Mainframes are still around, supported, and have relatively new ones out. I work for a part of IBM that has some software that runs on mainframe.
It's not x86 though, whereas VMware is exclusively x86. Not being any sort of manager or sales person, I don't know why IBM doesn't work on more x86 stuff.:)
I'm not sure exactly, but don't they have to be licensed?
How about alcohol sales?
I believe they have to be licensed as well?
How about car rentals?
Not sure, but the unlicensed car rental business does not appear to be booming.
How about chinese medicine?
Pharmaceuticals or just herbs? Most herbal stuff carries warnings that it hasn't been tested by the FDA or that claims have not been verified, etc. It's required.
Unlicensed electricians?
Depends what you want to do with the electrician. Some things require permits and licensed contractors.
Farms that sell unpasteurized milk?
Are there regulations that it has to be pasteurized?
Unlicensed pharmacies, when it's clear they must be licensed and regulated by the FDA, is a lot different from a handyman who does electric work.
I have no idea exactly how it was "experimental." It wasn't done by a random dude in a mall:
Perry underwent a spinal fusion procedure from Stanley C. Jones, MD, a Houston orthopaedic surgeon. But it wasn’t as routine as it sounds. During the operation, Jones gave Perry an infusion of adult stem cells in an effort to speed recovery.
I think this is one of those logic questions that basically doesn't make sense. There are those who have come to this conclusion, so don't practice any medicine whatsoever.
Here's one way to answer it. You're drowning in the ocean. A boat comes by and tries to pick you up; you refuse, saying you're trusting God and that when He wants you to die, you'll die. A second boat; same thing. A third; same thing. You drown. You ask God, "Why didn't you save me?" He asks you, "Why did you pass up the three boats I sent?"
Story aside, there's some pretty hard to figure out questions lumped into this question. Basically, it comes down to questions of human responsibility and God's decisions. Biblically, God never seems to say that you need to "let go and let God" as the silly 60s/70s thing went. God clearly expected people to be active in life. It's like living by eating food; if you decide you're going to "depend on God" and not eat and expect God to miraculously sustain your body the rest of your life... you're probably going to die. It's ridiculous to "assume" that God is going to save you in the face of your reckless presumption on Him when He has clearly expected you to be responsible for your own actions.
Basically, this question boils down to: if God is in control of everything, then why do we need to do anything, why can't He just "make" it happen the way He wants.
I suppose He "could." But He didn't chose to do it that way?
As for me, the "playing God" thing... that seems to be an un-reasoned out response to something that someone has a gut feeling against. As for embryonic stem cell research and abortion, that's a Biblical stance that aborted babies were actually human beings, and thus abortions are an abomination to God. Like murder. That really has nothing to do with "playing God."
Nor, incidentally, is genetics "playing God." Of course, if you choose to try to change your baby's eye color through a dangerous genetic operation? That seems... shall we say, ludicrously dangerous and disrespectful of human life, which God clearly significantly values.
I had no idea that stem cell treatments are false claims in the medical field.
I know there ARE those who claim false things about them, but wasn't "stem cell research" a huge issue in the last few years... with most people, especially the medical field, fighting for more? especially embryonic?
Here's the actual procedure:
The Republican contender, who has access to the best medicine, chose to get stem cells removed from his fat from his back and then reinserted in attempts to fix a bad back.
And the criticism:
"As a highly influential person of power, Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks" who are selling unproven treatments "for everything from Alzheimer's to autism," Dr. George Q. Daley, of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute told the Associated Press.
There's no statement that it's a quack. It has not been "thoroughly vetted by researchers or approved by the FDA." ("thoroughly" seems like a key word there).
So, according to Daley, I guess presidential candidates can never try an experimental treatment? Progress: only allow the lesser people (peasants) to have somewhat experimental/unproven medical procedures done; the upper class should wait.
If it was someone else (no, I'm not referring to any other political figure), I wonder if we would herald him as being brave enough to further science by allowing his problem be tested on for a cure.
Citation needed. You only cite one founding father and seem to argue on the basis of that one.
I'm not attempting at all to say something like "most of the founding fathers were Christians." But to say most of them weren't particularly religious would need some hefty citation.
And they already have a calendar, too. And instant messaging and e-mail.
