See, I can't kill the processes. I can't even get to a term or lxtask to initiate the kill.
Sure, I've had Windows get bogged down by running 100+ user processes with Flash and all kinds of crap. But at least the task manager will pop up within a reasonable time of being invoked, and allow me to get my system back to a stable state. I can't say the same about Linux (and this issue isn't the first).
Microsoft is evil, sure. But they produce some damn good software and have a host of the world's finest developers. To claim otherwise is moronic.
My laptop dual-boots Ubuntu and Windows 8. In Ubuntu, if I open a few Chrome tabs with to sites with Flash, and leave them for a few minutes, all input locks up and the mouse goes to about 5 frames per minute. I can't close tabs or windows or switch to a virtual terminal. 30 minutes later, the only thing I can do is a hard reboot. This is repeatable.
Not refuting the points you made (as I believe mostly the same). Just here to point out that we shouldn't assume that communism and capitalism are both equally corruptible.
In communism, there is one entity: society. Even though they preach about having stateless social order, society itself is the government. On the surface, this looks like democracy but better. But someone ultimately has to be in charge of that government/social order, and the guy who wants power tends to be the guy who wants to abuse that power. That's where everything tends to fall apart.
In capitalism, the government is (should be) a different entity altogether from the many, many businesses and banks that control the money. Government is (should be) mostly hands-off as far as money goes. Their power lies in having control of the courts, the military/police, and as overseer of property rights. All of this is separated from that money and power that the money brings... at least, in theory. The biggest problem here is that the separation isn't complete enough... a problem that a good system of check and balances within the government can help reduce. (I just wish there were more checks and balances in the US government.)
Perhaps with enough checks and balances, communism could help develop some nations. I really doubt that it can help an already-developed nation become better; in fact, as you point out, the incentives for better work are reduced and society gets reduced to the mentality that workers are all mindless drones.
Yeah, really. It's not even that great of a deal, in my view. Manning Publications has a deal of the day and you get discounts like this quite often from them (note, I don't work for them, I have just purchased a few of their books). I'm sure others do as well.
I'm not an extreme religious nutjob. But I don't agree with you that the fetus/child is completely 100% the property of the mother. That child has a father who loves the child and should have a say.
When there is a major risk to the mother's health, well, that is an encroachment into her body (which she does 100% own). I'll admit, that area is fuzzy at best, and I personally believe the mother's life and health should be considered higher than that of the unborn child. But simple inconvenience to the mother is a different thing altogether. What gives her the right to neglect and/or kill the child, regardless of the will of its father? Consider that a poor person is an inconvenience on society... do you believe society should have the right to kill that poor person, or to completely neglect them?
(And please don't use the rape strawman. The father has absolutely no legal rights in the case of rape... or, at least, he shouldn't.)
Disagreed. Installing anything requires clicking a banner at the bottom (a click that takes 10 seconds to register), then going through some security scan, then clicking on a dialog, and then clicking cancel on the 3 other dialogs I got because the lag made me think the first click didn't register.
And if you're on a server... Fuggiduhbadit! You'll have to enable anywhere from 1 to 12 security exceptions by clicking a few times and typing a website address, each. Then you have to reload the page, and get past the security warning that pops up every time. THEN you get to go through the above process.
I'm thinking next time, I'll just use telnet and a pipe.
The reason abortion is considered by many to be unethical is that it results in the death of the child/fetus. Much of the time, this is done because the pregnancy is inconvenient for the mother.
If an alternative exists that removes the inconvenience without resulting in the death, it makes sense for both sides to champion it as an acceptable middle ground.
As far as custody is concerned, it should be treated like adoption. The re-implantation requires signing over custody. This shouldn't be very difficult on the mother, considering that abortion would remove not only custody, but also existence, of the child.
There's a big difference between being killed by premeditated murder and a person dying due to cancer. Just because I happen to be next to my father/mother/child/etc. when they pass away from cancer, doesn't mean I should go to jail. But the murderer who gains comfort or pleasure for killing needs to be taken out of society and punished.
It offends me personally that you make light of unwanted and unpreventable miscarriages, something that is so detrimental to mothers and families around the world. Abortion and miscarriage are in completely different leagues, whether or not you feel that abortion is wrong or should be legal.
it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days
Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.
I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July
So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?
