In general, and as a Christian, I agree. Except with the "Baby Killer" part.
I cannot support abortion. And, frankly, the lack of doing anything on the part of those who even campaign as a pro-life/anti-abortion stance is disappointing and disturbing.
If he is not actually legally entitled, i.e., has the right to own property... what's the complaint then?
It's not basically the same thing, because at least in the USA, we have the right to own property. I don't have the right to own a domain name, explicitly. Furthermore, this isn't even in the USA, this is in Gabon. Wherever that is.;)
This would be more similar to a convicted drug dealer trying to buy a marijuana dispensary. Or maybe a pharmacy.
Believe it or not, I try to avoid both wacky sides.
And, on global warming, I'm not 100% convinced in either way. I can go along with the concept that it's warming. I'm just not sold on (1) that that is necessarily bad and (2) that it hasn't happened [naturally] before.
That said, even though I'm fairly conservative and rather libertarian, I think I might be seen as a [scary music goes here] environmentalist by some people because I actually support [more scary music] some regulation to keep people and, more importantly, large corporations with lots of lawyer money, from destroying the environment.
I've heard some positive reviews for their Surface tablets, actually. "Live Drive" is currently "Sky Drive" I think?
And you didn't mention Windows 7. IMO, it's actually pretty good. I prefer it much more to Windows XP, and it's actually more stable, IMO. Of course, not surprising, but still.
And Skype, they are doing a good job of supporting platforms, it seems. Everyone and their dog were predicting they'd drop Linux support, but they seem to be more inclined to support it than errr the company Skype was.
it's another Microsoft change for the sake of change
Yeah, clearly, consolidating your messaging applications so that you only have one, rather than two, is "change for the sake of change." Because it makes far more sense to continue to support and develop both of them, I guess.
Lying "for good," whether to kids or the public, only works as long as you hide the fact you lied. The minute the public, or kids, find out it was a lie, they begin to question everything else.
It's actually hard for me to make up my mind about global warming. Why? Because there has been so much lying, deception, and contradiction involved in the entire debate. Rather than making me think even more seriously about it, it makes me want to just totally ignore it altogether because it apparently isn't important enough to tell the truth about.
Want to convince me of something? Tell me the truth in such a way that you can back up your claims. Want to turn me off? Lie to me and then say that you were just trying to convince me because you knew I wouldn't believe it if you told me the truth.
Clearly, what Ballmer should have said was that the Surface is *not* what people want. That would have been better. CEOs should never believe in their products. I mean, it's not like Steve Jobs or Tim Cook or anyone else in their Marketing presentations ever said anything crazy (you know, like "inventing" tablets or something)...
I don't see how this is even a story. Of course Ballmer is going to say that the Surface is better than the iPad. What do you expect him to say?! "The iPad is better than the Surface, but please buy a surface."
Yeah, the next Asus I think is going to run Windows 8... TF801 or something like that. I own the TF301 with keyboard, and it's pretty nice. Being able to use the keyboard is pretty handy. It also replaces any desire for a small netbook for travel or something like that. Plus, since it has a second sdcard slot (yes, iPad, I'm looking at you!), it's easily upgradeable to... well, I think the internal one is 32gb on mine, so 96gb if I wanted. I have a 32gb card in it now, though, which is more than enough so far.
Attendance *used* to be way more important. Back when, you know, almost nobody had any books, there was no internet, there weren't any libraries, etc. Saying it was required X years ago, so it should be required now, without evaluating whether or not things have changed is a bit short-sighted, IMO:) That said, I know it... well, seems loosely correlated, perhaps? People who want to learn will tend to go to where they can learn. People who don't want to learn... er... don't.
But there's a lot of people who attend and don't learn. My point was that it is possible to be enrolled in public school, *not* attend class very much, and still learn these "skills." Whatever they are. If I can learn from a book at home (this was my point), then I can learn that same bit at home using the public school's book, right? So, maybe requiring 100% (or whatever) attendance isn't really that necessary.
I also am thinking about the "they have been taking attendance forever" bit... it's interesting that, at least in accounts of school, you got in major trouble with your parents if you weren't doing well in school. You didn't have parents getting the school in major trouble because their brilliant genius isn't learning.
In other words, parental encouragement seems to be far more important than attendance. I would have been bored and wasting a ton of time in public school, I think - with the exception of some organized things like sports or band. But even there, I just did community organized things (I didn't want to do sports professionally).