Sometimes, it's nice to have them integrated and work together, though... so I don't have to check my Groups page to see what my friends, who are all in Google Plus, posted to the Frisbee group. That's an example, all my friends aren't actually on G+;)
There are a few things G+ is missing to seriously contend, at least in my eyes, with FB... for me and most of my friends.
First, I can do without pretty much all the apps, games, and all those other random application things that I have to keep adding to my "block posts from [app name]."
However, one of the biggest things I use G+ for, apart from general communication, is events/coordination type stuff. If G+ had a decent "Create an event" thing, that'd be a major plus [hahaha...]
On the communication side... *some* sort of wall, page, message, etc., would be nice. Not necessarily necessary, but could be nice.
A "page" of some sort; e.g., I have an ultimate frisbee group. It'd be nice to have a "group" for that. I suppose I could just make that a circle, but people can't manage their own subscription/membership to my circle then...
Seems that, for the most part, economic booms aren't tied to specific government intervention, manipulation, etc. Shocking.
(i.e., the government can influence and manipulate the economy, but that doesn't appear to be the best way it happens; good economies seem to come not from government policy but from private enterprise and people creating goods/services that other people want...)
Just as a note, please don't judge the rest of the US based on LA. Or SF. Or NY.
It'd be like us basing our view of Europe based on... London.
In fact, a lot of CA has pretty normal people. LA and SF are just weird, overpopulated... LA especially, there's tons of urban sprawl in the middle of basically a desert. I don't get it.
Seriously, you can't even use PART of a trademark now? "The Elder Scrolls" is quite different from "Scrolls."
That would be like saying you can't call a game "Blade" or "Mount" because of "Mount & Blade," or have a game called "Magic" because of "Might & Magic"... or...
Maybe this is just because they have to be proactive about keeping their trademark or something. I don't know. Stupid.:)
There WERE mods that made magic more powerful, but it was overpowered... hugely overpowered. I tried a few and you could pretty much do anything with a fireball.
I played both an archer/sword-shield fighter type with a bit of magic and an almost-all-magic/sword (or staff, whatever) type. I actually found it easier to be the magic user; that could be because I opted for mostly light armor when I went through the first time, which made melee a bit more challenging as almost any hit really hurt (I dabbled in playing a two-handed swordsman, e.g., a viking, and it's a lot easier when you wear a huge amount of heavy armor and have a giant sword; however, I still found ranged magic easier).
The main thing that I thought would be cool would be something similar to the "Contigency" spell/ability that Baldur's Gate had... you could cast the spells ahead of time and have them cast all at once later. Failing that, it'd be nice to be able to hit one button and have your character cast a bunch of defensive spells all in a row; it's annoying to take up the spell slots with defensive spells, and it was annoying to have to go into the menu system to pick each individual spell:)
Also... chameleon items or spells made it pretty much too easy.
How nice, the game developers are looking for ways to help us spend even less time with their $60 games. I'm so glad they've got our best interests at heart.
No, they are trying to allow you, in your limited time for gaming (well, I have limited time anyways!), to enjoy the *game* and not have to hassle with menu hierarchies and clunky UIs simply to add a spell to a quickslot or drop an item from your inventory. They want you to spend more time enjoying the game elements, not the menus. Sounds good to me.
I don't think it necessarily works that way in this case. How many businesses do you know that can just stop using power during peak hours? Office building ACs, for example, during the middle of the day?
Sure, for actual flexible usage - like people at home doing laundry - you may have a point. But I always thought that the point was to shift home usage from business hours to closer to non-business hours, and especially non-AC hours during the summer.
Not that "our utilities" aren't trying to make money... of course they are, they are for-profit. However, it seems it may be in their interest to try to shift usage to make it more even throughout the day.
So a story based on apparently a single study (unproven) that "suggests" that the earth MAY have had (in other words, this *could* be a plausible explanation for why our one moon looks like this). And you already *have* accepted it while criticizing those who won't?
The study hasn't even, as far as I can tell, been reviewed or in some way shown to be plausible, however that works with studies on essentially history.
The students might learn something outside of school. That'd be horrible. They may even get help with their homework! We can't allow that. All education must occur in the school, not outside of it!