Also the states can amend the Constitution without involving the federal government, all they'd need to do is call a convention and then later vote on the new amendment.
This balance is indeed the greatest balance, but only if it exists in reality. I neglected to mention that I would like to require the states to hold such a convention to declare and/or vote on amendments on a regular schedule (e.g. every year, every 4 years, whatever). As it stands, the idea of a convention was good in theory but nonexistent in practice, due to the logistical difficulty of getting 50 states to decide when and how to bring up potential constitutional amendments.
That would be true if we were electing parties to congress but we're not, we're electing people.
Please s/Party/Political Affiliation/. The use of "Party" was more as an example. You would still be voting for a person, except that perhaps you would be voting statewide for X people instead of in X districts for 1 person each. Or perhaps the state would divide into larger districts and allow you to vote for 2 or 3 people in your district. How this is done, I don't care and should be determined by the state.
In the current set up states with a low population have a greater electoral collage vote per capita then a state with a large population.
My argument was not for popular vote, but for proportional representation. In some state, instead of 50.1% of the vote giving that candidate 9 electors, it would give that candidate 5 and their opponent 4. Then those 49.9% have some representation, instead of none at all.
As long as the federal government ensures that everyone can vote and that everyone's vote is equal I think it should be up to the states to determine what style of voting to use.
Swing states are the evidence that this is not happening. I live in Alabama, and it matters not who I vote for. Romney was practically elected in Alabama the moment he beat Santorum/Gingrich/Paul. At least with proportional representation in the electoral college, there may have been a difference in whether 5 or 6 electors (out of our 9) were dedicated to Romney.
Now, if you enjoy this charade of democracy and believe there is nothing that could be better than a polarized populous with a large minority of people unrepresented, then ignore everything I said.
- Better checks and balances. In addition to the above, we need to return more power to the states (which gives us a check on the federal government). - Better system for single-winner elections. It should allow you to specify your primary choice, and also your backup choice(s) should your primary fail to gain enough support. - Proportional representation in Congress. If every district in the nation votes 50.1% for Party A, then Party A has 100% of the seats of Congress. Party B gets nothing, although 49.9% of the nation supports Party B. (A less extreme example: third-party candidates often get a decent chunk of the vote, but rarely get representation in Congress.) A solution is multiple-winner proportional representation. - Electoral college reform. I don't know that we should go to a popular vote system for President, but the electoral college should at least force a proportional representation from each state. It should also remove the electors, and change to a simple count.
If the device uses 5% of power from each heartbeat (and I have no clue what the actual number is), that means the heart needs to beat around 5% harder to have an equal effect. Or, the heart beats the same but the blood only pumps about 95% as hard. That could be taxing over a long period of time on a weaker heart (the kind that tend to need pacemakers).
And don't forget about complex logic. A yield-style coroutine with complex branching and internal loops and exception handling could be a monster to write with a for loop.
It goes to show that these major broadcast networks prioritize their city or area.
They always have, but it is more noticeable when they call this "the Perfect Storm" or a "superhurricane" or whatever. Well... no, it's not. Perhaps it's the worst that NYC has seen in decades, but it was only a category 1.
Near the Gulf, we expect such a storm to directly impact us once every couple of years. The New York networks make mention of those storms during the weather segment, but then they'll go back and spend half an hour talking about Lady Gaga.
I have been watching Good Morning America this morning, and they haven't moved off the weather situation once. In Alabama, we had tornadoes last year that killed hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes, entire city blocks being leveled throughout the state. They talked about it for maybe 5 minutes, if that.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you were trying to help my point. If it was not obvious (or in case you didn't read the parent post), my comment was a sarcastic response.
Thank you for paying attention!
See, I can't kill the processes. I can't even get to a term or lxtask to initiate the kill.
Sure, I've had Windows get bogged down by running 100+ user processes with Flash and all kinds of crap. But at least the task manager will pop up within a reasonable time of being invoked, and allow me to get my system back to a stable state. I can't say the same about Linux (and this issue isn't the first).
Microsoft is evil, sure. But they produce some damn good software and have a host of the world's finest developers. To claim otherwise is moronic.
So the OS is a complete failure because some cheap OEM decides to ditch the touchscreen to save a few bucks?
I guess I always knew in my heart that Android was a failure.
