For anybody over the last 10-15 years wifi is not "nice to have" its fundamentally broken if it doesn't work.
l. As for touchpad, I have tried disabling it in both Windows 8, and on a different laptop, in Windows 7. Didn't work
If you disable it in device manager its gone.
Reason I complained about Weather is that Windows 8 is the first OS that wants to know my location.
It wants to know what city you are in so it can show you the right weather. I'm having hard time getting upset. Even windows 95 wanted to know what time zone you were in so it could show you the right time.
On Linux this is done in many distros by selecting the nearest large city on a map... Oh noes!
I don't know why you don't want to tell your local pc what city you are in. This is not 'secret'. For most of us, it could fairly accurately geolocate itself by public ip address anyway, at least to city/country sized regions.
Rather, they could have just made Skype the platform for sharing contacts b/w phone & laptop, assuming that it's needed.
Not all of us use skype. There are a multitude of softphone software out there -- a 'contacts' app makes sense.
Linux has "GNOME Contacts" and has had it forever. OSX has a contacts app too. Its hardly a new idea on computers. You many not need it, and that's fine... its not like you have to use it.
Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.
Wildly inconsistent perhaps; but that's women for you. Show nails it. (*ducks*)
In all seriousness, people aren't that rigid and conflicting emotions are common -- what bubbles to the surface today may not be the same as tomorrow. For example I usually tolerate my kids rooms being messy until the days I don't, and then make them clean them up thoroughly - dusting, vacuuming, nothing loose under the bed, even the closet.
Is my "characterisation of a real person inconsistent and flawed" or am I just a real person, who is somewhat inconsistent and flawed?:)
1. Unlike previous versions, in this OS, you have to have a hotmail/live/outlook.com account to do the first step - logging in. Something that wasn't required in Windows 7. I had a Nokia Lumia Phone previously and had no issues w/ that, but the requirements are different. In Windows Phone 8, having that profile enabled me to just transfer everything to a new phone if needed.
No. You don't. There's any number of ways to configure it not to require a Microsoft Login. Here's the steps with screenshots: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/...
I agree its stupid and designed to lead you into creating/usding a Microsoft account, but its trivially easy to bypass.
2. The apps ain't much different either. Contacts - w/ phone#, just like in Windows Phone? Are they retarted - this is a PC. Yeah, one can Skype, but there's a separate Skype app for that. Doesn't need a separate Contacts list
How is this a "problem".don't use contacts. Right click on it, unpin it from your start screen. Done. That said, for people who drank the MS kool-aid and bought a phone and signed in with their MS Live account -- easy automatic sync from phone to PC to Tablet... etc. Is it useful? To someone probably, to me? Not at all, but I don't use the MS calculator app either, but I don't go around complaining about it.
3. Weather - see #2. On a phone, it makes sense. On this, how is it any better than the sidebar that Vista had? Oh, and now PCs/laptops, like phones, want my permission to determine my location. Naah-ah!!!
See number 2 above. Really, you are complaining about the selection of bundled freebie apps? Weather is at least marginally useful, its the ONE tile I let be "live" on the start screen on my HTPC.
4. When you do log into Windows, you are confronted w/ the Metro screen. Yeah, you can install Classic shell, like I did, but that won't change that.
8.1 lets you boot directly to the desktop if you prefer. Its simple setting change.
5. For me, the last straw was that my palms would rest on the trackpad, and while typing, sometimes the charms bar on the right would pop up, along w/ a network panel somewhere in the south west of my screen, inviting me to enable the wi-fi or whatever. It's irritating if you are in the middle of something else & are forced to tap the trackpad to get rid of it
Agreed. Hot corners are stupid. I hate them too. You can disable a couple of them in 8.1, but (last I heard at least) you can't completely turn them off without 3rd party utility/hacks.
Following this, I decided to bite the bullet and install PC-BSD, a DVD of which I had gotten some days ago
Here we go...
I initially had some issues, since it wouldn't recognize either my mouse nor the wi-fi. So I had to get another mouse, and an ethernet cable, and then disable UEFI, and then install it
Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.
