So if these options really make pages load faster, offer less memory drain, and even feed the dog, why aren't they a part of the settings to begin with?
Basically, because, although they may give more speed, they have drawbacks as well. Your question is like asking, ``If people can overclock their processors to so much faster, why isn't it overclocked by default?''
Well, he was saying something to the effect of, `` '' (literally, ``it's unnecessary'', though, used more like ``don't do it!''), but is that really relevant?
When I was a young child, I found a fire alarm, and, with my father screaming ``No!'' in the background, proceeded to pull it. This is right after we moved to America from Russia, and dealing with the fire department, while barely understanding what they are saying, must have sucked.
I am not sure if this is quite what you want, but wouldn't it be easier to just add more speakers? That way, you'll only have one player to worry about.
A network is two or more computers that communicate with each other using sets of rules, called protocols. Different protocols are used for different types of communications.
The Internet is a very large network, containing billions of computers, and allowing for a vast majority of protocols.
The world wide web is a collection of documents stored on computers on the Internet, which can be transferred using the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and the HyperText Transfer Protocol with Security (HTTPS).
The problem was that the call he made was exactly an hour before the bomb threat. So, when they looked at the caller ID of the call made at the time of the bomb threat, they found his phone number, because the caller ID clock and their clock was off by an hour, due to DST.
The problem was that the school's entire philosophy on the matter was ``guilty until proven innocent''. 12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.
Realize that it does not end at his aquittal. His friends and classmates will treat him differently. He has a police record. Et cetera.
OK, let me rephrase that. Political wars are inherently against religion. Also worth noting is that most calls to violence, etc. is actually the result of people with power in a religion, bending it to their advantage, rather than the original intents of the religion.
Well, my dear nerd, what about being an adult could you not handle? Sure, perhaps you could not provide for yourself. That does not mean you should not have the right to vote, own property, etc.
Being an adult does not mean you have to move out. It simply means you have the legal right to do so.
P.S. If you truly want to feel like a nerd, I'd get a Slashdot account first.
In another sub-thread, I have mentioned that my ideal government would exist solely for the protection of people's rights (with right to safety being one of them). When there is a conflict of rights (such as when someone wants to stab someone else, and either the right of safety, or the right of movement with a knife would be infringed), the government defends the person who did not initiate the infringement (in other words, the person being stabbed).
Children should have the right to safety, and also to sexual chastity, at least to a certain age. If the parents are infringing on those rights, then sure, they should be prevented from doing so (for example, by means of punishment).
As for education, I retract my statement. Children should not be forced to take a test, or to get any education. However, if they declare that they want to do so, the parents should be forced to provide it, because by refusing, they are infringing on the kid's right to education.
Yes, I'm a Libertarian. I admit it. That is, I believe that above all, people's rights and freedoms must be protected (the exact reasons for these are complex, and have also to do with my religious beliefs).
However, I recognize that in order for a society to function, certain rights need to be curbed, in order for other rights to exist. For example, I believe there should be a ``right to safety'', which specifies that people have a right not to be hurt, etc. However, there is also a right to movement with a knife, and if a person stabs someone else, what happens? If you stop the stabber, you are infringing on his rights. If you rule in the favor of the stabber, you infringe on the other guy's right of safety.
In that particular case, I would rule in favor of the stabbee, because the stabber is the one infringing on his right to safety; the stabbee is not doing anything himself. But, regardless, I believe that such a society (in which the government's sole job is to protect the rights of its citizens) can work, even if it may cause some people to be very poor. I believe that being poor but with your rights is more important than being moderately well-off, but with less rights.
You are simply saying that your interests do not coincide with the interests of other parents. This may be true, but it is irrelevant.
The government is simply a collection of people. Moreover, it is a bureaucracy, and different people have different powers. Those people inevitably act in their own interest, rather than in the interests of the people. This is partially because, as you said, the interests of the people are contradictory among themselves. But mostly, it is due to basic human nature.
Also, I disagree that we are the state, because we do not have power over others. The state gets funding from us, true, but that is it.
Lemmy, as I mentioned in a different sub-thread, it is pointless to argue about the current state of events; let's, rather, discuss ideals.
The government's incentive for children's well-being is entirely against the incentives of the parent, and, most importantly, of the child himself. The government needs money, which it gains from taxes. Taxes it gets from citizens, and to attract citizens, among other things, it needs a high educational rating. Thus, the government wants kids to do well on tests. The parents want kids to grow up well-educated and intelligent people. Thankfully, this usually works together, but if the government had its way, kids would go to school on Saturday, Sunday, and during the summer. The current system is a compromise, but an unnecessary one. Parents should have decision over their children's lives, because the parents are, for the most part, thinking about the incentives of the kids, not of themselves.
If Bush is convincing people that he is doing the Lord's work, then he can do that not because they are religious, but because they are uneducated. Wars are inherently against religion. In fact, the only time that religion is in the government's best interest is when the government is the deity, such as Ancient Egypt and Rome. Thankfully, that is no longer the case in modern times.
Sure, occasionally, religion helps the government escape some blame (e.g. Katrina was the work of God, and its damage not our liability). However, in most cases, people will eventually realize that ``Trust not in the Sons of Princes, in whom there is no salvation'' entirely applies to their life.
