Oh, and the bizarre sexual fantasy feeling to it: women spanking each other, humiliating men, and happily coexisting in a polygamous relationship.
That bothered me for a bit too, and I still find it a bit annoying - but logically, what the men in that world are facing is not so different than women face in the male-dominated real world.
And I would hardly say they're happily coexisting - rather, they don't/entirely/ like it, but also don't/entirely/ have a choice about it.
They have all moved to disparate Web forums, the most offensive of which put freely-given advice from volunteers behind a paywall [expertsexchange.com].
Just scroll down past all the stupidity that says "register to see the answer" spam. The actual answers are still on the page, just waaaay down. That's how they still manage to keep showing up in google results.
Of course Humans tend to be lazy and generally anti-intellectual.
So if the news is anything more than a sound bit or two it might just
get filtered out. Commercial media has to account for this.
Exactly, the thing is that the newspaper's job is to report the truth, and in this case the truth was that McCain lied a lot during the campaign. If Obama had made ads accusing McCain of wanting to re-institute the draft, or cancel all Social Security payments in the next year, the press would have called him out too.
Dude... they both lied a lot. It's what politicians/do/. Take a look at factcheck.org.
That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth)
A half-truth is as good as a lie. Those those ads conveniently neglected to mention the multi-thousand dollar tax credit which would more than offset the cost of insurance premiums.
Yahoo and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are expected to testify along with professors, lawyers and other industry players
That'd be you, me, and anyone else who keeps it going through consumerism (not used in a negative sense). Without us providing the driving need for the innovations that 'require' patents, there would be no need for any IP system at all.
(And the "wants to hear your comments via a form" doesn't really qualify to me.)
and by the way, it works for other stuff too, things such as; wills, power of attorney, contracts (yeah, you think they actually review them
Works great, until the conditions of the wills/PoA/contracts, etc are challenged. If you're not in a situation where that's likely to happen, then $12.00 will suffice. If it's a serious concern, you'll want to use the lawyer.
For how much longer will we still be using keyboards, mice and joysticks?"
Oh, probably for as long as people want to sit quietly at their PCs to perform their tasks. Who wants to flail their arms around like a spastic monkey in order to surf the web?
I'd question the math - you are still being provided with office space and a computer if you're an employee. Company liability insurance is unchanged; and health insurance is included in that "20-40%" number that I provided above. Do you have a breakdown, it's easily possible I've forgotten something. My numbers are based on when I had a small business a couple of years back that offered 401k, health insurance, vacation time, and a few other perks.
It's called supply and demand. When you have a limited supply and high demand, prices go up. Otherwise, in this case, you get shortages at the pump.
And you know what? People adapted. They drove less. They adapted so that maybe it was good enought o heat their homes to 68 instead of 72 in the winter. As a result, they bought less gas and oil -- and drop in demand is bringing gas/oil prices back down. No government intervention or theft of corporate funds by the government required.
It's easy to point a finger and say "Ooh, big bad oil companies making Too Much Money". But if the government can draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say "This much is too much", then they can easily move that line tomorrow.
An employee costs the company a lot more then just their hourly rate.
Not as much as you'd think. Depending on the benefits you provide, and including the additional 7.5% social security tax, you're looking about 20-40% of the salary cost (often including employer retirement fund and 401k matching contributions). While it's definitely worth considering in your calculations, it's not what I'd call "a lot more".
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Because it's so wrong to make "excessive...profits". Speaking of which, who defines "excessive"? Will companies now have to look at ways to reduce their incoming, so that they don't make "too much" money?/that's/ gonna help the economy in the long run. Oh, hey, by the way, who funds the permanent tax relief, since this is only a 'down payment'?
The point of virtualization is to isolate the hardware from the software - I fail to see how this is unique other than it being done "live" (which just means the VM is suspended, and the state of everything moved to the new machine and the VM resumed).
