Please provide evidence that it is not. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, and I am not trying to be combative; however, it's silly to ask someone to provide evidence for something that you won't/don't provide yourself, even if you think the topic is so obvious that no evidence need be provided.
Personally, I'd like to see evidence based on new and modern (past 10 years) research and implementations, not pictures of mutants from Chernobyl, etc or anecdotes from Three Mile Island. It seems like this is what the nuclear discussion is always reduced to, which is too bad.
The people who thinks that modern religions aren't very dangerous should try to think as if they were gay, what would you think about religions?
Your scenario doesn't account for the thousands of different presuppositions about being gay (homosexuality) that people, regardless of involvement in religion actually, bring to the table. This would make such an exercise impossible. A different way to say this may be that it seems like you're assuming that your perspective on being gay is the standard upon which everyone else should base their standard, and if people would only reach the same conclusions that you have, things would be better. To further clarify, your hypothetical gay self-image is almost certainly completely and vastly different than mine, or someone else's. You're assuming that being gay means the same things to everyone.
For example, many people involved in modern religions would consider homosexuality to be a negative trait/behavior/whatever. By using whatever, I mean that even the very definition of 'gay' varies across groups, especially religious groups, again depending on presuppositions. Those people immediately start from a completely different perspective than you (I'm assuming), so it wouldn't be particularly shocking for them to reach a completely different conclusion than yours based on your original question.
Futhermore, others involved in modern religion may indeed see things almost exactly as you do, for example the Unitarian church in the US, which is most definitely a modern religion and which most definitely supports someone's gender and sexual choices (please don't flame me for using the word "choices", that's a worthwhile, but completely different debate). I only bring this up in an attempt to show you the broad assumptions and generalizations on which your question depends.
In closing, your comment/question seems like you're basing your entire viewpoint on modern religion only on your assumptions about that religion's viewpoints (some people would say "doctrine" which other people view as a dirty word) regarding sexuality. To me, this is making a decision or accepting an assumption with a sort of self-imposed keyhole view of the big picture. Of course, I recognize that comments are made within contexts, otherwise each of our posts would be too long to be practical.
I am sure there'll be a nice raging debate about IF they should do it, which is good. But if they do decide to do it, an important argument is then HOW to do it. Online advertising needs to be intrusive enough to be noticed, but not so intrusive that it becomes, well, intrusive. Their implementation will mean a lot.
Umm, dude, you're still not getting it. Why do people always type (write) the words "ummm" and/or "errr" to make a point when posting? In the spoken word, "umm" is generally a filler used to buy time as you formulate what to say. It's generally considered a bad habit if you use it too much, akin to saying "like" all the time. But you don't need to do that when you write because you can simply pause and stop typing. So why do people do that?
it was all about connecting to long-distance BBSes for free and downloading games "Games", huh? I remember the days of downloading "games" from long distance BBSs, too.
Unimpressed with VR "astronaut perspective" movie
on
New Radar Maps of Moon
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Er... WhyTF do you need to know the kid's password? Aren't you root on the machine? If not, why not? Response #1 to Er... The summary doesn't specify if the parents are root or if they even understand what that means.
Response #2 to Er... You do this so your kid understands that you know it. There's more to parenting than technical knowledge of certain OSs.
Response #3 to Er... Perhaps I am showing my own thin skin and immaturity here, but I hate when people write "Er", "Errrr", "Ummmm" and all its variations. Yes - just a personal pet peeve, but it makes no sense. If you have something to say, well, ummm, errr, just say it. Don't include the "Er" as a passive aggressive expression of your opinion of the (potential) stupidity of a certain situation.
My parents would probably be able to guess non-abstract passwords. I find this interesting. Is the goal to set up a machine for a 7-year-old that parents cannot access? If so, I personally think this is silly. I do admit I RTFS very quickly and perhaps missed something.
Please, when someone starts waving around their 8 inch hardon you don't counter by pulling out your 4 inch softie. Maybe that's how YOU would do things. But if someone started showing me their penis, especially if they are waving it around, I'd almost certainly walk away quickly and call the police. But hey, maybe that's just me...
This is a good idea and would indeed be effective. But why? Why should I have to go to these lengths to drop an account? Why can't they just drop it? A technical reason? A human ignorance reason? A human stubbornness reason? Why?
None of the answers say anything. And the questions are stupid; are these issues really the most important things to slashdot readers? I'd just love to have one debate/interview here that didn't involve, whatever your position, a pot question. Anyhow, Paul's answers are no different than any other politicians. This was, is and will be a waste of time. Now brace yourselves for a flurry of bumper sticker vandals hijacking the thread.