Of course, I'd be happier once FreeBSD/PC-BSD supports Wi-Fi on this laptop.
The last straws for windows 8.1 was the charms bar, and a weather app you didn't need, but apparently network support is only a "nice to have"? Get real.
Typing however is a charm, since PC-BSD doesn't recognize the trackpad, so it never comes in the way and I don't need touchfreeze or anything like it.
You realize you can turn your trackpad off in windows too right? You don't need touch freeze, you can disable it outright in device manager. Not to mention other options depending on the trackpad.
The only idiots who like using those "apps" are the ones who would probably be better off with a tablet or smartphone instead of an actual desktop computer,
I like the netflix app, that's about it.
Ok, maybe I'm just a bitter throwback who's resentful that my desktop is being marginalized.
The pendulum looks to be swinging back towards sensibility from 8 to 8.1 to what we've seen of 9.
Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic.
I don't think skeuomorphic means what you think it does.
But regardless, for those in marketing change is king, so these things are cyclical, and we'll just endlessly circle around a good UI without ever settling down and saying "nailed it".:)
[1] - Zoticus, a male consort of Elagabulus [2] - Elagabulus, Roman Emperor, AD 218 to 222
And he was hardly the first or only, but at least this one is rather clearly and unambiguously documented as a "marriage", and not some other male-male relationship.
but it was always "hetero".
It really wasn't though.
Exactly. And the primary (if not the only) purpose of it â" always and everywhere â" was to rear children.
That would only be necessary in monogamous marriages within a Christian framework. It was plenty common for plural marriages to include marriages to both men and women.
And where did those children come from? Adoption? Surrogate mothers?
Additional female wives, concubines, consorts...
I fail to see, how a union of one male and one female must imply the former's ownership of the latter.
Those marriages you speak of for the purpose of "rearing children" were much more than that.
Those "Marriages" were contracts of chattel, duties, and obligations. (And the women was the chattel). The entire purpose of those "for the purpose of child rearing" marriages was not simply to bring a man and women together to produce children, but to establish the payment to the women's family for chattel rights to the woman and the joint offspring, define the amount of the payment, and to define terms for reparations to the 'buyer' if an offspring wasn't forthcoming. (including the return of the 'merchandise' and 'refund', perhaps even damages for time etc. To suggest that those elements are of "marriage" are any more or any less intrinsic to the transaction than the hetero nature of those contracts is simply nuts.
Oh yes... please do that. I want to log in and there be 500,000 "apps" to slum through. 100,000 phrasebooks for different languages. 200,000 photo retouching apps. Where my only hope of finding anything useful is to keep to the top 100 lists.
Yes, lets copy apple and google and replicate their problems.
There is definitely room for improvement on Nintendos store platform, OpenUp and do Apple or GooglePlay is just going full retard.
I agree with you entirely, and in the vast majority of cases, I don't think there are outright bribes.
However, say a large business is hiring you to do environmental impact studies -- you know they will shop around. On the one hand you are motivated to do a good impact study, on the other you know that they are interested in getting a pass.
Even without full on corruption or bribery, the guys doing the impact studies paycheques are coming from people who want to get permits -- and if they can get more favorable studies from another company, they will hire the other company.
That conflict of interest results in them conducting studies, and putting the results in the best possible light.
So permits may be issued, when they really shouldn't be. But the problem is difficult to resolve because who else but the company wanting access should fund the study? The general public should hardly foot the bill.
I'll clarify. Suppose a city has ordinances requiring certain building codes be followed for new construction.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
In other cities, in addition to city employees, there are 3rd party consulting companies that can perform inspections, prepare reports, and submit them to the city. Provided the building developer provides the city a report done by one of these companies, the city will authorize an occupancy permit or whatever. So now if one employee of one of the consulting companies is corrupt does that really mean the city is somehow corrupt or not serious about buildings being to code? That seems a huge stretch.