Erm... actually, if you watch the video, you will see that the "live" migration is actually live - the VM is not suspended, it is kept running and active through the migration.
http://www.wikispeedia.org/ [wikispeedia.org] Here's another item I am promoting. Its not free but useful. Slashdot won't cover it. http://www.gpscruise.com/ [gpscruise.com] What do you think? -jim
I look at the first and I think "um, okaaaay... what's the point? I can see speed limit signs for myself as I drive...". Alas, I can't look at the second because it redirects to a google doc, which my company's proxy blocks.
He's replying to the article in which the OP posted only "use really long words". Well look!
assigned
computer
Alright, they're of middling length and not "really long", but still! Cut the guy some slack, at least he/tried/ to keep on-topic by using middling-length words.
I don't disagree with your message - words are words, and flesh is flesh, there's no reason to "protect" anybody from them. But I do disagree with the supporting argument.
Don't you think that there's a fair chance that in the context of the times, this is not at/all/ what our founding fathers meant for the first amendment to protect? It seems to me it was written with the intent of making sure people could speak out against the state without being silenced. This wasn't written because at the time, it would have been understood.
If you doubt this, what do you think the reaction would have been if someone publicly proclaimed themselves a Satan-worshipper in the 1800s? Or perhaps published written pornographic material and distributed it at local schoolhouses? Would the 'artist' who made a shit-covered statue of 'Virgin Mary' have had his rights protected at that time?
Again, I agree with teh end result - there's NO benefit to censoring "obscenity". However, I do think that protecting it was much more likely an unplanned side effect of the first amendment than it was something that the founding fathers specifically felt should be protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and the bizarre sexual fantasy feeling to it: women spanking each other, humiliating men, and happily coexisting in a polygamous relationship.
That bothered me for a bit too, and I still find it a bit annoying - but logically, what the men in that world are facing is not so different than women face in the male-dominated real world.
And I would hardly say they're happily coexisting - rather, they don't /entirely/ like it, but also don't /entirely/ have a choice about it.
I haven't pooped in 33 days you insensitive clod!
They have all moved to disparate Web forums, the most offensive of which put freely-given advice from volunteers behind a paywall [expertsexchange.com].
Just scroll down past all the stupidity that says "register to see the answer" spam. The actual answers are still on the page, just waaaay down. That's how they still manage to keep showing up in google results.
Of course Humans tend to be lazy and generally anti-intellectual. So if the news is anything more than a sound bit or two it might just get filtered out. Commercial media has to account for this.
Fixed that for you.
Exactly, the thing is that the newspaper's job is to report the truth, and in this case the truth was that McCain lied a lot during the campaign. If Obama had made ads accusing McCain of wanting to re-institute the draft, or cancel all Social Security payments in the next year, the press would have called him out too.
Dude... they both lied a lot. It's what politicians /do/. Take a look at factcheck.org.
That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth)
A half-truth is as good as a lie. Those those ads conveniently neglected to mention the multi-thousand dollar tax credit which would more than offset the cost of insurance premiums.
A more useful link might be this
Yahoo and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are expected to testify along with professors, lawyers and other industry players
That'd be you, me, and anyone else who keeps it going through consumerism (not used in a negative sense). Without us providing the driving need for the innovations that 'require' patents, there would be no need for any IP system at all. (And the "wants to hear your comments via a form" doesn't really qualify to me.)
and by the way, it works for other stuff too, things such as; wills, power of attorney, contracts (yeah, you think they actually review them
Works great, until the conditions of the wills/PoA/contracts, etc are challenged. If you're not in a situation where that's likely to happen, then $12.00 will suffice. If it's a serious concern, you'll want to use the lawyer.
None of which goes away if you have office staff that's non-IT...
For how much longer will we still be using keyboards, mice and joysticks?"
Oh, probably for as long as people want to sit quietly at their PCs to perform their tasks. Who wants to flail their arms around like a spastic monkey in order to surf the web?
Erm, scratch that.