Another way to phrase that was that the tiger turned away from everybody else who didn't have guns. Sounds like a perfectly conceived and executed plan to me. Holy literal nerd need for argument, Batman! You (and the other poster) missed the point. Why'd they yell "stop"? Why not "Here tiger, tiger"? If the plan was so perfectly executed (meaning to draw the tiger in to kill it), why even have the yelling in the first place? Why not just shoot it before it approaches you? I know, I know. You're not able to think outside the boundaries of pure logic to appreciate strange situations, much like a Vulcan. So I stand corrected. The next time I am called to the aid of someone being attacked by a tiger, I'll first yell for it to stop, wait for it to charge me and then shoot it.
I believe the thing that bothers most people, why they seem to imply that the guy got what was coming to him, is that the animal was behind bars and the guys were torturing it verbally and possibly with a slingshot [begin slingshot debate now]. Would the guy have done the same thing to a large breed dog he saw walking down the street? Probably not. But some vodka and an animal enclosure turns the guys into George of the Jungle.
When push comes to shove do most people think the guy really deserved death? No. But we're far enough removed from it to think about it like something we'd watch on TV instead of something that might happen to someone we know.
Strange side note:
The following is from a major news outlet regarding what the police did when they arrived on the scene only to find the tiger loose:
They then "yelled at the animal to stop. They did not fire immediately.... when the yelling was occurring the animal turned toward the officers" and that's when the officers shot the tiger, she said.
Nice work. I understand it's not something you deal with at the academy, but do you really think yelling "Stop" is going to have a major impact on the behavior of the tiger?
The same sentiments are felt by millions Are you certain? I mean, just because you feel one way doesn't mean that everyone does. Perhaps millions of people use Yahoo stuff because it's good or they're locked into it (pain to switch mails) or they don't know any better. But are millions of people using Yahoo stuff just to "rebel", if you will, against Microsoft? I don't know, but I don't think so.
I usually keep my phone in my pocket. After even a short time, I bet they will have tons of data to analyze about the inside of my pocket. This is important research.
I don't know about wishy-washy, but I am glad you pointed the topic of H1-Bs out. The thread is hijacked by stupid comments about Mormonism, the war on Iraq, drugs, etc, all of which have limited relevance to TFA -- so this important topic doesn't even get any mention until half-way down. It bears discussion and I don't like Romney's position.
If H1-Bs were implemented and enforced as designed, they'd be great. But they generally aren't. There are few actual shortages, and the H1-B was not designed to be a financial measure as many companies now use it. I know a Sr. Java Dev that started on an H1-B. Why? Is there some shortage of java devs in the US I am unaware of? Yes - this is anecdotal, but it's a good example in my mind. Whatever your opinion, I'd prefer discussing this than whether or not someone blowing a fat cloud of weed smoke for their "glaucoma" is a constitutional right.
On a side note, the H1-B is funny because it is for "specialty occupations" which (I guess) includes "a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability." Funny how these laws come to be.
If you get such a patent, put it in a shell company, sell the stock, many billions, move on, goto 10. Yeah - but I think the original question is worth repeating. Has anyone actually ever done this successfully?
Every time a businessman smiles after cutting some cost or forcing someone to pay more does because he's too stupid to realize what he has lost. I know there's limited space here, but that's quite a sweeping generalization, at least if I understood it correctly given the sketchy grammar. I'd say it's all about balance. Cutting costs and finding good ways to get people to pay more aren't always bad things. Businesses should be, if I can invoke a cliché, customer focused; however, if you're so focused on the customer that you don't make any money, well, then that's not really a business, is it? And if you don't mind businesses making money, but you're just unhappy about how much money a business might make, well, then you're in some very difficult territory. These things aren't cut-and-dry enough to use phrases like "every time".
I'm over-simplifying this, granted, but sometimes I feel like my data is safer at home, at least from a physical perspective. If someone is wandering around my house that I don't know, it raises the level of alert, so to speak, and I would do something like call the police or shoot them. If someone is wandering around my office that I don't know, I couldn't care less. It happened (when I had an office) every day. Yes - I recognize there's a lot more to security than random strangers wandering around doing social engineering, etc.
I don't get it. If you are exempt and feel you are being worked too much, simply: don't. I'm exempt and I tell my management "I can't work on that right now" A lot of this depends on the "management". I agree with you completely and I know people that would also agree with you completely; however, some of them have little choice, given the mentality of their management. Yes, yes - they could take the typical slashdot advice and "then go find a new job"; however, life isn't quite as simple as writing anonymous messages on the web-r-net. Maybe they will find new employment, but until they do, it really, really sucks. But that's life sometimes, I suppose.
15%? That's cheap compared to the damage from the loss of morale and confidence in management.
