Silly slashdot delays caused this to be posted after your correction. My apologies. All the same, the Bush administration is not a state religion. You'd have to go back to the 1800s to find real establishment of religion anywhere in the US, and slightly further back to find real intolerance of religions other than those established by the state. (This is mostly interesting when contrasted with the intolerance in England that caused much of the US to be settled, those settlers of course being intolerant.)
Exactly. From what I've heard from my friends and family in the web business (including my sister, whose work recently won awards for degrading nicely), the main thing IE7 does is increases compatibility and conformance. From the sound of it (without reading the article, of course), this story is a bitchfest that probably stems from the IE workarounds that were poorly done falling apart under IE7, or something similar. In other words, it's partly the fault of the developers who are bitching and partly the fault of previous versions of IE, but probably not IE7's fault in any meaningful way.
You have mistakenly conflated "Christianity" with "the Catholic Church." Don't worry, you're not the first person to make that mistake. You also have conflated "church" with "religion." While those are more closely related, they are still not the same thing.
I wasn't aware that it was a common practice to store database passwords as hashed strings in configuration files. Does your program run a brute-force attack against the hash every time it needs to create a database connection?
I am, but that's not relevant here. People who boldly ignore the rules because they think they are above the rules are assholes beyond what I am capable of.
It's not the act of leaving bags unattended that is annoying to me. What I see is a very strong correlation between ignorant, obnoxious people who should not be allowed on my plane and people who leave their bags unattended. I have no problem teaching them a lesson about following the rules, especially when I get a personal side benefit. Just pick up the bags, hand them to airport security, and say "Excuse me, I found these bags unattended in the gate area and I really don't feel comfortable getting on a flight with this kind of security hazard. I appreciate your attention and time carefully screening these bags for any potential hazards." Don't say what gate if you can help it, and do it when the rightful owners aren't watching if you can. That way, you maximize the time spent trying to match the bags up with their owners, and therefore you maximize the chances that the obnoxious bastards won't be on your flight after all.
I have a cell phone. I am rarely without it. I have in the past carried up to three phones. That doesn't change my feeling that they should not be allowed in planes any more than smoking still is. As to the annoying people in the gate area who do not leave their bags unattended, I haven't figured out a way to get them left behind short of the rapture. If you know a way, post it here. Thanks!
I was looking for your comment - I would have posted the same thing (maybe in a bit less friendly tone). There are already enough things on planes that piss me off without the addition of 200 people loudly asking "Can you hear me now?" for the entire flight. In a similar vein, I have started a practice of turning in all unattended bags in the gate area to airport security. Most unattended bags are left by annoying people in the first place, so having those people miss their flight because they failed to heed the repeated warnings about leaving their bags unattended has a positive effect on my flight.;)
I won't dispute that, although New York is not the only city in the United States. Many cities here are quite a bit more poorly laid out, and even New York requires a great deal of memorization of which streets have which numbering system, as they are not the same from one block to the next. But all the same, I rest assured that London is among the very worst in the English-speaking world.
I read that comment as being a snide commentary on the idiotic activists in the US who fight so hard against what they mistakenly perceive as discrimination.
That said, I have no problem with recent immigrants who are able to obtain the requisite licenses to become cab drivers doing so. In the course of their jobs they learn their way around the city they moved to very well and they get to know a good cross-section of the culture they will hopefully one day assimilate into, either as a crouton in the salad bowl or a hunk of cheese in the melting pot.
I won't contend that it's not easier to kill someone through skilled use of a gun than through skilled use of a knife. (Of course, the skilled qualifier falls apart and things really go to hell when you have an incompetent person with a gun and another one with a knife, in which case the knife is likely more effective. But I digress...) I also don't know the entirety of your knifing situation, but I probably would have shot back. And by the way, there's no such thing as an even relatively harmless firearm.
The problem I have is that you seem to be advocating a rule to protect us all from crazy people who kill us in the heat of passion by curtailing our own rights. To me, there is absolutely no difference between that and a law banning public speech because some people can't be trusted to be nice when they're talking.
The pro-gun people don't trust you (or anyone that you trust) to make the decisions on which guns are okay and which people are okay to own them. The recently-expired "assault weapon" ban is a perfect example of why they don't. The anti-gun people think you are a gun nut because you aren't anti-gun.
My personal stance is that the second amendment guarantees my personal right to keep and bear arms of the type that would be useful if the "militia," a term understood in 1790 to mean the entire citizenry, should be called upon. (Note that "well-regulated" also had a different meaning; specifically, it meant well-equipped as a regular army.) Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment is worded in such a way that it ought to apply to the states as well as to Congress (despite judisprudence to the contrary).
Outside of the second amendment, I won't choose to give up my right to keep and bear arms. I choose to live where my rights are the least infringed, and I keep weapons for purposes from collecting to hunting to personal defense to investment. While I personally do wish I were the arbiter of who had the right to have guns for each of those purposes, I accept that I am not but also don't trust anyone else to do a good job of making such decisions any more than I trust people to tell me which things are safe for me to say.
