I still have a Dell E1505 sitting to my left. The battery is dead but it works great when it's plugged in. Finally runs Ubuntu well (10.04... previous versions were iffy when it came to some of the hardware, especially sound and wifi). I've been very happy with it. It's never been broken, never had a part had to be replaced, it doesn't overheat even though it's fairly old, etc.
I know, Dell knowingly sold defective hardware. I'm sure they're the ONLY company in the US that has EVER done that, and I can use my amazing Skills of Induction to reason that ALL their hardware is similarly faulty...
... but instead, I decided to see what other people had to say about specific things from Dell, not just go based on branding. I know it's a shock (and I know I'm replying to an AC, hehe), but sometimes, brand name stuff is junk, too... and sometimes it isn't.
It's not what he hasn't undone. It's what he hasn't changed.
He campaigned like he was going to act and "President" [as a verb] totally differently from what people usually think of when think of a politician.
It turns out... he isn't doing that. He's basically the same as any other Democrat.
At least, that's why it seems many that voted for him are upset. I didn't vote for him and didn't believe his campaign promises in the first place, so I am not particularly surprised. Actually, so far, he seems to have turned out slightly better than I thought would happen...;)
How would you suggest they patch it and get the patch out to users?
In my experience:
They patch it and force the patch out using Windows Update: everyone gets mad because MS is forcing an update.
They patch it and recommend the update: everyone gets mad because they aren't forcing users to update, causing various exploits and generally not caring about their customers, etc.
They patch it and don't say anything: everyone is mad because they are obviously trying to hide that they had an exploit.
Of course, this appears to be more of Adobe's issue, so it's a bit of a moot point in this case, but it's a vlaid point in cases where MS is at fault...
You mean to say that the same stupid users that open attachments that look amazingly similar to other viruses won't get the popup that says "you can't execute that without [explains how to set executable bit]" and do it? Or won't get a "please enter the root/administrator/whatever password" prompt and simply put it in?
Unless you want to have the end-user never manage their own computer (i.e., not even KNOW the root password)... well, no OS I know of prevents a user from allowing a virus to do bad things. Some make it a bit harder.
So... turn it off? If there was no way to turn it off, you'd have a pretty good point... but Google seems to do ok with the allow-people-to-turn-it-off stuff...
For people who DO have a a relatively good connection, it's nice.
Which is mostly their fault. I dislike taxes as much as anyone else, and I'm not usre our current system is exactly fair... but the HOA fees "of living on the upper east side or UWS," the nanny, and the elite day care (and the elite private elementary schools that are $15k/yr or whatever, etc) are their choice.
Also, the five $60k+ cars eat into their income, too.
I'm glad we have a free country where people can make their own decisions, but being rich does not mean you necessarily make good money decisions. Seems like a lot of rich people have ended up poor because they didn't know how to manage their own riches and they spent it all, gambled it, invested it stupidly, or whatever.
Things like America being founded as a Christian nation.
It wasn't exactly Christian, no. Religion/Deism, and the Bible, were pretty big deals back then. Let's not ignore that part of history. Yes, I know about Jefferson's Bible. Yes, I know about other Deists. Yes, I know a lot of people were not "Christians." Yes, I know a lot of Christians want to Christian-ize history. I'm against all that stuff. I'm also against atheism-izing them if they weren't atheists.
only a slightly different religion
Slightly? Either you are being facetious or you don't have much of a clue about the differences:)
I can't get inside the head of people who think that huge families, today, are appropriate.
You must live in an urban, overcrowded, overpopulated, smoggy city.
Some people live on several acres, you know. Or even one acre. Some people actually grow some of their own food and could probably grow more, if they had to. Some people actually enjoy kids, having kids, raising kids... and in fact, find the most lasting fulfillment of their lives in raising kids.
Perspectives shift significantly when you live in "the country."
Imagine if Iraq or Afghanistan had common internet access
How about Iran?
The problem is, the current governments don't WANT common internet access for the common people... because then we'd probably be hearing about a variety of inhumane treatment and human rights issues that those countries don't want us to know about.
