In the comments section, an anonymous person said: “The only thing that I really didn’t like is the same for all of the Mint systems and that is the poor security you get by using their unsigned packages and repositories.”
–> It is the same for all Mint systems indeed. It’s a feature though and it’s even a condition for our ISOs to pass the QA tests. Both the main Mint repositories and LMDE are signed and secure. The warning you see is because we set APT to allow unauthenticated repositories. This follows our philosophy that if you told your system to do something, it should listen to you and do it promptly. If for any reason you decided to add an unsigned repository, then Mint should accept it and do as it’s told. You already have a warning, if you don’t like it, use sign repositories, if you do already, remove the setting from/etc/apt/apt.conf. This default setting is there to warn people and to let them do what they want, as opposed to something that fails when you need it most. You’re not more exposed than on any other system. If something has the rights to modify your/etc/apt/sources.list it surely has the rights to modify/etc/apt/apt.conf as well. Warnings are good things and unlike errors they’re here to let you know about things without getting in your way. This is not poor security. This is a signed and secure system which lets you add additional sources, signed or not, the day you feel like it.
I always wonder why Americans treat regulation as something inherently bad.
Have you seen the assholes doing the "regulating?"
What is clear
This phrase may as well read "bullshit ahoy." (To whom?)
is that in the Western world, there are strong positive correlations
[is a single correlation]
between the amount of regulation of the economy and societal equality
Define both terms.
With "regulation," you refer to this entity: a contradictory labyrinth of so-called rules, written vaguely, enforced arbitrarily, and interpreted politically.
If you cannot disagree with this assessment of reality, it should be obvious "societal equality" is a chimera.
Once you concede the "regulators" are, in fact, a bunch of bastards too, it's only reasonable to examine the forces at work: could I replace them with lesser bastards? If not, why?
The underlying morality is this:
The character of some people is to work hard, in order to achieve their vision of an improved world.
The character of lesser people is to draw an income for bullshitting, more or less swindled from the bullshitee.
It is the character of still others to draw an income under threat of violence, bullshit optional.
Finally, there are those whose character is to bullshit, and draw an income under threat of violence, and convince you to join their team.
It seems to me this last personality is the worst imaginable sort, and it happens to define elected rulers precisely. To imagine you, personally, had input into the miserable system these characters have set up, and therefore ought to abide it, is perfectly delusional.
and societal equality and general happiness.
Does an individualist still, in the 21st century, have to wheel out the corpse catalogue of every starved "communist" "national experiment" [read: power grab] to put this miserable piss-and-moaning (I only have two iPhones and a 47" flatscreen, and I serve time in an air-conditioned office doing unskilled labor, it's really hard, I want a new SUVVVVVVVVVV!) to bed?
Assuming that the free market is good, and therefore regulation is bad, however, is a purely ideological stance.
:fgsfds:
Suppose you observe politicians and politics (de facto "regulation") are bad.
Then what?
While I understand that treating the government with suspicion is a healthy attitude that makes degeneration into tyranny less likely, but that is more an argument for government transparency
It's hard to formulate an analogy between two radically different sets of concepts, but here goes: say Linus announces The Kernel is no longer open.
Wait: say it just stops being open, and he won't say why.
Hmm... Say it quit being open a very long time ago, and if you suggest it was better that way, you're some kind of revolutionist nutball.
No! Say Microsoft and Apple partner up to eradicate the idea there ever was such a thing as openness, and you'd better get in line, because the hired help don't have any qualms about shooting your dog or daughter.
"Government transparency" is an oxymoron: we claim the authority to imprison and/or kill you, but we're sure we'd just be delighted with any program you care to run through us, pal!
Why the hell would anyone pretend to discover, or be surprised, the government is opaque?
You kiddin'? Good code is exactly like good math: make things as pretty as possible with minimal effort. You build tools to take care of the grunt work, and the best ones start with "say... haven't I done this before?"
The game is actually being developed by Virtual Heroes and from what I understand is being offered as a educational tool for 9th graders and they are encouraged to use development tools to build content for the game themselves.
In point of fact, they're being encouraged to go buy UT:
"We want anybody that can go pick up a copy of Unreal Tournament III for probably $19 at the store now to be able to get content that could be submitted for inclusion in the game," said Heneghan.
If this isn't a good investment for our country - not sure what is
That much is clear. I had more sciencey stuff to learn about in 9th grade than fooling around in a 3D construction set, not that the school's hardware could have run it.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope...
This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right.
There is no such thing as a deal with the devil, done right. It's the whole damned point of the analogy.
Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning.
Good idea. We ought to put them in the Constitution somewhere, to ensure they're never violated.
Part of the trouble is that the verses you're referencing in the Old Testament were from a specific war -- "Go and kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead" or "Destroy the Amalekites" -- particular people who they were fighting at the time.
Page 1 of a google query for "amalek" says you're lying. If it weren't a metaphor, it would be history instead of religion.
Yeah. I'm sure they were worried about "offending" people whose idea of responding is to kill anyone who "offends" them. Like, say, Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.
Before you go putting words in Sir Salman Rushdie's mouth, why don't you ask him for his take on Islam? It's a hell of a lot more tolerant than anything you'll hear from the faux-outraged right wing in the US.
Of course, there is also a "fire and brimstone", stone-the-gays minority
I can't tell how careful you're being with semantics. Do you mean to imply (as below) the majority of Christians are not homophobes, or merely that they don't drag gay dudes behind pickup trucks in 2008 quite as often as they did a decade ago?
Say what you will, that "brimstone" stuff plays pretty well in every church I've been to, and I've never set foot in the crazy ones.
Can you point me at the equivalent of the New Testament in Islam that would discard the laws such as stoning for adultery or beheading for apostasy, or name a mainstream Islamic school of law that considers those laws to not be in force today?
Not that I have any pretension you'll accept this as less than desperate apologism, but can you name the mainstream Sunni schools of thought, or describe their relations to each other? You can answer your own question googling e.g. "Hanafi adultery." Tough to do the penance for zina if you've been stoned to death. Where this happens, blaming Islam is about as sensible as blaming Thomas Jefferson for the DMCA.
Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?
And again, google. Try "gay Muslim." Clever, I know.
I noticed myself doing this a few years ago. I feel it's not hunger so much as a craving for distraction. Like my brain saying a queue is full and needs to process. It happens when I'm thinking hard and don't want to be -- in a jam, not on a roll.
I've caught myself muttering and pacing with a bag of chips. There's a Pavlovian absurdity to it. Haven't managed "hear bell: prove lemma" yet.
It's not the sort of thing people can research, but it seems directly analogous to smoking cannabis and getting the munchies.
I shouldn't feed trolls, but here's some clue sticks:
I suppose fair's fair. Here's hoping the meta-mods are a little less reactionary.
there are people who conflate time and money while interpreting the phrase "time is money". The real interpretation of that is, "time has value." Some people regard time spent out of doors exercising as valuable. Perhaps you don't. Your evaluation of time spent on a bicycle is your opinion, not a counterpoint.
The parent's point was an opinion, so I'm not sure your distinction is meaningful. As to assigning "X" a value, I didn't, which obviates the rest of your paragraph.
Ever heard of the fallacy called a "non sequitur"? What in blue blazes does using one's "transportation device correctly" have to do with the strength of a material used in an automobile?
I'm not sure why it was invoked in the first place -- by the time your bicycle's experiencing deformation, you have bigger problems.
HINT: Never, ever, argue with ambiguity. That is the pitfall of the Republican spokesperson in this election season.
I think you're saying I'm a rat bastard right-winger, which is almost as irrelevant as it is wrong. Browse my profile.
You didn't comprehend his entire post, did you? I'm pretty sure he suggested an electric bike at the beginning.
I replied to "exercise perks," thanks.
My car has an air conditioner. I rode my bike to school for years, and still take it downtown when practical, but it's not a car substitute. It's hard not to be offended at the suggestion I need to justify a personal choice not to buy "technical clothing" and pedal in whatever weather.
Not likely. His point was that industrialized people are whining too much about biking to work. You merely proved his point.
My point is bike zealots whine when people don't. I find contempt for "industrialized people" ridiculous, and it saddens me how it plays into the caricature of a meek, hypocritical, militant, and guilt-ridden political left.
The noble savage knows he's dead if he's fat, because he can no longer keep up with his prey. Keep your simplistic views of the world's natives to yourself, please.
You first. Kofi Annan says Africa's dream is to industrialize. I don't pretend stitching Reeboks for ten cents a week does the third world any tremendous favors, but neither does romanticizing poverty.
"No wonder you Americans are so fat," said an Aucan native in his first visit to the U.S. "You can ride up to a window, and they give you food. You don't have to hunt at all, because you have food already in your houses."
Prosperity is not a virtue in and of itself; it comes with costs, and it comes with responsibilities.
Given the alternative, fat's not so terrible. Incidentally, "Auca" is ethnically insensitive.