Lemmy, you may have noticed that my arguments were not a reflection of the current state of events, but rather the ideal state of events.
I do not think that parents should make education mandatory, especially in terms of attendance to schools. It may be the parent's responsibility that children are not beaten, deprived of food, etc. but any regulation beyond a minimum on testing is superfluous, in my opinion. If a test is repeatedly failed, then the parents should be fined, but not deprived of children. That will remove the incentive for parents that want to save money by having their kids work and keep them from school.
The kid is in the parent's custody, and thus they need to decide whether or not the kids should play games. If not, it is not the government's place to make the call.
What about children without parents? Should there be a government policy for foster children?
Those children should be adopted by families or sent to private orphanages.
I think the distinction between "government" and "family" is actually a little artificial. In some sense, the family is the smallest unit of government, to which certain tasks are delegated.
Whether or not the family is considered a unit of government is not very relevant in itself. It shouldn't be considered a unit of government, for the following reason:
It should be the government's job to insure that people can productively live in a society, without interfering with each other's rights. People who are in other people's custody (such as with parents and children) have certain rights denied, and transferred to the custodians, for the duration of their custody (e.g. right to property). Any belief or habit, as long as it does not interfere with another's, should not be regulated by the state, because the interests of the people who would make the regulations are inherently contradictory to the interests of the people they are regulating. This can be clearly seen with China, where the state needs workers, and thus wants the kids to work/learn. The kids do not want to work/learn (whether or not that is good is irrelevant).
Playing games may not be as big of a deal, but consider religion. It is almost always in a government's interests that people do not believe in a religion, because that places someone in a superior position to the state (i.e. the God). Thus, the interests of the government and the people are contradictory. Since there are more people than government officials, the people should win.
These sad souls need guidance, rehab, a life, something outside the warm cocoon of fat rolls and 3d dwarf landscapes.
On the contrary, one ought to decide for himself if he wants to live in the ``cocoon of fat rolls and 3d dwarf landscapes.'' Through observation, it has been noticed that children of a certain age are unable to make this decision for themselves (though, I must say that 18 is far too old to be considered the time one becomes an adult. It should be 16, in my opinion), it is the duty of parents to make this decision. Never the government. I would much rather see my children spending 24 hours a day playing silly games than be regulated in those matters by the state.
For a very long time (though I think that it is now fixed), our school blocked a site that had old AMC, AIME, USAMO and IMO problems for no apparent the reason. The only possible explanation that I could give was that it had the word ``demon' in the URL. It was truly ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Subversion? You'll have to write some small scripts that would make it autoconnect, etc., but it could work if you set up SSH keys, etc.
BUMP!
Whoops... should have previewed. Slashdot does not like Cyrillic, it seems...
Well, he was saying something to the effect of, `` '' (literally, ``it's unnecessary'', though, used more like ``don't do it!''), but is that really relevant?
When I was a young child, I found a fire alarm, and, with my father screaming ``No!'' in the background, proceeded to pull it. This is right after we moved to America from Russia, and dealing with the fire department, while barely understanding what they are saying, must have sucked.
I am not sure if this is quite what you want, but wouldn't it be easier to just add more speakers? That way, you'll only have one player to worry about.
First, one should describe what a network is:
A network is two or more computers that communicate with each other using sets of rules, called protocols. Different protocols are used for different types of communications.
The Internet is a very large network, containing billions of computers, and allowing for a vast majority of protocols.
The world wide web is a collection of documents stored on computers on the Internet, which can be transferred using the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and the HyperText Transfer Protocol with Security (HTTPS).
The problem was that the call he made was exactly an hour before the bomb threat. So, when they looked at the caller ID of the call made at the time of the bomb threat, they found his phone number, because the caller ID clock and their clock was off by an hour, due to DST.
The problem was that the school's entire philosophy on the matter was ``guilty until proven innocent''. 12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.
Realize that it does not end at his aquittal. His friends and classmates will treat him differently. He has a police record. Et cetera.
OK, let me rephrase that. Political wars are inherently against religion. Also worth noting is that most calls to violence, etc. is actually the result of people with power in a religion, bending it to their advantage, rather than the original intents of the religion.
Well, my dear nerd, what about being an adult could you not handle? Sure, perhaps you could not provide for yourself. That does not mean you should not have the right to vote, own property, etc.
Being an adult does not mean you have to move out. It simply means you have the legal right to do so.
P.S. If you truly want to feel like a nerd, I'd get a Slashdot account first.
In another sub-thread, I have mentioned that my ideal government would exist solely for the protection of people's rights (with right to safety being one of them). When there is a conflict of rights (such as when someone wants to stab someone else, and either the right of safety, or the right of movement with a knife would be infringed), the government defends the person who did not initiate the infringement (in other words, the person being stabbed).
Children should have the right to safety, and also to sexual chastity, at least to a certain age. If the parents are infringing on those rights, then sure, they should be prevented from doing so (for example, by means of punishment).