A government system must not assume corruption on the part of all human beings, lest it encourage just that. We must recognize that most people are not corrupt. In fact, most people value fairness and reciprocity over their own self interest. Only when they see that everyone around them is acting unfairly will most people begin to act unfairly themselves, in self defense.
This is a chicken-egg problem. A government should not assume corruption but should assume corruptibility... and I may have misstated that. I think all people have greed but not all people are actually corrupt in the "financial" sort of idea, or in the trample-on-other-people's-freedoms-to-get-what-I-want idea.
But I have to disagree that people value fairness and reciprocity over their own self-interest. I know very, very few people that would actually deny themselves something they really want and give it up so that someone else can have X, Y, or Z. Most people are all for fairness because they want to be fairly treated, themselves and they see that being fair is usually the best way to be treated fairly. It's sort of the ingrained "golden rule." But even that, at its core, is self-centered/greedy; I want to be treated fairly, and I have noticed that if I treat others fairly, they are more likely to treat me fairly.
That is the sort of thing a governing system has to take into account. People don't simply work out of altruism; very few do that. They are likely willing to work together if it gets them somewhere they otherwise could not go by themselves.
The problem is and always has been the sociopaths who have faulty empathy and no capability for remorse. The vast majority of people do not need laws in order to be good people.
That depends on how you define "good people," and which laws you are talking about.
They just need the ability to punish unfairness. And in a vastly unequal society, the poor simply don't have the ability to punish the rich when the rich act unfairly. They aren't even part of the same society. The rich can do whatever they like to the poor.
Again, it depends what you're calling "unfair." I get the feeling you're talking about the "very" wealthy, though.
This is the problem. When some in society can impact the lives of others without being impacted themselves, they do not have to take the interests of the others into account.
Exactly! Governmental systems have to take into account this fundamental fact: people are self-centered and greedy. If given the opportunity to get more money/stuff/power/whatever without hurting themselves, even if it hurts others, it seems that many people succumb to that temptation/corruption.
they did not achieve their position through excellence alone, but through systematic unfairness they took advantage of.
You assume.
And again, it depends who is "rich." The top 5% make $150k+ and the top ~1% make $250k+. I personally know a variety of folks above $150k and a variety above $250k. None of them, to my knowledge, took advantage of systematic unfairness, nor are all of them non-empathetic people.
In fact, many of them are in the medical field, and some of them went into that field for the express purpose of trying to help people. Some of them ended up going overseas, since they had enough money, and spending their own time and money to help the poor in other countries, etc.
And yet, it seems that you want to lump all rich people together. Or, and perhaps this is more probable, you're simply using "rich" to refer to very different groups of people at different times in your post. If that is the case, let's not say the top x%. Let's give the exact percentage of the actual wage-earners we're talking about. The "top 1.5%" catches everyone from $250k and up and the "top 10%" catches everyone, apparently, from somewhere between $100k and $150k and up. (source, of course, is wikipedia.)
From what I can find online, the only arguments for this idea come from passages that refer to the "breath of life." From there, they seem to extrapolate that Biblically, you're not alive if you're not breathing or haven't breathed yet. None of the passages are talking about that, though; it's pretty clear it's metaphorical/symbolic/even poetic language... just like, if I said that "in him is the breath of life," I'm clearly not just saying that air is going into his lungs...
This would be what is known in Biblical circles as "prooftexting." I have a point and I need to prove it, now let me go find some passages that I can use.
Since we're referring to a Biblical viewpoint, I would argue that a much more compelling Biblical argument comes from passages that state that God knows someone before or while they are in the womb (Psalm 139, Isaiah 49, Jeremiah 1 - and, referring to God knowing people beforehand generally, a whole lot of other passages).
Slashdot Mirror
I still have a Dell E1505 sitting to my left. The battery is dead but it works great when it's plugged in. Finally runs Ubuntu well (10.04 ... previous versions were iffy when it came to some of the hardware, especially sound and wifi). I've been very happy with it. It's never been broken, never had a part had to be replaced, it doesn't overheat even though it's fairly old, etc.