Late in replying, but oh well. I don't understand what is disgusting about it... not that I know why and don't understand it, I mean I don't know why you would say that. I'm sure you have a reason and probably a good one, I just don't see it at the moment...
I think there are much easier ways to distance myself from the Oslo guy. The easiest would be that a "Christian," by its name and by its own generally accepted standard, is one that supposedly follows Christ; i.e., follows His teaching, believes what He said, etc. What this guy did is quite antithetical to anything Christ said. I don't see why I need to explain any further; I think that separates us pretty comfortably. It'd be kinda like an atheist who said he believed in creation by God. It doesn't make sense; if you're an atheist, you believe there isn't a god, that's kind of the whole point. If you say you believe in creation by God, you're not an atheist. So, if you say you're a Christian, and you don't follow Christ at all...
Somewhat incidentally, "Christian" has kinda become synonymous, to some extent, with "Western" or "Non-Eastern religion." That's why almost everyone says they are a "Christian," even though they would barely be able say who Christ was, who Christ said He was, what He did and taught, etc. It's about as useful as saying you're an atheist and thinking that that means you like strawberry smoothies.
From what I have read online, nobody really knows what the Oslo guy really believed. He got labeled as a "fundamentalist Christian," which can mean all kinds of things. I have yet to find a good resource that lays out what he believes, or what his church (i.e., the one he attended? if any) believed, etc. He got a label and nothing more, it seems.
I'm late in responding, but.... I agree that there is a somewhat typical anti-Muslim response. I am aware of this in Christian circles, and I too find it frustratingly... well, unfair I guess. I think there is something to be said for differences in what the generally accepted interpretation of the associated Scriptures state; however, blanket statements based on wackos from either group seem to be knee-jerk generalized statements more from emotion than any sort of study.
Slashdot Mirror
Mainframes are still around, supported, and have relatively new ones out. I work for a part of IBM that has some software that runs on mainframe.
It's not x86 though, whereas VMware is exclusively x86. Not being any sort of manager or sales person, I don't know why IBM doesn't work on more x86 stuff. :)
You get out and walk.
What is legal for pharmacies to do?
I'm not sure exactly, but don't they have to be licensed?
How about alcohol sales?
I believe they have to be licensed as well?
How about car rentals?
Not sure, but the unlicensed car rental business does not appear to be booming.
How about chinese medicine?
Pharmaceuticals or just herbs? Most herbal stuff carries warnings that it hasn't been tested by the FDA or that claims have not been verified, etc. It's required.
Unlicensed electricians?
Depends what you want to do with the electrician. Some things require permits and licensed contractors.
Farms that sell unpasteurized milk?
Are there regulations that it has to be pasteurized?
Unlicensed pharmacies, when it's clear they must be licensed and regulated by the FDA, is a lot different from a handyman who does electric work.
I have no idea exactly how it was "experimental." It wasn't done by a random dude in a mall:
Perry underwent a spinal fusion procedure from Stanley C. Jones, MD, a Houston orthopaedic surgeon. But it wasn’t as routine as it sounds. During the operation, Jones gave Perry an infusion of adult stem cells in an effort to speed recovery.
(source).
Exactly how sanctioned that is I suppose is debatable... companies in other countries Japan, China, South Korea) are mentioned.
It was experimental. It appears that Perry was not promised any benefit, like a quack would do. How is an experimental operation a quack?
I think this is one of those logic questions that basically doesn't make sense. There are those who have come to this conclusion, so don't practice any medicine whatsoever.
Here's one way to answer it. You're drowning in the ocean. A boat comes by and tries to pick you up; you refuse, saying you're trusting God and that when He wants you to die, you'll die. A second boat; same thing. A third; same thing. You drown. You ask God, "Why didn't you save me?" He asks you, "Why did you pass up the three boats I sent?"
Story aside, there's some pretty hard to figure out questions lumped into this question. Basically, it comes down to questions of human responsibility and God's decisions. Biblically, God never seems to say that you need to "let go and let God" as the silly 60s/70s thing went. God clearly expected people to be active in life. It's like living by eating food; if you decide you're going to "depend on God" and not eat and expect God to miraculously sustain your body the rest of your life ... you're probably going to die. It's ridiculous to "assume" that God is going to save you in the face of your reckless presumption on Him when He has clearly expected you to be responsible for your own actions.