I remember my parents asking at meetings why we needed uniforms (took out individuality, and was expensive!), but many other parents -- not the government -- responded they liked how clean everyone looked, and it kept gang paraphenalia out of schools.
"I can't keep my kids from dressing in gang-clothing. I'm glad the school forces them to."
Hell, I knew *students* that claimed to enjoy having uniforms because they did not like having to think about what to wear every day.
They could have done it regardless of what the school required. Just because a given school doesn't require a uniform doesn't mean you can't wear a "uniform."
The government *is* the parents.
No... at best, the government is the majority of parents. Assuming that's how it works, anyways? If it's not a majority, then it's not the parents; if it is the majority, then it's only the majority of parents. Which is better, at any rate.
However, what I'm more concerned about is that the government run school kinda of abdicates parental responsibility. If the government feeds your children, tells them how to dress, requires them to be there (regardless of how well they learn without being there) and gets money from the federal government based on them being there!... and other things... what exactly DO parents do? And, furthermore, when the actual standards of literacy and education aren't even held up (i.e., you need to re-do this grade because you didn't learn the information taught/required) and somehow this is seen, by the parents, as the school's fault (because, afterall, they're doing everything now)... that's a problem.
I don't know how this could be fixed. But it's a problem. And the problem isn't - as, incidentally, you do mention:) - necessarily the government, it's the parents. However, I think having the public school do *so much* more or less encourages the "hands-off, let the public school do it" parenting... um... ideology.
If you don't go to class, it is pretty hard to "learn valuable skills".
Which skills are those? Do home-schooled kids not learn these same skills? They don't go to "class."
And I've known lots of people, at junior college, who went to class and didn't learn. Going to class may be helpful for those who are already inclined to learn, but you have to be inclined to learn in the first place. Attendance doesn't incline you, and thus it's not really that good of an indicator, IMO.
Why is attendance even required? If I can learn the material without attending, isn't that better all around? Better for class sizes, don't have to feed me lunch, etc.
I guess some requirements are good. Maybe... have to be there on test days, and like, 30% of the time or something for lectures.
But seriously. The problem with education is not attendance. I was homeschooled. I didn't even attend class. I learned my material from school books. I actually never graduated from High School, officially (took an equivalency test to start college). In college, I attended classes because I was supposed to, but some of them (economics, literature) weren't exactly that profitable uses of my time.
I know, it's cliche to say "I didn't go and I turned out fine" but I did. I'm employed, I double majored in computer science and music theory/composition, graduated summa cum laude, was active in various groups and activities (too many, according to some:) ), etc.
Attendance is not really a measure of educational success. Especially if you can attend perfectly, fail classes, and get moved on to the next grade anyway.
Seriously? That is way messed up. I pay for that patent office with taxes, I assume. I don't like it that a company can spam them, essentially, with patent applications until they get one through (presumably had an inexperienced reviewer or something). Blech. And this isn't anti-Apple, this is anti-anyone-that-does-this:P
It sounds like he predicted Obama, too, who ran on a sort of ambiguous "Don't like the way things are going? Vote for me. Vote for hope. Vote for change. I'll change things and give you hope for our country."
Turns out not much really did change from the previous administration, but he ran on essentially the same platform that you're describing.
I guess he did get the healthcare thing passed. Which it seems like is still a bit iffy; various taxes that, even though he said they wouldn't affect me, will affect me, etc. No, my premiums have not gone up, but my taxes will. Oh, and Obama said that we would have better coverage and it would cost not just "nothing more" but LESS. That sounds an awful lot like the snippet you just pasted.
Everyone I meet seems to think that they are the only competent ones in the world. But none of them are.
Re:it already is socially unacceptable
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Ok, then. What IS the problem? Racism, or wage discrimination based on gender?
Choosing which one you want to address is going to change how you concretely solve it. Wage discrimination can be solved with legislation, somewhat, I suppose. Racism? Not quite so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon has a wireless site where they sell phones with 2 year activation contracts ... and often cheaper than in-store.
In general, and as a Christian, I agree. Except with the "Baby Killer" part.
I cannot support abortion. And, frankly, the lack of doing anything on the part of those who even campaign as a pro-life/anti-abortion stance is disappointing and disturbing.