The ignorance of your "shooting into the brown" comment aside, you are absolutely wrong about it being easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Moreover, you are absolutely wrong that it makes any difference what the weapon is when the passion to kill arises.
All that to one side, I never ignored crimes of passion. I may have been unwise to use the word 'murder,' as the statistics put D.C. near the top of the homicide list. The statistics are absolutely against you on this. Even if the statistics were unclear, your comment seems to boil down to a claim that heat-of-passion homicides are vastly higher in gun-rights states than they are in defenseless victim zones like D.C. That simply isn't the case.
If you are trying to say that guns cause crime, prove it. Remember to account for the counter argument that criminalizing gun possession in an effort to reduce the murder rate assumes that someone willing to commit murder is unwilling to possess an illegal firearm.
It should be no shock that D.C. is still one of the most violent cities in the U.S. (#2 or #3, the last I checked). The murder rate drops by a factor of 10 when you cross the Potomac River into Virginia (still in metropolitan Washington; it gets even lower further away) where there is no gun ban.
Other than saying "not guilty," which are words that only apply to a criminal case, you are spot-on. I am really irritated by the article summary here. HP didn't negotiate a "payoff," it didn't "make... charges disappear," and so forth. It settled a lawsuit, and it settled for a substantial sum of money. There's nothing illicit about this at all.
Exactly. Virtual reality blurs the line between reality and imagination. It can be expected that imaginations become more vivid and insistent through its use, even for imagined things not related to its use.
That's the whole point of virtual reality: be realistic enough to be indistinguishable from reality. The fact that it results in more false memories already is just evidence that we're finally catching up with the goals set for virtual reality decades ago.
There could always be a shareholder derivative suit: sue the board of directors on behalf of the corporation. What has this lawsuit done for shareholder value? It's quite possible that the shareholders could recover some of the money that management has essentially stolen from the company in the process of this litigation.
It's all a matter of marketing. You breed the biggest, best-looking apple you can, call it "Red Delicious" (which admittedly has a ring to it and is very memorable where product names are concerned), and it will jump off the shelves into shoppers' carts. It's almost sad in a way - I had lived over a quarter of my lifespan before I knew what an apple was supposed to taste like. And now I have a hard time finding that experience again. Better to loved and have lost...
Slashdot Mirror
Silly slashdot delays caused this to be posted after your correction. My apologies. All the same, the Bush administration is not a state religion. You'd have to go back to the 1800s to find real establishment of religion anywhere in the US, and slightly further back to find real intolerance of religions other than those established by the state. (This is mostly interesting when contrasted with the intolerance in England that caused much of the US to be settled, those settlers of course being intolerant.)
Good work on the math, buddy.
Exactly. From what I've heard from my friends and family in the web business (including my sister, whose work recently won awards for degrading nicely), the main thing IE7 does is increases compatibility and conformance. From the sound of it (without reading the article, of course), this story is a bitchfest that probably stems from the IE workarounds that were poorly done falling apart under IE7, or something similar. In other words, it's partly the fault of the developers who are bitching and partly the fault of previous versions of IE, but probably not IE7's fault in any meaningful way.
You have mistakenly conflated "Christianity" with "the Catholic Church." Don't worry, you're not the first person to make that mistake. You also have conflated "church" with "religion." While those are more closely related, they are still not the same thing.
I wasn't aware that it was a common practice to store database passwords as hashed strings in configuration files. Does your program run a brute-force attack against the hash every time it needs to create a database connection?
I am, but that's not relevant here. People who boldly ignore the rules because they think they are above the rules are assholes beyond what I am capable of.
Private jets are just marginally out of my reach at this point. Soon.....soon.....
It's not the act of leaving bags unattended that is annoying to me. What I see is a very strong correlation between ignorant, obnoxious people who should not be allowed on my plane and people who leave their bags unattended. I have no problem teaching them a lesson about following the rules, especially when I get a personal side benefit. Just pick up the bags, hand them to airport security, and say "Excuse me, I found these bags unattended in the gate area and I really don't feel comfortable getting on a flight with this kind of security hazard. I appreciate your attention and time carefully screening these bags for any potential hazards." Don't say what gate if you can help it, and do it when the rightful owners aren't watching if you can. That way, you maximize the time spent trying to match the bags up with their owners, and therefore you maximize the chances that the obnoxious bastards won't be on your flight after all.
I have a cell phone. I am rarely without it. I have in the past carried up to three phones. That doesn't change my feeling that they should not be allowed in planes any more than smoking still is. As to the annoying people in the gate area who do not leave their bags unattended, I haven't figured out a way to get them left behind short of the rapture. If you know a way, post it here. Thanks!
I was looking for your comment - I would have posted the same thing (maybe in a bit less friendly tone). There are already enough things on planes that piss me off without the addition of 200 people loudly asking "Can you hear me now?" for the entire flight. In a similar vein, I have started a practice of turning in all unattended bags in the gate area to airport security. Most unattended bags are left by annoying people in the first place, so having those people miss their flight because they failed to heed the repeated warnings about leaving their bags unattended has a positive effect on my flight. ;)
Your search for "pioneer 1 probe" has returned approximately 3 objects.