Basically, this question boils down to: if God is in control of everything, then why do we need to do anything, why can't He just "make" it happen the way He wants.
I suppose He "could." But He didn't chose to do it that way?
As for me, the "playing God" thing... that seems to be an un-reasoned out response to something that someone has a gut feeling against. As for embryonic stem cell research and abortion, that's a Biblical stance that aborted babies were actually human beings, and thus abortions are an abomination to God. Like murder. That really has nothing to do with "playing God."
Nor, incidentally, is genetics "playing God." Of course, if you choose to try to change your baby's eye color through a dangerous genetic operation? That seems ... shall we say, ludicrously dangerous and disrespectful of human life, which God clearly significantly values.
Stem cell research that apparently has helped is not quackery.
I had no idea that stem cell treatments are false claims in the medical field.
I know there ARE those who claim false things about them, but wasn't "stem cell research" a huge issue in the last few years ... with most people, especially the medical field, fighting for more? especially embryonic?
Here's the actual procedure:
The Republican contender, who has access to the best medicine, chose to get stem cells removed from his fat from his back and then reinserted in attempts to fix a bad back.
And the criticism:
"As a highly influential person of power, Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks" who are selling unproven treatments "for everything from Alzheimer's to autism," Dr. George Q. Daley, of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute told the Associated Press.
There's no statement that it's a quack. It has not been "thoroughly vetted by researchers or approved by the FDA." ("thoroughly" seems like a key word there).
So, according to Daley, I guess presidential candidates can never try an experimental treatment? Progress: only allow the lesser people (peasants) to have somewhat experimental/unproven medical procedures done; the upper class should wait.
If it was someone else (no, I'm not referring to any other political figure), I wonder if we would herald him as being brave enough to further science by allowing his problem be tested on for a cure.
Citation needed. You only cite one founding father and seem to argue on the basis of that one.
I'm not attempting at all to say something like "most of the founding fathers were Christians." But to say most of them weren't particularly religious would need some hefty citation.
They're turning in their graves.
They're dead? :P ;)
And they already have a calendar, too. And instant messaging and e-mail.
Sometimes, it's nice to have them integrated and work together, though... so I don't have to check my Groups page to see what my friends, who are all in Google Plus, posted to the Frisbee group. That's an example, all my friends aren't actually on G+ ;)
There are a few things G+ is missing to seriously contend, at least in my eyes, with FB... for me and most of my friends.
First, I can do without pretty much all the apps, games, and all those other random application things that I have to keep adding to my "block posts from [app name]."
However, one of the biggest things I use G+ for, apart from general communication, is events/coordination type stuff. If G+ had a decent "Create an event" thing, that'd be a major plus [hahaha...]
On the communication side... *some* sort of wall, page, message, etc., would be nice. Not necessarily necessary, but could be nice.
A "page" of some sort; e.g., I have an ultimate frisbee group. It'd be nice to have a "group" for that. I suppose I could just make that a circle, but people can't manage their own subscription/membership to my circle then...
Seems that, for the most part, economic booms aren't tied to specific government intervention, manipulation, etc. Shocking.
(i.e., the government can influence and manipulate the economy, but that doesn't appear to be the best way it happens; good economies seem to come not from government policy but from private enterprise and people creating goods/services that other people want...)
In that case, you have to write your own http server, too.
And text editor.
And compiler.
Just as a note, please don't judge the rest of the US based on LA. Or SF. Or NY.
It'd be like us basing our view of Europe based on ... London.
In fact, a lot of CA has pretty normal people. LA and SF are just weird, overpopulated... LA especially, there's tons of urban sprawl in the middle of basically a desert. I don't get it.
Seriously, you can't even use PART of a trademark now? "The Elder Scrolls" is quite different from "Scrolls."
That would be like saying you can't call a game "Blade" or "Mount" because of "Mount & Blade," or have a game called "Magic" because of "Might & Magic" ... or ...
Maybe this is just because they have to be proactive about keeping their trademark or something. I don't know. Stupid. :)
This. Or even just near-100% chameleon worked. :P
Short of that, a chameleon spell worked. Or touch-damage+invisibility.