As for education, I retract my statement. Children should not be forced to take a test, or to get any education. However, if they declare that they want to do so, the parents should be forced to provide it, because by refusing, they are infringing on the kid's right to education.
Yes, I'm a Libertarian. I admit it. That is, I believe that above all, people's rights and freedoms must be protected (the exact reasons for these are complex, and have also to do with my religious beliefs).
However, I recognize that in order for a society to function, certain rights need to be curbed, in order for other rights to exist. For example, I believe there should be a ``right to safety'', which specifies that people have a right not to be hurt, etc. However, there is also a right to movement with a knife, and if a person stabs someone else, what happens? If you stop the stabber, you are infringing on his rights. If you rule in the favor of the stabber, you infringe on the other guy's right of safety.
In that particular case, I would rule in favor of the stabbee, because the stabber is the one infringing on his right to safety; the stabbee is not doing anything himself. But, regardless, I believe that such a society (in which the government's sole job is to protect the rights of its citizens) can work, even if it may cause some people to be very poor. I believe that being poor but with your rights is more important than being moderately well-off, but with less rights.
You are simply saying that your interests do not coincide with the interests of other parents. This may be true, but it is irrelevant.
The government is simply a collection of people. Moreover, it is a bureaucracy, and different people have different powers. Those people inevitably act in their own interest, rather than in the interests of the people. This is partially because, as you said, the interests of the people are contradictory among themselves. But mostly, it is due to basic human nature.
Also, I disagree that we are the state, because we do not have power over others. The state gets funding from us, true, but that is it.
Lemmy, as I mentioned in a different sub-thread, it is pointless to argue about the current state of events; let's, rather, discuss ideals.
The government's incentive for children's well-being is entirely against the incentives of the parent, and, most importantly, of the child himself. The government needs money, which it gains from taxes. Taxes it gets from citizens, and to attract citizens, among other things, it needs a high educational rating. Thus, the government wants kids to do well on tests. The parents want kids to grow up well-educated and intelligent people. Thankfully, this usually works together, but if the government had its way, kids would go to school on Saturday, Sunday, and during the summer. The current system is a compromise, but an unnecessary one. Parents should have decision over their children's lives, because the parents are, for the most part, thinking about the incentives of the kids, not of themselves.
If Bush is convincing people that he is doing the Lord's work, then he can do that not because they are religious, but because they are uneducated. Wars are inherently against religion. In fact, the only time that religion is in the government's best interest is when the government is the deity, such as Ancient Egypt and Rome. Thankfully, that is no longer the case in modern times.
Sure, occasionally, religion helps the government escape some blame (e.g. Katrina was the work of God, and its damage not our liability). However, in most cases, people will eventually realize that ``Trust not in the Sons of Princes, in whom there is no salvation'' entirely applies to their life.
Lemmy, you may have noticed that my arguments were not a reflection of the current state of events, but rather the ideal state of events.
I do not think that parents should make education mandatory, especially in terms of attendance to schools. It may be the parent's responsibility that children are not beaten, deprived of food, etc. but any regulation beyond a minimum on testing is superfluous, in my opinion. If a test is repeatedly failed, then the parents should be fined, but not deprived of children. That will remove the incentive for parents that want to save money by having their kids work and keep them from school.
The kid is in the parent's custody, and thus they need to decide whether or not the kids should play games. If not, it is not the government's place to make the call.
Trust me, regulation of the state is bad, always.
Those children should be adopted by families or sent to private orphanages.
Whether or not the family is considered a unit of government is not very relevant in itself. It shouldn't be considered a unit of government, for the following reason:
It should be the government's job to insure that people can productively live in a society, without interfering with each other's rights. People who are in other people's custody (such as with parents and children) have certain rights denied, and transferred to the custodians, for the duration of their custody (e.g. right to property). Any belief or habit, as long as it does not interfere with another's, should not be regulated by the state, because the interests of the people who would make the regulations are inherently contradictory to the interests of the people they are regulating. This can be clearly seen with China, where the state needs workers, and thus wants the kids to work/learn. The kids do not want to work/learn (whether or not that is good is irrelevant).
Playing games may not be as big of a deal, but consider religion. It is almost always in a government's interests that people do not believe in a religion, because that places someone in a superior position to the state (i.e. the God). Thus, the interests of the government and the people are contradictory. Since there are more people than government officials, the people should win.
On the contrary, one ought to decide for himself if he wants to live in the ``cocoon of fat rolls and 3d dwarf landscapes.'' Through observation, it has been noticed that children of a certain age are unable to make this decision for themselves (though, I must say that 18 is far too old to be considered the time one becomes an adult. It should be 16, in my opinion), it is the duty of parents to make this decision. Never the government. I would much rather see my children spending 24 hours a day playing silly games than be regulated in those matters by the state.
I'd rather say, thank-god-i'm-not-in-china!
Actually, I'm pretty sure not, since they clearly say that they do not own or take responsibility for the posts.
It won't, I read the source :-)
I can relate.
For a very long time (though I think that it is now fixed), our school blocked a site that had old AMC, AIME, USAMO and IMO problems for no apparent the reason. The only possible explanation that I could give was that it had the word ``demon' in the URL. It was truly ridiculous.