I won't dispute that, although New York is not the only city in the United States. Many cities here are quite a bit more poorly laid out, and even New York requires a great deal of memorization of which streets have which numbering system, as they are not the same from one block to the next. But all the same, I rest assured that London is among the very worst in the English-speaking world.
I read that comment as being a snide commentary on the idiotic activists in the US who fight so hard against what they mistakenly perceive as discrimination.
That said, I have no problem with recent immigrants who are able to obtain the requisite licenses to become cab drivers doing so. In the course of their jobs they learn their way around the city they moved to very well and they get to know a good cross-section of the culture they will hopefully one day assimilate into, either as a crouton in the salad bowl or a hunk of cheese in the melting pot.
See my other comments on this thread for my response to this.
I won't contend that it's not easier to kill someone through skilled use of a gun than through skilled use of a knife. (Of course, the skilled qualifier falls apart and things really go to hell when you have an incompetent person with a gun and another one with a knife, in which case the knife is likely more effective. But I digress...) I also don't know the entirety of your knifing situation, but I probably would have shot back. And by the way, there's no such thing as an even relatively harmless firearm.
The problem I have is that you seem to be advocating a rule to protect us all from crazy people who kill us in the heat of passion by curtailing our own rights. To me, there is absolutely no difference between that and a law banning public speech because some people can't be trusted to be nice when they're talking.
The pro-gun people don't trust you (or anyone that you trust) to make the decisions on which guns are okay and which people are okay to own them. The recently-expired "assault weapon" ban is a perfect example of why they don't. The anti-gun people think you are a gun nut because you aren't anti-gun.
My personal stance is that the second amendment guarantees my personal right to keep and bear arms of the type that would be useful if the "militia," a term understood in 1790 to mean the entire citizenry, should be called upon. (Note that "well-regulated" also had a different meaning; specifically, it meant well-equipped as a regular army.) Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment is worded in such a way that it ought to apply to the states as well as to Congress (despite judisprudence to the contrary).
Outside of the second amendment, I won't choose to give up my right to keep and bear arms. I choose to live where my rights are the least infringed, and I keep weapons for purposes from collecting to hunting to personal defense to investment. While I personally do wish I were the arbiter of who had the right to have guns for each of those purposes, I accept that I am not but also don't trust anyone else to do a good job of making such decisions any more than I trust people to tell me which things are safe for me to say.
The ignorance of your "shooting into the brown" comment aside, you are absolutely wrong about it being easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Moreover, you are absolutely wrong that it makes any difference what the weapon is when the passion to kill arises.
All that to one side, I never ignored crimes of passion. I may have been unwise to use the word 'murder,' as the statistics put D.C. near the top of the homicide list. The statistics are absolutely against you on this. Even if the statistics were unclear, your comment seems to boil down to a claim that heat-of-passion homicides are vastly higher in gun-rights states than they are in defenseless victim zones like D.C. That simply isn't the case.
If you are trying to say that guns cause crime, prove it. Remember to account for the counter argument that criminalizing gun possession in an effort to reduce the murder rate assumes that someone willing to commit murder is unwilling to possess an illegal firearm.
It should be no shock that D.C. is still one of the most violent cities in the U.S. (#2 or #3, the last I checked). The murder rate drops by a factor of 10 when you cross the Potomac River into Virginia (still in metropolitan Washington; it gets even lower further away) where there is no gun ban.
Other than saying "not guilty," which are words that only apply to a criminal case, you are spot-on. I am really irritated by the article summary here. HP didn't negotiate a "payoff," it didn't "make ... charges disappear," and so forth. It settled a lawsuit, and it settled for a substantial sum of money. There's nothing illicit about this at all.
This proves that they have the same capabilities as the rest of us, so the blind can finally stop parking in the good spots up front. ;)
Exactly. Virtual reality blurs the line between reality and imagination. It can be expected that imaginations become more vivid and insistent through its use, even for imagined things not related to its use.
That's the whole point of virtual reality: be realistic enough to be indistinguishable from reality. The fact that it results in more false memories already is just evidence that we're finally catching up with the goals set for virtual reality decades ago.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than listen to your idiotic conversation during a movie that I paid the price of a steak dinner to see.
There could always be a shareholder derivative suit: sue the board of directors on behalf of the corporation. What has this lawsuit done for shareholder value? It's quite possible that the shareholders could recover some of the money that management has essentially stolen from the company in the process of this litigation.
It's all a matter of marketing. You breed the biggest, best-looking apple you can, call it "Red Delicious" (which admittedly has a ring to it and is very memorable where product names are concerned), and it will jump off the shelves into shoppers' carts. It's almost sad in a way - I had lived over a quarter of my lifespan before I knew what an apple was supposed to taste like. And now I have a hard time finding that experience again. Better to loved and have lost ...