There WERE mods that made magic more powerful, but it was overpowered ... hugely overpowered. I tried a few and you could pretty much do anything with a fireball.
I played both an archer/sword-shield fighter type with a bit of magic and an almost-all-magic/sword (or staff, whatever) type. I actually found it easier to be the magic user; that could be because I opted for mostly light armor when I went through the first time, which made melee a bit more challenging as almost any hit really hurt (I dabbled in playing a two-handed swordsman, e.g., a viking, and it's a lot easier when you wear a huge amount of heavy armor and have a giant sword; however, I still found ranged magic easier).
The main thing that I thought would be cool would be something similar to the "Contigency" spell/ability that Baldur's Gate had... you could cast the spells ahead of time and have them cast all at once later. Failing that, it'd be nice to be able to hit one button and have your character cast a bunch of defensive spells all in a row; it's annoying to take up the spell slots with defensive spells, and it was annoying to have to go into the menu system to pick each individual spell :)
Also... chameleon items or spells made it pretty much too easy.
How nice, the game developers are looking for ways to help us spend even less time with their $60 games. I'm so glad they've got our best interests at heart.
No, they are trying to allow you, in your limited time for gaming (well, I have limited time anyways!), to enjoy the *game* and not have to hassle with menu hierarchies and clunky UIs simply to add a spell to a quickslot or drop an item from your inventory. They want you to spend more time enjoying the game elements, not the menus. Sounds good to me.
I don't think it necessarily works that way in this case. How many businesses do you know that can just stop using power during peak hours? Office building ACs, for example, during the middle of the day?
Sure, for actual flexible usage - like people at home doing laundry - you may have a point. But I always thought that the point was to shift home usage from business hours to closer to non-business hours, and especially non-AC hours during the summer.
Not that "our utilities" aren't trying to make money... of course they are, they are for-profit. However, it seems it may be in their interest to try to shift usage to make it more even throughout the day.
So a story based on apparently a single study (unproven) that "suggests" that the earth MAY have had (in other words, this *could* be a plausible explanation for why our one moon looks like this). And you already *have* accepted it while criticizing those who won't?
The study hasn't even, as far as I can tell, been reviewed or in some way shown to be plausible, however that works with studies on essentially history.
The students might learn something outside of school. That'd be horrible. They may even get help with their homework! We can't allow that. All education must occur in the school, not outside of it!
Late in replying, but oh well. I don't understand what is disgusting about it ... not that I know why and don't understand it, I mean I don't know why you would say that. I'm sure you have a reason and probably a good one, I just don't see it at the moment...
I think there are much easier ways to distance myself from the Oslo guy. The easiest would be that a "Christian," by its name and by its own generally accepted standard, is one that supposedly follows Christ; i.e., follows His teaching, believes what He said, etc. What this guy did is quite antithetical to anything Christ said. I don't see why I need to explain any further; I think that separates us pretty comfortably. It'd be kinda like an atheist who said he believed in creation by God. It doesn't make sense; if you're an atheist, you believe there isn't a god, that's kind of the whole point. If you say you believe in creation by God, you're not an atheist. So, if you say you're a Christian, and you don't follow Christ at all...
Somewhat incidentally, "Christian" has kinda become synonymous, to some extent, with "Western" or "Non-Eastern religion." That's why almost everyone says they are a "Christian," even though they would barely be able say who Christ was, who Christ said He was, what He did and taught, etc. It's about as useful as saying you're an atheist and thinking that that means you like strawberry smoothies.
From what I have read online, nobody really knows what the Oslo guy really believed. He got labeled as a "fundamentalist Christian," which can mean all kinds of things. I have yet to find a good resource that lays out what he believes, or what his church (i.e., the one he attended? if any) believed, etc. He got a label and nothing more, it seems.
I'm late in responding, but.... I agree that there is a somewhat typical anti-Muslim response. I am aware of this in Christian circles, and I too find it frustratingly... well, unfair I guess. I think there is something to be said for differences in what the generally accepted interpretation of the associated Scriptures state; however, blanket statements based on wackos from either group seem to be knee-jerk generalized statements more from emotion than any sort of study.
It's the market app itself, not the website. I am not sure what models they released it for... I downloaded the apk and installed it that way :P :)