Do you honestly think they (IBM) care? Seriously. The whole idea of (mostly big) companies caring about "engagement" and "morale" is a bunch of trash. Lip-service. Hypocrisy. Whatever you want to call it. Know this: they only care just enough to keep you around. You can argue that this is the way it should be or "free-market" or "just doing business" and you'd probably have a good argument, but please don't fool yourself or anyone else into thinking that companies preemptively care about the loss of morale. They don't. They always react, never plan ahead.
Wow. I really sound bitter! Can you tell what size company I work for?
Is the problem with, as some forum postings have suggested, the upgrade now checking for DRM on all.MOVs every 10 minutes which fubars the render of any MOVs? Or is it something else? The initial info makes it seem like any and ALL renders would fail; however, if it's only impacting certain formats, it may not impact every composition/project, etc. on which you're working. And I hate rendering anyways.
Oh, you're speaking of the th. That a "typo" on my side, English is not my native language. But you're welcome to gloat.
Oh, ok - it's not your native language. Well then, you needn't use it correctly, right? Nobody cares that English is not your native language, and it should not and did not matter until you injected into the conversation. I make typos all the time and English is my native language. Am I an idiot? No. Well, maybe, but it's not because I make a few typos here and there.
The reason you made the typo probably had little to do with your English (because it looked fine otherwise), and more to do with a number of other factors such as being hurried, etc. Getting teased is part of life; it's best just to grin and bear it.
Yes. The law was enacted in 1981 to prevent the market from being flooded with only cheap, marked-down books (think of those strip mall "Discount Books" places, if you live in the US), and, as I'm sure you can guess, to keep competition, ummm, competitive. The law has been brought before the mighty French court before, both times being upheld, probably because it's even in its application; it's not like it applies to some sellers and not others. It's like a price control. This was all brought to light because the "French Bookseller's Union" sued Amazon to try and stop the free shipping and the court (in December) interpreted that as part of the book price. Other countries have similar laws actually, but France is the only one that has applied it to the shipping -- when shipping to France.
By refusing to comply and instead paying the fine each day, Amazon is increasing the chance of the fine being raised after the 30 days. Also, it's funny we're talking about the government being bought by big business...and yet, isn't Amazon big business? Touché!
Slashdot Mirror
Please provide evidence that it is not. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, and I am not trying to be combative; however, it's silly to ask someone to provide evidence for something that you won't/don't provide yourself, even if you think the topic is so obvious that no evidence need be provided.
Personally, I'd like to see evidence based on new and modern (past 10 years) research and implementations, not pictures of mutants from Chernobyl, etc or anecdotes from Three Mile Island. It seems like this is what the nuclear discussion is always reduced to, which is too bad.
Your scenario doesn't account for the thousands of different presuppositions about being gay (homosexuality) that people, regardless of involvement in religion actually, bring to the table. This would make such an exercise impossible. A different way to say this may be that it seems like you're assuming that your perspective on being gay is the standard upon which everyone else should base their standard, and if people would only reach the same conclusions that you have, things would be better. To further clarify, your hypothetical gay self-image is almost certainly completely and vastly different than mine, or someone else's. You're assuming that being gay means the same things to everyone.
For example, many people involved in modern religions would consider homosexuality to be a negative trait/behavior/whatever. By using whatever, I mean that even the very definition of 'gay' varies across groups, especially religious groups, again depending on presuppositions. Those people immediately start from a completely different perspective than you (I'm assuming), so it wouldn't be particularly shocking for them to reach a completely different conclusion than yours based on your original question.
Futhermore, others involved in modern religion may indeed see things almost exactly as you do, for example the Unitarian church in the US, which is most definitely a modern religion and which most definitely supports someone's gender and sexual choices (please don't flame me for using the word "choices", that's a worthwhile, but completely different debate). I only bring this up in an attempt to show you the broad assumptions and generalizations on which your question depends.
In closing, your comment/question seems like you're basing your entire viewpoint on modern religion only on your assumptions about that religion's viewpoints (some people would say "doctrine" which other people view as a dirty word) regarding sexuality. To me, this is making a decision or accepting an assumption with a sort of self-imposed keyhole view of the big picture. Of course, I recognize that comments are made within contexts, otherwise each of our posts would be too long to be practical.
I am sure there'll be a nice raging debate about IF they should do it, which is good. But if they do decide to do it, an important argument is then HOW to do it. Online advertising needs to be intrusive enough to be noticed, but not so intrusive that it becomes, well, intrusive. Their implementation will mean a lot.
I hope they didn't put a lot of time into this movie http://www.nasa.gov/mov/214261main_Lunar_Landing_Anim_4_Web.mov. The nerd in me was really excited as I clicked the link. Then not so much as I watched it.
Response #1 to Er
Response #2 to Er
Response #3 to Er
This is a good idea and would indeed be effective. But why? Why should I have to go to these lengths to drop an account? Why can't they just drop it? A technical reason? A human ignorance reason? A human stubbornness reason? Why?
