I did break the first couple, but have done dozens (hundreds?) since without. There's a bit of a knack to it; as long as you're careful during the unhinging, shouldn't have any problems.
If they would properly shield the TVs or use ones that didn't do that sort of thing it wouldn't be much of an issue. But people shouldn't have to steer clear of certain parts of a building because some insensitive clod chose to put a superfluous TV there.
As someone who has the same problem, I disagree. If they don't want my business, they're free to put up all the TVs they want. The choice they make is that having the TV will attract more custom than it drives away - and unfortunately, they're correct. That doesn't give me the right to expect them to stop doing it, merely because it inconveniences me.
I wish they'd take off that stupid tape thing that is on CD's....damned near impossible to get all off easily. Hell, I go to my Mom's to visit...and her CD's still have most of that crap on them.
Pop the CD case off of its hinge, and unfold it as if the plastic seal were a second "hinge" It then can be lifted cleanly off by pulling the two parts of the case apart.
If you've never run a retail store, you cannot even imagine the value of economy of scale, and consistenty in training across all employee positions. And few things cost you money faster than a stoppage at a cash register because the minimum wage cashier can't remember who has the key to the right lockup case (or even which lockup case the goods are in).
Wouldn't this be more akin to swiping the item on a platter than something that needs escalation to anyone else?
If she is stubborn enough to not acknowledge even the possibility of evolution, and remains a strict creationist even with the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, how can she handle foreign relations where society is drastically different from our own, or even domestic issues that she doesn't believe in?
I haven't seen anything that indicates she doesn't acknowledge the possibility of evolution - where do you? The most damning thing I could find is that she supported discussing both in school - how does that translate to not being open to the possibility of evolution?
For the record: McCain has already lost my vote because of Palin - but that's based on facts, not assumption gleaned from hastily read blogs.
Evangelicals want to attack it, to make students skeptical about science in general. They want to move towards a magical world view where cause and effect are not necessarily linked. Why would a person be interested in balancing a check book, if they literally believe that "God will provide " for them? I mean all they have to do is pray hard enough and eventually they'll be rich too. Or at least that's what a lot of evangelical churches are teaching. They teach that poor people weren't pious or good enough, because obviously if they were, God would have provided for them
I haven't seen anything to indicate that more than a vocal minority of creationists believe this kind of foolishness. It's popular to assume that if someone believes in creationism or ID, they're morons who think that thunder means that God is angry with them. This is reinforced because we all stand around telling each other it must be so.
The funny thing is, though, that I know a lot of religious people who are also intelligent. If the subject weren't taboo in the work place, you would probably find that you do as well. These people are successful in their fields (business and science); and they believe that there is merit to both creationism and evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive. They certainly don't advocate that science not be taught, or that the scientific method be abandoned in favor of faith and magic.
Few of them even care whether "ID" is taught alongside evolution or not - these are people who go about their lives, usually rather successfully. Personally, I believe these "quiet faithful" are the majority of our society's religious people. You might be surprised how many of them you know - and at how little interest they have in shoving their religion down your throat. On the other hand, they/do/ get tired of being considered morons because they have faith in a 'higher power'. I think this is a large part of why McCain is able to make this a close race.
It's much easier to tell ourselves how smart we are when we can paint all of "them" with a single brush as fanatical morons who sit on their asses and wait for god to provide. As is often the case, though, stereotypes only actually fit the smallest minority of the group being classified.
Amateur. When you can use both hands and swap without missing a stroke, you'll have something to boast about. Assuming you can find someone to boast to.
When you need both hands to begin with, then you'll have something to boast about...
It's on permanent optical media, the databases that make all the data intelligible are stored on the servers. Otherwise you have seven years of email in text files, organized chronologically with absolutely no auditing information attached. !
Is the requirement that it be intelligible organized, or just that it be "available"? I mean, if the gov't or someone suing you needs that information, then giving them raw data meets that requirement...;)
Talking with many of my friends, we've agreed "winning" is just a word being used for "Leaving a fair and stable democratic government in Iraq that is not and will not be a threat to America or it's allies"
Just my $0.02
Pretty accurate - except that if you assume the definition of 'fair' to be a US-style system of government, it necessarily precludes the "will not be a threat" portion of that. That's a risk inherent to giving people control over their own lives.
McCain tends to talk about it with language like, "We'll stay there as long as we have to." Meanwhile, Obama's statements tend to be more like, "We wont stay there any longer than we have to." You can definitely make the argument that these statements are effectively the same, but you could also argue that there's a difference.
Those statements are identical. Not because they say the same thing - but because neither one commits to or promises/anything/. As is the case with the vast majority of the things stated by both candidates.
if microsoft did this, the hoardes would be eviscerating the company
if google does this, watch the defenders come out of the woodwork
slashdot bias: microsoft bad, google good, apple shrug
its not the year 2000 folks. google is not some little darling upstart anymore. update your bias accordingly please
I've been seeing similar comments whenever google does something stupid lately - but for all that people claim we're a bunch of google apologists here, I seldom actually see it. Usually google gets torn apart just as much as anyone else does - perhaps even a bit worse than others because of their unfortunate choice of slogan.
