Because a business should be accessible to everyone, including people with asthma like me. Fuck no. Will you please just cut the politically correct BS? A business should be accessible to everyone because that's the best way to have as big a market as possible. But if you have to choose between smokers and non-smokers, you cannot do that.
If you have asthma, don't go to the place with the "Warning! SMOKERS!!!" sign on it. For me, I'll have that cigarette with my beer, thank you.
Its also a worker safety issue. We don't allow employers to have other toxic substances wafting through workplaces, why should we allow that with tobacco smoke? Just because its customer generated? Hire smokers, problem solved.
I understand your concern about your health, but just because you want to go somewhere doesn't mean a huge group of people has to be banned, sorry. (Yes, a non-smoking place is in practice a ban for smokers.)
Back in the days when I did a lot of Win98 installs, I always carried a nice big hammer around. Put it on the computer before booting it up, and it installed perfectly *every time*.
It started as a joke, but it actually worked... guess those casings had built-in hammer detectors, and the installer checked for it.
And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information. Like what? You can't gather information where the base is, and that's it. Mars is a big place. However, you do get people up there who can look for stuff much faster than the current approach.
A Mars base should be a net benefit from this angle too.
If it doesn't stay there, it's basically already dead. If it was created elsewhere, it's nothing more than a lab rat. Kind of how cows bred for food and milk are nothing more than food and/or source of milk.
Human superiority is deeply entrenched in our ethics, we need to decide if we want to keep it that way. If not, we need new religions, and good luck converting >3 billion people.
The real problem is really deciding what is a legitimate source of e-mail, without requiring a central registry of e-mail servers or some other sort of bureaucratic process. Recently I've been getting spam that convinced them that I was the sender, and even "(unknown sender)" ones. One would think that's not that hard to decide.
The other problem is, Hotmail and Yahoo trusting Gmail. In the world of email, there is no such thing as a trustworthy server.
It's the same part of your brain that moves your muscles for you without you having to think about it, the one which reads so fast for you without you having to think about every single letter you see, etc.
It's also the one that never, EVER makes driving errors.
You know the saying "practice makes perfect", there you have it.
Solution: Global government co-operation and government funded drug research. This way you don't have to use that much money for the adverticing either. Yeah. And world peace while we're at it.
So the moral of the story is that if you want to make your data unrecoverable, have a party. Space shuttle explosions will not do the trick. That was so Douglas Adams-like, it's perfect for a sig. Thanks.
I've been using an "unprotected" gmail account for 2 years now. Currently I have 196 spam, all conveniently labeled as such.
During that time I only got one false positive, but that was a really poorly formatted message, and they weren't even replying from the same adress I specifically asked the reply from.
However, I got no false negatives in English, and it took about a week of "Report Spam" to get them up to speed on some new Hungarian torrent tracker spam. Now they're marked spam too.
Do we really know whether those idols worked as intended at that time? What if their true purpose was e.g. to give courage to warriors going to battle or hunters against predators?
Beating people leaves marks. Shooting people leaves marks. Tasers don't.
If said people are actually criminals, restraining them by necessary means is of course justified. But every cop thinks twice before shooting someone, which is not the case with tasers.
(As a sidenote, there are no criminals before a court says so, only "suspects").
Yes, it would reduce power usage, but also throughput, so I don't see that happening any time soon. If datacenters could get by with half as many boxes, they'd already be doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen brother.
If you have asthma, don't go to the place with the "Warning! SMOKERS!!!" sign on it. For me, I'll have that cigarette with my beer, thank you. Its also a worker safety issue. We don't allow employers to have other toxic substances wafting through workplaces, why should we allow that with tobacco smoke? Just because its customer generated? Hire smokers, problem solved.
I understand your concern about your health, but just because you want to go somewhere doesn't mean a huge group of people has to be banned, sorry. (Yes, a non-smoking place is in practice a ban for smokers.)
Back in the days when I did a lot of Win98 installs, I always carried a nice big hammer around. Put it on the computer before booting it up, and it installed perfectly *every time*.
It started as a joke, but it actually worked... guess those casings had built-in hammer detectors, and the installer checked for it.
I'm waiting for the LiveCD brewery.
How is talking about the same waters the summary mentions off-topic?
A Mars base should be a net benefit from this angle too.
If it doesn't stay there, it's basically already dead. If it was created elsewhere, it's nothing more than a lab rat. Kind of how cows bred for food and milk are nothing more than food and/or source of milk.
Human superiority is deeply entrenched in our ethics, we need to decide if we want to keep it that way. If not, we need new religions, and good luck converting >3 billion people.
Failing to keep an embryo alive?
Just leave it in its mom ferchrissake.
The other problem is, Hotmail and Yahoo trusting Gmail. In the world of email, there is no such thing as a trustworthy server.
It's the same part of your brain that moves your muscles for you without you having to think about it, the one which reads so fast for you without you having to think about every single letter you see, etc.
It's also the one that never, EVER makes driving errors.
You know the saying "practice makes perfect", there you have it.
Not the ones who pirated it before buying. That's what I do, works like a charm.
On another payroll, yes.
You're missing the point. You already bought the hardware, they're just not letting you use it fully.
It's about time for open drivers and sane business models.
Let's call it "+Duh".
Seriously, what are you mods smoking? That was merely Informative at best... How exactly is detailing my own experiences Insightful?
Yes, I am complaining because I got modded up. Not because of the modding, but because of the wrong reasons for it.
Deleting false positives is not an option for me. The one in question was a reply for a job application for instance.
However, I do use "Delete all spam messages now" every couple of weeks, but only after giving it the trusty old eyeball-search.
I've been using an "unprotected" gmail account for 2 years now. Currently I have 196 spam, all conveniently labeled as such.
During that time I only got one false positive, but that was a really poorly formatted message, and they weren't even replying from the same adress I specifically asked the reply from.
However, I got no false negatives in English, and it took about a week of "Report Spam" to get them up to speed on some new Hungarian torrent tracker spam. Now they're marked spam too.
All in all, Google's spam filter rocks.
Me too. But I never thought about the endless possibilities here. .torrent to verify.
Just ship everything with a
(Wow, all the authorities we could annoy with one minor change!)
Sweden, apparently.
Do we really know whether those idols worked as intended at that time? What if their true purpose was e.g. to give courage to warriors going to battle or hunters against predators?
Define "useful" please.
Beating people leaves marks. Shooting people leaves marks. Tasers don't.
If said people are actually criminals, restraining them by necessary means is of course justified. But every cop thinks twice before shooting someone, which is not the case with tasers.
(As a sidenote, there are no criminals before a court says so, only "suspects").
Yes, it would reduce power usage, but also throughput, so I don't see that happening any time soon. If datacenters could get by with half as many boxes, they'd already be doing that.