If he is not actually legally entitled, i.e., has the right to own property ... what's the complaint then?
It's not basically the same thing, because at least in the USA, we have the right to own property. I don't have the right to own a domain name, explicitly. Furthermore, this isn't even in the USA, this is in Gabon. Wherever that is. ;)
This would be more similar to a convicted drug dealer trying to buy a marijuana dispensary. Or maybe a pharmacy.
Believe it or not, I try to avoid both wacky sides.
And, on global warming, I'm not 100% convinced in either way. I can go along with the concept that it's warming. I'm just not sold on (1) that that is necessarily bad and (2) that it hasn't happened [naturally] before.
That said, even though I'm fairly conservative and rather libertarian, I think I might be seen as a [scary music goes here] environmentalist by some people because I actually support [more scary music] some regulation to keep people and, more importantly, large corporations with lots of lawyer money, from destroying the environment.
I've heard some positive reviews for their Surface tablets, actually. "Live Drive" is currently "Sky Drive" I think?
And you didn't mention Windows 7. IMO, it's actually pretty good. I prefer it much more to Windows XP, and it's actually more stable, IMO. Of course, not surprising, but still.
And Skype, they are doing a good job of supporting platforms, it seems. Everyone and their dog were predicting they'd drop Linux support, but they seem to be more inclined to support it than errr the company Skype was.
it's another Microsoft change for the sake of change
Yeah, clearly, consolidating your messaging applications so that you only have one, rather than two, is "change for the sake of change." Because it makes far more sense to continue to support and develop both of them, I guess.
Your bias may be showing, Mr. AC. ;) :)
iFoam sounds like a ... rabies vaccine or something.
I already have aCar.
Lying "for good," whether to kids or the public, only works as long as you hide the fact you lied. The minute the public, or kids, find out it was a lie, they begin to question everything else.
It's actually hard for me to make up my mind about global warming. Why? Because there has been so much lying, deception, and contradiction involved in the entire debate. Rather than making me think even more seriously about it, it makes me want to just totally ignore it altogether because it apparently isn't important enough to tell the truth about.
Want to convince me of something? Tell me the truth in such a way that you can back up your claims. Want to turn me off? Lie to me and then say that you were just trying to convince me because you knew I wouldn't believe it if you told me the truth.
(bonus points: make it a political argument. ;) )
Compared to Microsoft's method of putting the frog straight in the microwave and hitting "Start".
There is no start button on Microsoft's microwaves anymore.
Clearly, what Ballmer should have said was that the Surface is *not* what people want. That would have been better. CEOs should never believe in their products. I mean, it's not like Steve Jobs or Tim Cook or anyone else in their Marketing presentations ever said anything crazy (you know, like "inventing" tablets or something)...
I don't see how this is even a story. Of course Ballmer is going to say that the Surface is better than the iPad. What do you expect him to say?! "The iPad is better than the Surface, but please buy a surface."
Yeah, the next Asus I think is going to run Windows 8... TF801 or something like that. I own the TF301 with keyboard, and it's pretty nice. Being able to use the keyboard is pretty handy. It also replaces any desire for a small netbook for travel or something like that. Plus, since it has a second sdcard slot (yes, iPad, I'm looking at you!), it's easily upgradeable to ... well, I think the internal one is 32gb on mine, so 96gb if I wanted. I have a 32gb card in it now, though, which is more than enough so far.
So, of course, the USPTO is going to pay for Samsung's lawyer fees, right? ....
Attendance *used* to be way more important. Back when, you know, almost nobody had any books, there was no internet, there weren't any libraries, etc. Saying it was required X years ago, so it should be required now, without evaluating whether or not things have changed is a bit short-sighted, IMO :) That said, I know it ... well, seems loosely correlated, perhaps? People who want to learn will tend to go to where they can learn. People who don't want to learn ... er ... don't.
But there's a lot of people who attend and don't learn. My point was that it is possible to be enrolled in public school, *not* attend class very much, and still learn these "skills." Whatever they are. If I can learn from a book at home (this was my point), then I can learn that same bit at home using the public school's book, right? So, maybe requiring 100% (or whatever) attendance isn't really that necessary.
I also am thinking about the "they have been taking attendance forever" bit... it's interesting that, at least in accounts of school, you got in major trouble with your parents if you weren't doing well in school. You didn't have parents getting the school in major trouble because their brilliant genius isn't learning.