"show me."
My laptop dual-boots Ubuntu and Windows 8. In Ubuntu, if I open a few Chrome tabs with to sites with Flash, and leave them for a few minutes, all input locks up and the mouse goes to about 5 frames per minute. I can't close tabs or windows or switch to a virtual terminal. 30 minutes later, the only thing I can do is a hard reboot. This is repeatable.
In Windows 8, I have no such problem.
Not refuting the points you made (as I believe mostly the same). Just here to point out that we shouldn't assume that communism and capitalism are both equally corruptible.
In communism, there is one entity: society. Even though they preach about having stateless social order, society itself is the government. On the surface, this looks like democracy but better. But someone ultimately has to be in charge of that government/social order, and the guy who wants power tends to be the guy who wants to abuse that power. That's where everything tends to fall apart.
In capitalism, the government is (should be) a different entity altogether from the many, many businesses and banks that control the money. Government is (should be) mostly hands-off as far as money goes. Their power lies in having control of the courts, the military/police, and as overseer of property rights. All of this is separated from that money and power that the money brings... at least, in theory. The biggest problem here is that the separation isn't complete enough... a problem that a good system of check and balances within the government can help reduce. (I just wish there were more checks and balances in the US government.)
Perhaps with enough checks and balances, communism could help develop some nations. I really doubt that it can help an already-developed nation become better; in fact, as you point out, the incentives for better work are reduced and society gets reduced to the mentality that workers are all mindless drones.
But then how do I get what I want?
It's not like communism magically changes everyone's hearts to love and selflessness.
Yeah, really. It's not even that great of a deal, in my view. Manning Publications has a deal of the day and you get discounts like this quite often from them (note, I don't work for them, I have just purchased a few of their books). I'm sure others do as well.
Are they free to join another school?
Dear God, what has our nation come to?
Some parts of the society can decide that they cannot function unless they implement a certain mechanism
The fact that our society has managed to function for ages without having already implemented such a mechanism disproves your argument entirely.
The possibility of free will does not preclude instinct, habit, or indifference.
Whereas predetermination does preclude importance. Therefore, if either of us are right, your comment doesn't matter.
Years ago, there were few apps on the iPhone. Then there were few apps on Android. Then few apps on the iPad.
The measure of number of apps today doesn't necessarily dictate the state of matters tomorrow.
Developers care about APIs. Developers create apps. Users care about apps.
I'm not an extreme religious nutjob. But I don't agree with you that the fetus/child is completely 100% the property of the mother. That child has a father who loves the child and should have a say.
When there is a major risk to the mother's health, well, that is an encroachment into her body (which she does 100% own). I'll admit, that area is fuzzy at best, and I personally believe the mother's life and health should be considered higher than that of the unborn child. But simple inconvenience to the mother is a different thing altogether. What gives her the right to neglect and/or kill the child, regardless of the will of its father? Consider that a poor person is an inconvenience on society... do you believe society should have the right to kill that poor person, or to completely neglect them?
(And please don't use the rape strawman. The father has absolutely no legal rights in the case of rape... or, at least, he shouldn't.)
Disagreed. Installing anything requires clicking a banner at the bottom (a click that takes 10 seconds to register), then going through some security scan, then clicking on a dialog, and then clicking cancel on the 3 other dialogs I got because the lag made me think the first click didn't register.
And if you're on a server... Fuggiduhbadit! You'll have to enable anywhere from 1 to 12 security exceptions by clicking a few times and typing a website address, each. Then you have to reload the page, and get past the security warning that pops up every time. THEN you get to go through the above process.
I'm thinking next time, I'll just use telnet and a pipe.
Someone from Indiana claiming that Alabama is desolate? Ha!
I'm from Alabama and recently traveled through Indiana. In most areas, I saw more windmills per square mile than people.
The reason abortion is considered by many to be unethical is that it results in the death of the child/fetus. Much of the time, this is done because the pregnancy is inconvenient for the mother.
If an alternative exists that removes the inconvenience without resulting in the death, it makes sense for both sides to champion it as an acceptable middle ground.
As far as custody is concerned, it should be treated like adoption. The re-implantation requires signing over custody. This shouldn't be very difficult on the mother, considering that abortion would remove not only custody, but also existence, of the child.