I know, Dell knowingly sold defective hardware. I'm sure they're the ONLY company in the US that has EVER done that, and I can use my amazing Skills of Induction to reason that ALL their hardware is similarly faulty ...
Checked baggage, not carry-ons. Same way you transport guns.
It's not what he hasn't undone. It's what he hasn't changed.
He campaigned like he was going to act and "President" [as a verb] totally differently from what people usually think of when think of a politician.
It turns out ... he isn't doing that. He's basically the same as any other Democrat.
At least, that's why it seems many that voted for him are upset. I didn't vote for him and didn't believe his campaign promises in the first place, so I am not particularly surprised. Actually, so far, he seems to have turned out slightly better than I thought would happen... ;)
Get 199 friends
This is slashdot. There goes that idea. ;)
How would you suggest they patch it and get the patch out to users?
In my experience:
Of course, this appears to be more of Adobe's issue, so it's a bit of a moot point in this case, but it's a vlaid point in cases where MS is at fault ...
I hope you have a boat ready for a quick escape!
Cows are much more famous in the game world, too: You fight like a dairy farmer!
You mean to say that the same stupid users that open attachments that look amazingly similar to other viruses won't get the popup that says "you can't execute that without [explains how to set executable bit]" and do it? Or won't get a "please enter the root/administrator/whatever password" prompt and simply put it in?
Unless you want to have the end-user never manage their own computer (i.e., not even KNOW the root password)... well, no OS I know of prevents a user from allowing a virus to do bad things. Some make it a bit harder.
I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic with the hyperbolic "five $60k+ cars" as well.
(also, two $60k cars is only $120k. That's less than half of their salary for two of them... I never said they were bought all at once... :))
hehe... touché.
So ... turn it off? If there was no way to turn it off, you'd have a pretty good point... but Google seems to do ok with the allow-people-to-turn-it-off stuff...
For people who DO have a a relatively good connection, it's nice.
There is something wrong with the the disciplinary ideology of "Ma" if everyone is at fault but only one gets spanked.
[pedantic] append, not add... [/pedantic]
Which is mostly their fault. I dislike taxes as much as anyone else, and I'm not usre our current system is exactly fair ... but the HOA fees "of living on the upper east side or UWS," the nanny, and the elite day care (and the elite private elementary schools that are $15k/yr or whatever, etc) are their choice.
Also, the five $60k+ cars eat into their income, too.
I'm glad we have a free country where people can make their own decisions, but being rich does not mean you necessarily make good money decisions. Seems like a lot of rich people have ended up poor because they didn't know how to manage their own riches and they spent it all, gambled it, invested it stupidly, or whatever.
Things like America being founded as a Christian nation.
It wasn't exactly Christian, no. Religion/Deism, and the Bible, were pretty big deals back then. Let's not ignore that part of history. Yes, I know about Jefferson's Bible. Yes, I know about other Deists. Yes, I know a lot of people were not "Christians." Yes, I know a lot of Christians want to Christian-ize history. I'm against all that stuff. I'm also against atheism-izing them if they weren't atheists.
only a slightly different religion
Slightly? Either you are being facetious or you don't have much of a clue about the differences :)
I can't get inside the head of people who think that huge families, today, are appropriate.
You must live in an urban, overcrowded, overpopulated, smoggy city.
Some people live on several acres, you know. Or even one acre. Some people actually grow some of their own food and could probably grow more, if they had to. Some people actually enjoy kids, having kids, raising kids... and in fact, find the most lasting fulfillment of their lives in raising kids.
Perspectives shift significantly when you live in "the country."
Sounds like he made "reason" his religion.
I agree it'd be a PR nightmare, but isn't Iranian internet access pretty severely censored? As well as any government protests, etc?
Imagine if Iraq or Afghanistan had common internet access
How about Iran?
The problem is, the current governments don't WANT common internet access for the common people... because then we'd probably be hearing about a variety of inhumane treatment and human rights issues that those countries don't want us to know about.
A government system must not assume corruption on the part of all human beings, lest it encourage just that. We must recognize that most people are not corrupt. In fact, most people value fairness and reciprocity over their own self interest. Only when they see that everyone around them is acting unfairly will most people begin to act unfairly themselves, in self defense.