Your reply doesn't even make sense. The material properties of steel and aluminum alloys including tensile strength are simply not a matter of "using it correctly"?
I want tensile strength in a rope. Not so much in a vehicle.
Biking is not necessarily slower (depending on route / speed)
It was in his example, hence the quote. I have assumed Americans, in this context, are rational -- contrary to the parent's assumption this privilege is reserved for "indigenous South American tribes" -- and factor opportunity cost into their everyday decision to drive. It takes arrogance to decide most people just never thought of bicycles before.
I am told China has seen a dramatic shift in car ownership. What does he know they (and every other industrial society) don't?
Fact is, if you think you need a car to go a couple of miles, you're wrong. Even if you don't want to elevate your heart rate vs. being in a car (the horror of Americans doing something physical!
At the risk of being modded "Troll" again, I'll point out you're being a presumptuous jackass. I believe, as a card-carrying liberal, this tone has done more harm to the left, however you define it, than the GOP ever could.
Hey, I'm a pretty libertarian-type guy. You want to drive a Hummer H1 for your 5 mile commute to work, that's fine with me. I simply ask why we continue to pursue inefficiency out of habit when the greatest personal benefit to us might lie in another choice.
I think Hummers are an abomination and hope one day to rig a neon sign to the trunk of my '90 Accord illustrating how much of the road you couldn't see if it was an SUV. But evident contempt for technology worries me.
I'm explaining that for a lot of people, cars are efficient. Misplaced idealism doesn't change that.
My commute takes me 15 minutes by car, and a slightly more direct route via bike takes 30 minutes (~6 miles)
Round-trip time lost per day: 30 minutes = $X.
Also, aluminum is not significantly lighter than steel for the same tensile strength
You may not be using your transportation device correctly. Check the manual.
Most people's commutes are only a couple miles and would be most economical to bike. Not to mention the exercise perks.
Most people don't have a job where they can show up sweaty. For those who do, additional "exercise" may not be a "perk."
Go to any indigenous tribe in South America that hasn't been industrialized... is sort of going in the wrong direction, you know?
Fixed that for ya.
The notion that we need a metal, inefficient powered carriage that is 10 feet wide to move a couple miles isn't really rational or natural considering human evolution
Like hell it's not. Ask the noble savage if he wants calories or carbon credits.
This leads to a "tragedy of the commons", though, where athletes can no longer compete on their own merits without using (potentially harmful) performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is using them. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Who cares? Honestly. It's a bazillion dollar industry of children's games.
It's not like the status quo is egalitarian (the average NBA player is 6'7"). It's not like some sports aren't inherently dangerous (football, boxing). It's not like athletes decline competitive advantages that stunt their body's development (gymnastics, weightlifting).
In this case, with as large as chemical fuel load he had in the home if his house went up it would likely take out the other houses nearby
Do you have an inventory sheet we don't? You argue from authority:
I AM a fire safety researcher, and I know just how flammable most chemicals can be, especially since it looks like he was doing organic chemistry, which is what I have my doctorate in
...in contradiction of TFA:
Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products,
whose author's credentials are no less impressive. My point is:
the fire risk that would have eventually happened.
You aren't psychic. Also:
The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.
Keywords: "basement, second floor, unrelated fire." I don't see how fumes find their way to a window unit, or why they'd condense in August where it's hot enough for the AC to kick on.
If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't have replied.
Looks to me like he included an answer immediately, in case the rhetorical nature of the question escaped anyone.
And there is a difference between indigenous boobies, and beat someone to death with a baseball bat.
Yeah, one violates every standard of decency, both social and legal, we have established for broadcast entertainment...and the other is beating someone to death with a baseball bat.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, Linux Mint. The distro that can't even be arsed to sign its fucking repositories.
http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1543
In the comments section, an anonymous person said: “The only thing that I really didn’t like is the same for all of the Mint systems and that is the poor security you get by using their unsigned packages and repositories.”
–> It is the same for all Mint systems indeed. It’s a feature though and it’s even a condition for our ISOs to pass the QA tests. Both the main Mint repositories and LMDE are signed and secure. The warning you see is because we set APT to allow unauthenticated repositories. This follows our philosophy that if you told your system to do something, it should listen to you and do it promptly. If for any reason you decided to add an unsigned repository, then Mint should accept it and do as it’s told. You already have a warning, if you don’t like it, use sign repositories, if you do already, remove the setting from /etc/apt/apt.conf. This default setting is there to warn people and to let them do what they want, as opposed to something that fails when you need it most. You’re not more exposed than on any other system. If something has the rights to modify your /etc/apt/sources.list it surely has the rights to modify /etc/apt/apt.conf as well. Warnings are good things and unlike errors they’re here to let you know about things without getting in your way. This is not poor security. This is a signed and secure system which lets you add additional sources, signed or not, the day you feel like it.