I disagree; the testing was done at the system level - so the title of "Ubuntu getting slower" was accurate from the perspective of the tests performed.
I think that's part of the point, yes? The concern is that for whatever reason - whether it be the new scheduler system in the kernel or the bloatware that Ubuntu includes, performance is degrading.
Good follow up would be to figure out specifically where - is it due to kernel changes? Then the problem may not be Ubuntu...
Core Duo... you mean the first generation that was succeeded by the Core 2 Duo in 2006? As I recall, they were steadily losing marketshare while the Core Duo was the best they had to offer.
Well, let's look at the word "selfish": "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others."
Assuming that's what you mean, here's a way of looking at it: so what? It's wrong to do something for yourself, even if it's not in someone else's best interests? Even if it was your hard work and energy that put you in a position to do this in the first place?
If it is, tell me/why/ it is? Why do other people deserve the fruits of their labor? Why should they send their money to a corrupt nation, where it's assured that scarcely any of it will be received by the people who need it?
Why doesn't the millions of dollars that they have already donated to charities count? Must they give it all away and live as paupers to meet that laudable goal of not being "selfish" or "consumerist"?
Poetically, your defense of them has the same root as any defense of ridiculously wealthy people allowing their silly purchases of toys to be publicized. You either are one of them
currently, or you want to be one.
Let me fix that to apply to your post...
Poetically, your contempt for them shows the same deep-rooted envy of those unable to attain such positions of wealth.
Easy to make generalizations, isn't it? Though I suspect mine has as much truth as yours...
But managing these zones isn't going to be invisible. You'll be adding new devices as they are purchased, removing old devices as they are sold/discarded (do you have to prove you've erased the previously authorized content?), flashing firmware to re-authorize devices (because keys will have been revoked), using a restricted set of software (that is able to understand the DRM), waiting for network connections to be available (because it's been too long since the last time the device phoned-home), and so on
Oooh! You've given me an idea. Let's make software just like this. We'll use it to distribute movies and music. And... we'll call it... "eTunes"? No, not quite right. I've got it! We'll call it iTunes!
Slashdot Mirror
I did break the first couple, but have done dozens (hundreds?) since without. There's a bit of a knack to it; as long as you're careful during the unhinging, shouldn't have any problems.
If they would properly shield the TVs or use ones that didn't do that sort of thing it wouldn't be much of an issue. But people shouldn't have to steer clear of certain parts of a building because some insensitive clod chose to put a superfluous TV there.
As someone who has the same problem, I disagree. If they don't want my business, they're free to put up all the TVs they want. The choice they make is that having the TV will attract more custom than it drives away - and unfortunately, they're correct. That doesn't give me the right to expect them to stop doing it, merely because it inconveniences me.
I wish they'd take off that stupid tape thing that is on CD's....damned near impossible to get all off easily. Hell, I go to my Mom's to visit...and her CD's still have most of that crap on them.
Pop the CD case off of its hinge, and unfold it as if the plastic seal were a second "hinge" It then can be lifted cleanly off by pulling the two parts of the case apart.
If you've never run a retail store, you cannot even imagine the value of economy of scale, and consistenty in training across all employee positions. And few things cost you money faster than a stoppage at a cash register because the minimum wage cashier can't remember who has the key to the right lockup case (or even which lockup case the goods are in).
Wouldn't this be more akin to swiping the item on a platter than something that needs escalation to anyone else?
If she is stubborn enough to not acknowledge even the possibility of evolution, and remains a strict creationist even with the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, how can she handle foreign relations where society is drastically different from our own, or even domestic issues that she doesn't believe in?
I haven't seen anything that indicates she doesn't acknowledge the possibility of evolution - where do you? The most damning thing I could find is that she supported discussing both in school - how does that translate to not being open to the possibility of evolution?
For the record: McCain has already lost my vote because of Palin - but that's based on facts, not assumption gleaned from hastily read blogs.
Evangelicals want to attack it, to make students skeptical about science in general. They want to move towards a magical world view where cause and effect are not necessarily linked. Why would a person be interested in balancing a check book, if they literally believe that "God will provide " for them? I mean all they have to do is pray hard enough and eventually they'll be rich too. Or at least that's what a lot of evangelical churches are teaching. They teach that poor people weren't pious or good enough, because obviously if they were, God would have provided for them
I haven't seen anything to indicate that more than a vocal minority of creationists believe this kind of foolishness. It's popular to assume that if someone believes in creationism or ID, they're morons who think that thunder means that God is angry with them. This is reinforced because we all stand around telling each other it must be so.
The funny thing is, though, that I know a lot of religious people who are also intelligent. If the subject weren't taboo in the work place, you would probably find that you do as well. These people are successful in their fields (business and science); and they believe that there is merit to both creationism and evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive. They certainly don't advocate that science not be taught, or that the scientific method be abandoned in favor of faith and magic.