There's a big difference between being killed by premeditated murder and a person dying due to cancer. Just because I happen to be next to my father/mother/child/etc. when they pass away from cancer, doesn't mean I should go to jail. But the murderer who gains comfort or pleasure for killing needs to be taken out of society and punished.
It offends me personally that you make light of unwanted and unpreventable miscarriages, something that is so detrimental to mothers and families around the world. Abortion and miscarriage are in completely different leagues, whether or not you feel that abortion is wrong or should be legal.
it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days
Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.
I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July
So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?
Also the states can amend the Constitution without involving the federal government, all they'd need to do is call a convention and then later vote on the new amendment.
This balance is indeed the greatest balance, but only if it exists in reality. I neglected to mention that I would like to require the states to hold such a convention to declare and/or vote on amendments on a regular schedule (e.g. every year, every 4 years, whatever). As it stands, the idea of a convention was good in theory but nonexistent in practice, due to the logistical difficulty of getting 50 states to decide when and how to bring up potential constitutional amendments.
That would be true if we were electing parties to congress but we're not, we're electing people.
Please s/Party/Political Affiliation/. The use of "Party" was more as an example. You would still be voting for a person, except that perhaps you would be voting statewide for X people instead of in X districts for 1 person each. Or perhaps the state would divide into larger districts and allow you to vote for 2 or 3 people in your district. How this is done, I don't care and should be determined by the state.
In the current set up states with a low population have a greater electoral collage vote per capita then a state with a large population.
My argument was not for popular vote, but for proportional representation. In some state, instead of 50.1% of the vote giving that candidate 9 electors, it would give that candidate 5 and their opponent 4. Then those 49.9% have some representation, instead of none at all.
As long as the federal government ensures that everyone can vote and that everyone's vote is equal I think it should be up to the states to determine what style of voting to use.
Swing states are the evidence that this is not happening. I live in Alabama, and it matters not who I vote for. Romney was practically elected in Alabama the moment he beat Santorum/Gingrich/Paul. At least with proportional representation in the electoral college, there may have been a difference in whether 5 or 6 electors (out of our 9) were dedicated to Romney.
Now, if you enjoy this charade of democracy and believe there is nothing that could be better than a polarized populous with a large minority of people unrepresented, then ignore everything I said.
Everything should be lower priced! Amirite?
In the USA, we need:
- Better checks and balances. In addition to the above, we need to return more power to the states (which gives us a check on the federal government).
- Better system for single-winner elections. It should allow you to specify your primary choice, and also your backup choice(s) should your primary fail to gain enough support.
- Proportional representation in Congress. If every district in the nation votes 50.1% for Party A, then Party A has 100% of the seats of Congress. Party B gets nothing, although 49.9% of the nation supports Party B. (A less extreme example: third-party candidates often get a decent chunk of the vote, but rarely get representation in Congress.) A solution is multiple-winner proportional representation.
- Electoral college reform. I don't know that we should go to a popular vote system for President, but the electoral college should at least force a proportional representation from each state. It should also remove the electors, and change to a simple count.
Please, continue on from here...
How much harder does it make the heart work?
If the device uses 5% of power from each heartbeat (and I have no clue what the actual number is), that means the heart needs to beat around 5% harder to have an equal effect. Or, the heart beats the same but the blood only pumps about 95% as hard. That could be taxing over a long period of time on a weaker heart (the kind that tend to need pacemakers).
Tiled applications windows date back to at least 1981 with Xerox Star. And there is plenty of prior art for applications that aggregate information.
And don't forget about complex logic. A yield-style coroutine with complex branching and internal loops and exception handling could be a monster to write with a for loop.
It goes to show that these major broadcast networks prioritize their city or area.
They always have, but it is more noticeable when they call this "the Perfect Storm" or a "superhurricane" or whatever. Well... no, it's not. Perhaps it's the worst that NYC has seen in decades, but it was only a category 1.
Near the Gulf, we expect such a storm to directly impact us once every couple of years. The New York networks make mention of those storms during the weather segment, but then they'll go back and spend half an hour talking about Lady Gaga.
I have been watching Good Morning America this morning, and they haven't moved off the weather situation once. In Alabama, we had tornadoes last year that killed hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes, entire city blocks being leveled throughout the state. They talked about it for maybe 5 minutes, if that.