It might be lost on a general audience that the author, where Flash performance is concerned, is God Himself.
I always wonder why Americans treat regulation as something inherently bad.
Have you seen the assholes doing the "regulating?"
What is clear
This phrase may as well read "bullshit ahoy." (To whom?)
is that in the Western world, there are strong positive correlations
[is a single correlation]
between the amount of regulation of the economy and societal equality
Define both terms. With "regulation," you refer to this entity: a contradictory labyrinth of so-called rules, written vaguely, enforced arbitrarily, and interpreted politically. If you cannot disagree with this assessment of reality, it should be obvious "societal equality" is a chimera.
Once you concede the "regulators" are, in fact, a bunch of bastards too, it's only reasonable to examine the forces at work: could I replace them with lesser bastards? If not, why?
The underlying morality is this:
The character of some people is to work hard, in order to achieve their vision of an improved world.
The character of lesser people is to draw an income for bullshitting, more or less swindled from the bullshitee.
It is the character of still others to draw an income under threat of violence, bullshit optional.
Finally, there are those whose character is to bullshit, and draw an income under threat of violence, and convince you to join their team.
It seems to me this last personality is the worst imaginable sort, and it happens to define elected rulers precisely. To imagine you, personally, had input into the miserable system these characters have set up, and therefore ought to abide it, is perfectly delusional.
and societal equality and general happiness.
Does an individualist still, in the 21st century, have to wheel out the corpse catalogue of every starved "communist" "national experiment" [read: power grab] to put this miserable piss-and-moaning (I only have two iPhones and a 47" flatscreen, and I serve time in an air-conditioned office doing unskilled labor, it's really hard, I want a new SUVVVVVVVVVV!) to bed?
Assuming that the free market is good, and therefore regulation is bad, however, is a purely ideological stance.
Suppose you observe politicians and politics (de facto "regulation") are bad.
Then what?
While I understand that treating the government with suspicion is a healthy attitude that makes degeneration into tyranny less likely, but that is more an argument for government transparency
It's hard to formulate an analogy between two radically different sets of concepts, but here goes: say Linus announces The Kernel is no longer open.
Wait: say it just stops being open, and he won't say why.
Hmm... Say it quit being open a very long time ago, and if you suggest it was better that way, you're some kind of revolutionist nutball.
No! Say Microsoft and Apple partner up to eradicate the idea there ever was such a thing as openness, and you'd better get in line, because the hired help don't have any qualms about shooting your dog or daughter.
"Government transparency" is an oxymoron: we claim the authority to imprison and/or kill you, but we're sure we'd just be delighted with any program you care to run through us, pal!
Why the hell would anyone pretend to discover, or be surprised, the government is opaque?
You kiddin'? Good code is exactly like good math: make things as pretty as possible with minimal effort. You build tools to take care of the grunt work, and the best ones start with "say... haven't I done this before?"
The game is actually being developed by Virtual Heroes and from what I understand is being offered as a educational tool for 9th graders and they are encouraged to use development tools to build content for the game themselves.
In point of fact, they're being encouraged to go buy UT: "We want anybody that can go pick up a copy of Unreal Tournament III for probably $19 at the store now to be able to get content that could be submitted for inclusion in the game," said Heneghan.
If this isn't a good investment for our country - not sure what is
That much is clear. I had more sciencey stuff to learn about in 9th grade than fooling around in a 3D construction set, not that the school's hardware could have run it.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope... This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right.
There is no such thing as a deal with the devil, done right. It's the whole damned point of the analogy.
Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning.
Good idea. We ought to put them in the Constitution somewhere, to ensure they're never violated.
The male secret? Especially in tech fields? It's quite simple. Stop showering.
Watch as your conversations become 100% operational! Never have to deal with flirtation again!
Part of the trouble is that the verses you're referencing in the Old Testament were from a specific war -- "Go and kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead" or "Destroy the Amalekites" -- particular people who they were fighting at the time.
Page 1 of a google query for "amalek" says you're lying. If it weren't a metaphor, it would be history instead of religion.
Yeah. I'm sure they were worried about "offending" people whose idea of responding is to kill anyone who "offends" them. Like, say, Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.