Few of them even care whether "ID" is taught alongside evolution or not - these are people who go about their lives, usually rather successfully. Personally, I believe these "quiet faithful" are the majority of our society's religious people. You might be surprised how many of them you know - and at how little interest they have in shoving their religion down your throat. On the other hand, they /do/ get tired of being considered morons because they have faith in a 'higher power'. I think this is a large part of why McCain is able to make this a close race.
It's much easier to tell ourselves how smart we are when we can paint all of "them" with a single brush as fanatical morons who sit on their asses and wait for god to provide. As is often the case, though, stereotypes only actually fit the smallest minority of the group being classified.
Or paste into into firefox, IE, WMP, etc...
Goat Union
Sounds more like you flood it with requests to display an image; and that image gets loaded repeatedly from the local host.
He is donkey kong. Much like Chuck Norris, one does not tell him what he may and may not do.
Forgive LrdDimwit sir Kong, he knows not of what he speaks.
I use my left hand for that.
Amateur. When you can use both hands and swap without missing a stroke, you'll have something to boast about. Assuming you can find someone to boast to.
When you need both hands to begin with, then you'll have something to boast about...
Faugh, minor details.
It's on permanent optical media, the databases that make all the data intelligible are stored on the servers. Otherwise you have seven years of email in text files, organized chronologically with absolutely no auditing information attached. !
Is the requirement that it be intelligible organized, or just that it be "available"? I mean, if the gov't or someone suing you needs that information, then giving them raw data meets that requirement... ;)
Well stated.
Talking with many of my friends, we've agreed "winning" is just a word being used for "Leaving a fair and stable democratic government in Iraq that is not and will not be a threat to America or it's allies" Just my $0.02
Pretty accurate - except that if you assume the definition of 'fair' to be a US-style system of government, it necessarily precludes the "will not be a threat" portion of that. That's a risk inherent to giving people control over their own lives.
McCain tends to talk about it with language like, "We'll stay there as long as we have to." Meanwhile, Obama's statements tend to be more like, "We wont stay there any longer than we have to." You can definitely make the argument that these statements are effectively the same, but you could also argue that there's a difference.
Those statements are identical. Not because they say the same thing - but because neither one commits to or promises /anything/. As is the case with the vast majority of the things stated by both candidates.
if microsoft did this, the hoardes would be eviscerating the company
if google does this, watch the defenders come out of the woodwork
slashdot bias: microsoft bad, google good, apple shrug
its not the year 2000 folks. google is not some little darling upstart anymore. update your bias accordingly please
I've been seeing similar comments whenever google does something stupid lately - but for all that people claim we're a bunch of google apologists here, I seldom actually see it. Usually google gets torn apart just as much as anyone else does - perhaps even a bit worse than others because of their unfortunate choice of slogan.
was the link posted by GP not sufficient?
Man, you're getting ripped off.
Nope, you've just been smoking oregano for all these years.
I disagree; the testing was done at the system level - so the title of "Ubuntu getting slower" was accurate from the perspective of the tests performed.
Good follow up would be to figure out specifically where - is it due to kernel changes? Then the problem may not be Ubuntu...
Core Duo... you mean the first generation that was succeeded by the Core 2 Duo in 2006? As I recall, they were steadily losing marketshare while the Core Duo was the best they had to offer.
...the problem is with people like you who refuse to entertain the idea that your own selfishness and greed...
... as opposed to your message.
Well, let's look at the word "selfish": "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others."
Assuming that's what you mean, here's a way of looking at it: so what? It's wrong to do something for yourself, even if it's not in someone else's best interests? Even if it was your hard work and energy that put you in a position to do this in the first place?
If it is, tell me /why/ it is? Why do other people deserve the fruits of their labor? Why should they send their money to a corrupt nation, where it's assured that scarcely any of it will be received by the people who need it?
Why doesn't the millions of dollars that they have already donated to charities count? Must they give it all away and live as paupers to meet that laudable goal of not being "selfish" or "consumerist"?
Poetically, your defense of them has the same root as any defense of ridiculously wealthy people allowing their silly purchases of toys to be publicized. You either are one of them currently, or you want to be one.
Let me fix that to apply to your post...
Poetically, your contempt for them shows the same deep-rooted envy of those unable to attain such positions of wealth.
Easy to make generalizations, isn't it? Though I suspect mine has as much truth as yours...
But managing these zones isn't going to be invisible. You'll be adding new devices as they are purchased, removing old devices as they are sold/discarded (do you have to prove you've erased the previously authorized content?), flashing firmware to re-authorize devices (because keys will have been revoked), using a restricted set of software (that is able to understand the DRM), waiting for network connections to be available (because it's been too long since the last time the device phoned-home), and so on
Oooh! You've given me an idea. Let's make software just like this. We'll use it to distribute movies and music. And... we'll call it... "eTunes"? No, not quite right. I've got it! We'll call it iTunes!