None of the answers say anything. And the questions are stupid; are these issues really the most important things to slashdot readers? I'd just love to have one debate/interview here that didn't involve, whatever your position, a pot question. Anyhow, Paul's answers are no different than any other politicians. This was, is and will be a waste of time. Now brace yourselves for a flurry of bumper sticker vandals hijacking the thread.
I believe the thing that bothers most people, why they seem to imply that the guy got what was coming to him, is that the animal was behind bars and the guys were torturing it verbally and possibly with a slingshot [begin slingshot debate now]. Would the guy have done the same thing to a large breed dog he saw walking down the street? Probably not. But some vodka and an animal enclosure turns the guys into George of the Jungle.
When push comes to shove do most people think the guy really deserved death? No. But we're far enough removed from it to think about it like something we'd watch on TV instead of something that might happen to someone we know.
Strange side note:
The following is from a major news outlet regarding what the police did when they arrived on the scene only to find the tiger loose:
Nice work. I understand it's not something you deal with at the academy, but do you really think yelling "Stop" is going to have a major impact on the behavior of the tiger?
I usually keep my phone in my pocket. After even a short time, I bet they will have tons of data to analyze about the inside of my pocket. This is important research.
I don't know about wishy-washy, but I am glad you pointed the topic of H1-Bs out. The thread is hijacked by stupid comments about Mormonism, the war on Iraq, drugs, etc, all of which have limited relevance to TFA -- so this important topic doesn't even get any mention until half-way down. It bears discussion and I don't like Romney's position.
If H1-Bs were implemented and enforced as designed, they'd be great. But they generally aren't. There are few actual shortages, and the H1-B was not designed to be a financial measure as many companies now use it. I know a Sr. Java Dev that started on an H1-B. Why? Is there some shortage of java devs in the US I am unaware of? Yes - this is anecdotal, but it's a good example in my mind. Whatever your opinion, I'd prefer discussing this than whether or not someone blowing a fat cloud of weed smoke for their "glaucoma" is a constitutional right.
On a side note, the H1-B is funny because it is for "specialty occupations" which (I guess) includes "a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability." Funny how these laws come to be.
I'm over-simplifying this, granted, but sometimes I feel like my data is safer at home, at least from a physical perspective. If someone is wandering around my house that I don't know, it raises the level of alert, so to speak, and I would do something like call the police or shoot them. If someone is wandering around my office that I don't know, I couldn't care less. It happened (when I had an office) every day. Yes - I recognize there's a lot more to security than random strangers wandering around doing social engineering, etc.
Do you honestly think they (IBM) care? Seriously. The whole idea of (mostly big) companies caring about "engagement" and "morale" is a bunch of trash. Lip-service. Hypocrisy. Whatever you want to call it. Know this: they only care just enough to keep you around. You can argue that this is the way it should be or "free-market" or "just doing business" and you'd probably have a good argument, but please don't fool yourself or anyone else into thinking that companies preemptively care about the loss of morale. They don't. They always react, never plan ahead.
Wow. I really sound bitter! Can you tell what size company I work for?
Is the problem with, as some forum postings have suggested, the upgrade now checking for DRM on all .MOVs every 10 minutes which fubars the render of any MOVs? Or is it something else? The initial info makes it seem like any and ALL renders would fail; however, if it's only impacting certain formats, it may not impact every composition/project, etc. on which you're working. And I hate rendering anyways.
Oh, ok - it's not your native language. Well then, you needn't use it correctly, right? Nobody cares that English is not your native language, and it should not and did not matter until you injected into the conversation. I make typos all the time and English is my native language. Am I an idiot? No. Well, maybe, but it's not because I make a few typos here and there.
The reason you made the typo probably had little to do with your English (because it looked fine otherwise), and more to do with a number of other factors such as being hurried, etc. Getting teased is part of life; it's best just to grin and bear it.
Yes. The law was enacted in 1981 to prevent the market from being flooded with only cheap, marked-down books (think of those strip mall "Discount Books" places, if you live in the US), and, as I'm sure you can guess, to keep competition, ummm, competitive. The law has been brought before the mighty French court before, both times being upheld, probably because it's even in its application; it's not like it applies to some sellers and not others. It's like a price control. This was all brought to light because the "French Bookseller's Union" sued Amazon to try and stop the free shipping and the court (in December) interpreted that as part of the book price. Other countries have similar laws actually, but France is the only one that has applied it to the shipping -- when shipping to France.
By refusing to comply and instead paying the fine each day, Amazon is increasing the chance of the fine being raised after the 30 days. Also, it's funny we're talking about the government being bought by big business...and yet, isn't Amazon big business? Touché!