Before you go putting words in Sir Salman Rushdie's mouth, why don't you ask him for his take on Islam? It's a hell of a lot more tolerant than anything you'll hear from the faux-outraged right wing in the US.
Of course, there is also a "fire and brimstone", stone-the-gays minority
I can't tell how careful you're being with semantics. Do you mean to imply (as below) the majority of Christians are not homophobes, or merely that they don't drag gay dudes behind pickup trucks in 2008 quite as often as they did a decade ago?
Say what you will, that "brimstone" stuff plays pretty well in every church I've been to, and I've never set foot in the crazy ones.
Can you point me at the equivalent of the New Testament in Islam that would discard the laws such as stoning for adultery or beheading for apostasy, or name a mainstream Islamic school of law that considers those laws to not be in force today?
Not that I have any pretension you'll accept this as less than desperate apologism, but can you name the mainstream Sunni schools of thought, or describe their relations to each other? You can answer your own question googling e.g. "Hanafi adultery." Tough to do the penance for zina if you've been stoned to death. Where this happens, blaming Islam is about as sensible as blaming Thomas Jefferson for the DMCA.
Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?
And again, google. Try "gay Muslim." Clever, I know.
How is this troll +5 insightful?
He's been doing them for years. My sister always gives me one for Christmas.
Why do we turn on great artists when they become normal people?
I noticed myself doing this a few years ago. I feel it's not hunger so much as a craving for distraction. Like my brain saying a queue is full and needs to process. It happens when I'm thinking hard and don't want to be -- in a jam, not on a roll.
I've caught myself muttering and pacing with a bag of chips. There's a Pavlovian absurdity to it. Haven't managed "hear bell: prove lemma" yet.
It's not the sort of thing people can research, but it seems directly analogous to smoking cannabis and getting the munchies.
I shouldn't feed trolls, but here's some clue sticks:
I suppose fair's fair. Here's hoping the meta-mods are a little less reactionary.
there are people who conflate time and money while interpreting the phrase "time is money". The real interpretation of that is, "time has value." Some people regard time spent out of doors exercising as valuable. Perhaps you don't. Your evaluation of time spent on a bicycle is your opinion, not a counterpoint.
The parent's point was an opinion, so I'm not sure your distinction is meaningful. As to assigning "X" a value, I didn't, which obviates the rest of your paragraph.
Ever heard of the fallacy called a "non sequitur"? What in blue blazes does using one's "transportation device correctly" have to do with the strength of a material used in an automobile?
I'm not sure why it was invoked in the first place -- by the time your bicycle's experiencing deformation, you have bigger problems.
HINT: Never, ever, argue with ambiguity. That is the pitfall of the Republican spokesperson in this election season.
I think you're saying I'm a rat bastard right-winger, which is almost as irrelevant as it is wrong. Browse my profile.
You didn't comprehend his entire post, did you? I'm pretty sure he suggested an electric bike at the beginning.
I replied to "exercise perks," thanks.
My car has an air conditioner. I rode my bike to school for years, and still take it downtown when practical, but it's not a car substitute. It's hard not to be offended at the suggestion I need to justify a personal choice not to buy "technical clothing" and pedal in whatever weather.
Not likely. His point was that industrialized people are whining too much about biking to work. You merely proved his point.
My point is bike zealots whine when people don't. I find contempt for "industrialized people" ridiculous, and it saddens me how it plays into the caricature of a meek, hypocritical, militant, and guilt-ridden political left.
The noble savage knows he's dead if he's fat, because he can no longer keep up with his prey. Keep your simplistic views of the world's natives to yourself, please.
You first. Kofi Annan says Africa's dream is to industrialize. I don't pretend stitching Reeboks for ten cents a week does the third world any tremendous favors, but neither does romanticizing poverty.
"No wonder you Americans are so fat," said an Aucan native in his first visit to the U.S. "You can ride up to a window, and they give you food. You don't have to hunt at all, because you have food already in your houses." Prosperity is not a virtue in and of itself; it comes with costs, and it comes with responsibilities.
Given the alternative, fat's not so terrible. Incidentally, "Auca" is ethnically insensitive.
Your reply doesn't even make sense. The material properties of steel and aluminum alloys including tensile strength are simply not a matter of "using it correctly"?
I want tensile strength in a rope. Not so much in a vehicle.
Biking is not necessarily slower (depending on route / speed)
It was in his example, hence the quote. I have assumed Americans, in this context, are rational -- contrary to the parent's assumption this privilege is reserved for "indigenous South American tribes" -- and factor opportunity cost into their everyday decision to drive. It takes arrogance to decide most people just never thought of bicycles before.