In other words, parental encouragement seems to be far more important than attendance. I would have been bored and wasting a ton of time in public school, I think - with the exception of some organized things like sports or band. But even there, I just did community organized things (I didn't want to do sports professionally).
I'm getting off on tangents. :-o
I remember my parents asking at meetings why we needed uniforms (took out individuality, and was expensive!), but many other parents -- not the government -- responded they liked how clean everyone looked, and it kept gang paraphenalia out of schools.
"I can't keep my kids from dressing in gang-clothing. I'm glad the school forces them to."
Hell, I knew *students* that claimed to enjoy having uniforms because they did not like having to think about what to wear every day.
They could have done it regardless of what the school required. Just because a given school doesn't require a uniform doesn't mean you can't wear a "uniform."
The government *is* the parents.
No... at best, the government is the majority of parents. Assuming that's how it works, anyways? If it's not a majority, then it's not the parents; if it is the majority, then it's only the majority of parents. Which is better, at any rate.
However, what I'm more concerned about is that the government run school kinda of abdicates parental responsibility. If the government feeds your children, tells them how to dress, requires them to be there (regardless of how well they learn without being there) and gets money from the federal government based on them being there!... and other things ... what exactly DO parents do? And, furthermore, when the actual standards of literacy and education aren't even held up (i.e., you need to re-do this grade because you didn't learn the information taught/required) and somehow this is seen, by the parents, as the school's fault (because, afterall, they're doing everything now) ... that's a problem.
I don't know how this could be fixed. But it's a problem. And the problem isn't - as, incidentally, you do mention :) - necessarily the government, it's the parents. However, I think having the public school do *so much* more or less encourages the "hands-off, let the public school do it" parenting ... um ... ideology.
If you don't go to class, it is pretty hard to "learn valuable skills".
Which skills are those? Do home-schooled kids not learn these same skills? They don't go to "class."
And I've known lots of people, at junior college, who went to class and didn't learn. Going to class may be helpful for those who are already inclined to learn, but you have to be inclined to learn in the first place. Attendance doesn't incline you, and thus it's not really that good of an indicator, IMO.
Why is attendance even required? If I can learn the material without attending, isn't that better all around? Better for class sizes, don't have to feed me lunch, etc.
I guess some requirements are good. Maybe ... have to be there on test days, and like, 30% of the time or something for lectures.
But seriously. The problem with education is not attendance. I was homeschooled. I didn't even attend class. I learned my material from school books. I actually never graduated from High School, officially (took an equivalency test to start college). In college, I attended classes because I was supposed to, but some of them (economics, literature) weren't exactly that profitable uses of my time.
I know, it's cliche to say "I didn't go and I turned out fine" but I did. I'm employed, I double majored in computer science and music theory/composition, graduated summa cum laude, was active in various groups and activities (too many, according to some :) ), etc.
Attendance is not really a measure of educational success. Especially if you can attend perfectly, fail classes, and get moved on to the next grade anyway.
Seriously? That is way messed up. I pay for that patent office with taxes, I assume. I don't like it that a company can spam them, essentially, with patent applications until they get one through (presumably had an inexperienced reviewer or something). Blech. And this isn't anti-Apple, this is anti-anyone-that-does-this :P
It sounds like he predicted Obama, too, who ran on a sort of ambiguous "Don't like the way things are going? Vote for me. Vote for hope. Vote for change. I'll change things and give you hope for our country."
Turns out not much really did change from the previous administration, but he ran on essentially the same platform that you're describing.
I guess he did get the healthcare thing passed. Which it seems like is still a bit iffy; various taxes that, even though he said they wouldn't affect me, will affect me, etc. No, my premiums have not gone up, but my taxes will. Oh, and Obama said that we would have better coverage and it would cost not just "nothing more" but LESS. That sounds an awful lot like the snippet you just pasted.
Apple doesn't use filesystems. ;)
Only the rounded corner versions.
Don't push that button. :)
So, what traits did you correlate with that trait? ;)
Everyone I meet seems to think that they are the only competent ones in the world. But none of them are.
Ok, then. What IS the problem? Racism, or wage discrimination based on gender?
Choosing which one you want to address is going to change how you concretely solve it. Wage discrimination can be solved with legislation, somewhat, I suppose. Racism? Not quite so easily.