This is a chicken-egg problem. A government should not assume corruption but should assume corruptibility... and I may have misstated that. I think all people have greed but not all people are actually corrupt in the "financial" sort of idea, or in the trample-on-other-people's-freedoms-to-get-what-I-want idea.
But I have to disagree that people value fairness and reciprocity over their own self-interest. I know very, very few people that would actually deny themselves something they really want and give it up so that someone else can have X, Y, or Z. Most people are all for fairness because they want to be fairly treated, themselves and they see that being fair is usually the best way to be treated fairly. It's sort of the ingrained "golden rule." But even that, at its core, is self-centered/greedy; I want to be treated fairly, and I have noticed that if I treat others fairly, they are more likely to treat me fairly.
That is the sort of thing a governing system has to take into account. People don't simply work out of altruism; very few do that. They are likely willing to work together if it gets them somewhere they otherwise could not go by themselves.
The problem is and always has been the sociopaths who have faulty empathy and no capability for remorse. The vast majority of people do not need laws in order to be good people.
That depends on how you define "good people," and which laws you are talking about.
They just need the ability to punish unfairness. And in a vastly unequal society, the poor simply don't have the ability to punish the rich when the rich act unfairly. They aren't even part of the same society. The rich can do whatever they like to the poor.
Again, it depends what you're calling "unfair." I get the feeling you're talking about the "very" wealthy, though.
This is the problem. When some in society can impact the lives of others without being impacted themselves, they do not have to take the interests of the others into account.
Exactly! Governmental systems have to take into account this fundamental fact: people are self-centered and greedy. If given the opportunity to get more money/stuff/power/whatever without hurting themselves, even if it hurts others, it seems that many people succumb to that temptation/corruption.
they did not achieve their position through excellence alone, but through systematic unfairness they took advantage of.
You assume.
And again, it depends who is "rich." The top 5% make $150k+ and the top ~1% make $250k+. I personally know a variety of folks above $150k and a variety above $250k. None of them, to my knowledge, took advantage of systematic unfairness, nor are all of them non-empathetic people.
In fact, many of them are in the medical field, and some of them went into that field for the express purpose of trying to help people. Some of them ended up going overseas, since they had enough money, and spending their own time and money to help the poor in other countries, etc.
And yet, it seems that you want to lump all rich people together. Or, and perhaps this is more probable, you're simply using "rich" to refer to very different groups of people at different times in your post. If that is the case, let's not say the top x%. Let's give the exact percentage of the actual wage-earners we're talking about. The "top 1.5%" catches everyone from $250k and up and the "top 10%" catches everyone, apparently, from somewhere between $100k and $150k and up. (source, of course, is wikipedia.)
Except for a few English majors no one cares about the etymology of "Napkin"
I do. I'm not an English major. I just like knowing where words came from. I like being educated and non-ignorant, if I can help it.
everyone else just knows its what they use to wipe the sour cream off their chin after biting into a burrito.
As another poster pointed out ... in America.
Granted, I usually juse use Google/wikipedia. UrbanDictionary, not so much. However, wikipedia/google only go so far.
From what I can find online, the only arguments for this idea come from passages that refer to the "breath of life." From there, they seem to extrapolate that Biblically, you're not alive if you're not breathing or haven't breathed yet. None of the passages are talking about that, though; it's pretty clear it's metaphorical/symbolic/even poetic language... just like, if I said that "in him is the breath of life," I'm clearly not just saying that air is going into his lungs...
This would be what is known in Biblical circles as "prooftexting." I have a point and I need to prove it, now let me go find some passages that I can use.
Since we're referring to a Biblical viewpoint, I would argue that a much more compelling Biblical argument comes from passages that state that God knows someone before or while they are in the womb (Psalm 139, Isaiah 49, Jeremiah 1 - and, referring to God knowing people beforehand generally, a whole lot of other passages).
Ok. So you would say an embryo is a human being somewhere between 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy then?
Then you are referring not to consciousness, but to brain activity, as to when a human is a human?
The bible is pretty clear that an unborn fetus is not a person.
Definite [citation needed] there. :)