I'd question the math - you are still being provided with office space and a computer if you're an employee. Company liability insurance is unchanged; and health insurance is included in that "20-40%" number that I provided above. Do you have a breakdown, it's easily possible I've forgotten something. My numbers are based on when I had a small business a couple of years back that offered 401k, health insurance, vacation time, and a few other perks.
And you know what? People adapted. They drove less. They adapted so that maybe it was good enought o heat their homes to 68 instead of 72 in the winter. As a result, they bought less gas and oil -- and drop in demand is bringing gas/oil prices back down. No government intervention or theft of corporate funds by the government required.
It's easy to point a finger and say "Ooh, big bad oil companies making Too Much Money". But if the government can draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say "This much is too much", then they can easily move that line tomorrow.
An employee costs the company a lot more then just their hourly rate.
Not as much as you'd think. Depending on the benefits you provide, and including the additional 7.5% social security tax, you're looking about 20-40% of the salary cost (often including employer retirement fund and 401k matching contributions). While it's definitely worth considering in your calculations, it's not what I'd call "a lot more".
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Because it's so wrong to make "excessive...profits". Speaking of which, who defines "excessive"? Will companies now have to look at ways to reduce their incoming, so that they don't make "too much" money? /that's/ gonna help the economy in the long run. Oh, hey, by the way, who funds the permanent tax relief, since this is only a 'down payment'?
The point of virtualization is to isolate the hardware from the software - I fail to see how this is unique other than it being done "live" (which just means the VM is suspended, and the state of everything moved to the new machine and the VM resumed).
Erm... actually, if you watch the video, you will see that the "live" migration is actually live - the VM is not suspended, it is kept running and active through the migration.
While it's a little inconvenience, connecting a car charger goes a long way. If you've got an unlimited data plan, why wouldn't you use this?
Connecting to a car charger is also reputedly bad for battery longevity.
http://www.wikispeedia.org/ [wikispeedia.org] Here's another item I am promoting. Its not free but useful. Slashdot won't cover it. http://www.gpscruise.com/ [gpscruise.com] What do you think? -jim
I look at the first and I think "um, okaaaay... what's the point? I can see speed limit signs for myself as I drive...". Alas, I can't look at the second because it redirects to a google doc, which my company's proxy blocks.
assigned
computer
Alright, they're of middling length and not "really long", but still! Cut the guy some slack, at least he /tried/ to keep on-topic by using middling-length words.
It didn't fool anyone about anything, but they were obviously censored from saying it.
More likely they were censoring themselves so as not to offend their advertisers.
Don't you think that there's a fair chance that in the context of the times, this is not at /all/ what our founding fathers meant for the first amendment to protect? It seems to me it was written with the intent of making sure people could speak out against the state without being silenced. This wasn't written because at the time, it would have been understood.
If you doubt this, what do you think the reaction would have been if someone publicly proclaimed themselves a Satan-worshipper in the 1800s? Or perhaps published written pornographic material and distributed it at local schoolhouses? Would the 'artist' who made a shit-covered statue of 'Virgin Mary' have had his rights protected at that time?
Again, I agree with teh end result - there's NO benefit to censoring "obscenity". However, I do think that protecting it was much more likely an unplanned side effect of the first amendment than it was something that the founding fathers specifically felt should be protected.
... which only works for replies to posts made while logged-in yes?
Yeah, but against which one?
Yes. McCain wanted to tax the poor to pay the wealthy. McCain was two footsteps from the grave with a ditzy anti-choice, creationist VP.
a) Say what? You've really bought into the Obama propaganda hook, line, and sinker haven't you?
b) Creationist? See previous comment. The only supporting "evidence" for that statement are blogs where people make the same statement.
Take a look at factcheck.org, it's highly enlightening on both sides of the fence.
To add to this, never ever simply "reuse" code; if you just copy and paste you'll end up with a horribly designed hack job worth of TDWT
The fact that you seem to think that "copy and paste" is synonymous with "reuse" is a bit disturbing...