, I don't think the Founding Fathers had "business processes" in mind when they wrote this. Understandably at the writing of the Constitution, there were no audio recordings or video recordings or computer software. But business processes did exist, and if the intention was to count their creators among "authors and inventors," I should think that they would have done so, don't you?
Or there's always User-Mode Linux.
Obviously he means "human translation from Chinese to English" as opposed to "BabelFish translation" or "Google translation," the implication being that human translations into English (from any language), are far more accurate, since they take into account subtle nuances of human language that machines cannot, and therefore make far better reading.
No, the sad thing is that this started in February, 2009, this guy has just learned of it... and Slashdot is treating it as current news.
No, he talked about on his blog earlier, something to the effect of "Nothing to see here, move along." and then discovered that he could not uninstall it after the fact, months later. This blog was more or less an apology to his regular readership. That's why it's important to RTFA.
Disabling it keeps it from working, sure. If it didn't, Mozilla would have some 'splainin' to do.
Do we get upset when Ubuntu includes their own Firefox extension?
No, because Ubuntu tells us about it ahead of time. Microsoft installed it without notice, in a browser that was installed after the fact. What if a Vista update included an add-on for World of Warcraft? How would you feel about that?
User Agent Switcher.
The new twist is that the article's author just realized that the extension can't be easily uninstalled:
I'm here to report a small side effect from installing this service pack that I was not aware of until just a few days ago: Apparently, the .NET update automatically installs its own Firefox add-on that is difficult -- if not dangerous -- to remove, once installed.
Annoyances.org, which lists various aspects of Windows that are, well, annoying, says "this update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for Web sites to easily and quietly install software on your PC." I'm not sure I'd put things in quite such dire terms, but I'm fairly confident that a decent number of Firefox for Windows users are rabidly anti-Internet Explorer, and would take umbrage at the very notion of Redmond monkeying with the browser in any way.
Big deal, you say? I can just uninstall the add-on via Firefox's handy Add-ons interface, right? Not so fast. The trouble is, Microsoft has disabled the "uninstall" button on the extension. What's more, Microsoft tells us that the only way to get rid of this thing is to modify the Windows registry, an exercise that -- if done imprecisely -- can cause Windows systems to fail to boot up.
The sad thing is that I think probably everyone missed this because this is not new behavior for Microsoft.
All he has done is put numbers into Wirth's law.
Wirth? As in guy responsible for Algol and Pascal?
Yeah, makes sense he'd say something like that! ;)
Heavier? Yes. But is it heavy on modern systems with plenty of processor and RAM? No way. It's my number one text editor for quick file edits.
But the decision to ban Scientology's IP's was perfectly in line with a reasonable prior policy. That's what makes this is OK, not the fact that Wikipedia is private property.
Well, I do know that the decision was based on a very reasonable prior policy (abuse the system and get your IP address(es) banned), and I agree that Wikipedia owes a lot of its existence to the community and that they have a duty to the community to not push a personal agenda, that's all a given.
But that's all besides the point: the Church of Scientology simply has no leg to stand on here. Wikipedia, for whatever reasons and policies are enacted, has every right to tell the CoS to piss off, espoecially if they are being abusive.
<sarcasm mode="dripping">Whoa! Watch out for the Global Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Anti-Religion Conspiracy! They won't stop at nothing less than global domination!</sarcasm>
Talk about extreme paranoia! This guy's talking about pushing for a sane world and blaming the insane for stopping Scientology, when, obviously, this guy is the insane one.
Mr. Miscaivge: My wife, as a psychologist and therapist, works in the "Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry" and I can tell you with absolute certainty that these guys can't even agree on whether "Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder" is a real disease or not, let alone organize a global anti-religion conspiracy, seeking to destroy any religion (or anything really), let alone the Church of Scientology. You should seek professional help for that, it sounds like you're paranoid-delusional.
No kidding. It isn't like Jimmy Wales is sending out his WikiGestapoForces to round them up and send them to Auschwitz if they run down to corner espresso bar and fire up their wifi.
Besides, Wikipedia is private non-profit organization. It's their servers, it's their site, and they are fully within their rights to say who is and who is not welcome to use them. It's no different when the Church of Scientology comes knocking on your door passing out their pamphlets and you slam the door in their face and tell them to get lost. Private property is private property.
Okay, so you could write an emulator to make it run Vista. Very, very, very slowly. So it would take, what? Two weeks to boot?
I'm gonna get off his lawn for sure!
Well, your response applies slightly more to Linux (one would just have to implement a Linux kernel on the 8-bit CPU, which isn't likely to happen to anytime soon) and doesn't really apply to Vista at all. MIcrosoft would have to implement Vista, and unless there is sufficient market demand for this 8-bit CPU, they'll never do it, since the incentive for them to write an 8-bit Vista is approximately zero.
While it may be possible to write a Linux kernel for an 8-bit processor, this, too, is not likely, at least not a complete Linux kernel. Linux was pretty much designed and written from the ground up on a 32-bit processor with built-in low-level support for multitasking.
So, IOW, while you are theoretically correct, from a practical standpoint implementing Vista or Linux or any other modern OS, with the exception of FreeDOS, is virtually impossible. Hence, the GP's joke retains its original humor.
Just proves I really don't understand the progressive mind. I really wish you guys could settle what the rules are in such a way you could actually enumerate them in public. Which of course is exactly what will never happen because to speak them would give up the game as any sane person could only laugh.
Racist and sexist speech are politically incorrect, but only when the speaker is white and male. All others may proceed with their bigotted remarks; often these are deemed to be funny.