I am told China has seen a dramatic shift in car ownership. What does he know they (and every other industrial society) don't?
Fact is, if you think you need a car to go a couple of miles, you're wrong. Even if you don't want to elevate your heart rate vs. being in a car (the horror of Americans doing something physical!
At the risk of being modded "Troll" again, I'll point out you're being a presumptuous jackass. I believe, as a card-carrying liberal, this tone has done more harm to the left, however you define it, than the GOP ever could.
Hey, I'm a pretty libertarian-type guy. You want to drive a Hummer H1 for your 5 mile commute to work, that's fine with me. I simply ask why we continue to pursue inefficiency out of habit when the greatest personal benefit to us might lie in another choice.
I think Hummers are an abomination and hope one day to rig a neon sign to the trunk of my '90 Accord illustrating how much of the road you couldn't see if it was an SUV. But evident contempt for technology worries me.
I'm explaining that for a lot of people, cars are efficient. Misplaced idealism doesn't change that.
My commute takes me 15 minutes by car, and a slightly more direct route via bike takes 30 minutes (~6 miles)
Round-trip time lost per day: 30 minutes = $X.
Also, aluminum is not significantly lighter than steel for the same tensile strength
You may not be using your transportation device correctly. Check the manual.
Most people's commutes are only a couple miles and would be most economical to bike. Not to mention the exercise perks.
Most people don't have a job where they can show up sweaty. For those who do, additional "exercise" may not be a "perk."
Go to any indigenous tribe in South America that hasn't been industrialized ... is sort of going in the wrong direction, you know?
Fixed that for ya.
The notion that we need a metal, inefficient powered carriage that is 10 feet wide to move a couple miles isn't really rational or natural considering human evolution
Like hell it's not. Ask the noble savage if he wants calories or carbon credits.
Watch it in X-RAY, and we guarantee...
You'll SHIT your PANTS!
Obviously this guy doesn't realize the calendar was one of Germany's concessions after the war.
There we go, asking people to prove negatives again.
Phew. I've always had this feeling sqrt(2) was rational, but there was never a solid argument until now.
Here:
to 'prove' that global warming is natural.
Better? You don't have to believe in Big Green hysterics to maintain logical integrity.
The following examples may help to clarify the difference between the new and old math.
1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?
1970 (Traditional math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. What is his profit?
1975 (New Math): A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100 and each element is worth $1.
(a) make 100 dots representing the elements of the set M
(b) The set C representing costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of the set M.
(c) What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?
1990 (Dumbed-down math): A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
1997 (Whole Math): By cutting down a forest full of beautiful trees, a logger makes $20.
(a) What do you think of this way of making money?
(b) How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?
(c) Draw a picture of the forest as you'd like it to look.
This leads to a "tragedy of the commons", though, where athletes can no longer compete on their own merits without using (potentially harmful) performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is using them. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Who cares? Honestly. It's a bazillion dollar industry of children's games.
It's not like the status quo is egalitarian (the average NBA player is 6'7"). It's not like some sports aren't inherently dangerous (football, boxing). It's not like athletes decline competitive advantages that stunt their body's development (gymnastics, weightlifting).
Let them take drugs.
Not all zoning is dumb.
Fair.
In this case, with as large as chemical fuel load he had in the home if his house went up it would likely take out the other houses nearby
Do you have an inventory sheet we don't? You argue from authority:
I AM a fire safety researcher, and I know just how flammable most chemicals can be, especially since it looks like he was doing organic chemistry, which is what I have my doctorate in
...in contradiction of TFA: Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb's basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products, whose author's credentials are no less impressive. My point is:
the fire risk that would have eventually happened.
You aren't psychic. Also:
The fact that he had a fire in his AC tells me that all the fumes from his operation were starting to condense in there and then got activated by a spark in the fan motor.
Keywords: "basement, second floor, unrelated fire." I don't see how fumes find their way to a window unit, or why they'd condense in August where it's hot enough for the AC to kick on.
he should have known better
You've assumed a lot.
A-goddamned-men, brother.
The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.
Hear hear.
I never have mod points when I need them. Great post, thanks.
If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't have replied.
Looks to me like he included an answer immediately, in case the rhetorical nature of the question escaped anyone.
And there is a difference between indigenous boobies, and beat someone to death with a baseball bat.
Yeah, one violates every standard of decency, both social and legal, we have established for broadcast entertainment...and the other is beating someone to death with a baseball bat.