Similarly, in many cases things like "environmental impact assessments" are not done by the country itself, instead they are done by universitys, researchers, and dedicated consulting companies. If you can find a student research or consultancy employee willing to fudge some data to get a 'pass'... that hardly means the whole country isn't serious about the environment.
If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.
No, I think it works just fine. If I own a gun, and suddenly they become outlawed, I too become an outlaw.
That has never been what the phrase meant. It has always meant that if you outlaw something, then it won't stop the outlaws from having it, because by virtue of being outlaws they'll ignore the law anyway.
In the case of guns specifically it amounts to effectively disarming the law abiding citizens, leaving only the criminals with guns.
It has never meant that if you outlaw something that suddenly all the law abiding citizens will be outlaws too.
The point is, if you ban something that is commonly used or owned, people will suddenly become outlaws for no other reason than because it illegal to have.
There is, of course, some truth to that too, but it is not the point the maxim makes. Law abiding people presumably will abide by the law and dispose of the contraband in an orderly fashion.
For example, If your neighbors all commonly dumped old/extra pesticides, gasoline, motor oil, etc into the river, and a law banning the dumping of such into the river was passed, I expect they are generally law abiding, and they would stop. It wouldn't suddenly criminalize all of them.
The premise is that "keyboard missing, press F1 to continue" is "funny" is because you can incorrectly interpret it to mean the following contradiction:
"The keyboard is missing, now press F1 on the keyboard to continue without one"
But it never meant that, it means the far more reasonable:
"The keyboard is missing; I'm currently configured to ensure that one is attached, so please attach one, and then press F1 on it to continue"
If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with.
That's like saying the IRS is corrupt if it accepts even a single tax return prepared by a corrupt tax preparing accountant.
That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the organization.
What happens when someone steals someone's account and does bad things?
Cyber bullying tends to takes place over a period of months years. A single death threat sure... you can use that defense and get away with it, with nothing more than "now change your damned password" and don't share it.
But weeks on end? After multiple incidents reported?
"I'm sorry your honor, those darned hackers just keep breaking into my account every single day... and I'm really trying to keep them out. And all the witness testimony about how I hate the victim, and was a beast to her at school...its all lies. And those texts sent bragging about making the bullying posts from my phone after 11 different incidents -- um you know... I'm always leaving my phone where strangers can have a go at it..."
That's the thing about evidence. It accumulates until you are "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
I dunno, RL bullying tends to stay just within the law and/or incidents are very difficult to prove boiling down to he-said she-said. I ran into bullying at school at few times over the years -- and ran into first hand how hard it was to effectively combat -- they're criminals and thugs but evidence is nearly impossible, and even if the police or school want to help its really hard to get evidence or pursue a case.
When its gets anonymous and online two things happen -- the stuff is taken to whole other levels -- death threats, etc. Stuff that without anonymity would either not be made so brazenly and publicly, or could be effectively followed up on by the police since there is now real evidence of a crime.
Lol, I wish the guys who'd bullied me had posted their death threats etc on the school bulletin board, signed their names to it, all in full view of surveillance cameras. Shit would have come down on them for that.
Right now, for better or for worse, you can really go to town on someone online.
To paraphrase a quote on a different subject: "If you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous online."
Actually the quote only really works with guns.
With guns, "only outlaws have guns" is a "problem" because guns confer confer considerable power over others to the outlaws.
With anything else, the response "So what?"
For example, if you outlaw wearing red, only outlaws will wear red. So what. It makes it easy for the police to round them up and toss them in jail. Good riddance to stupid outlaws.
And it follows that if you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous -- again... so what? They are self identifying as outlaws, so its easy to just ban their pseuodoaccounts as soon as they pop up; and law-abiding society can all form ranks to just ignore them/mod them down/report them for being anonymous; etc.
These scenarios are not like guns; guns uniquely empower criminals in a way that isn't generally applicable.
*** AGAIN I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not even slightly in favor of outlawing anonymity (or the color red) -- just pointing out the flaw in the paraphrased argument. ***
I am NOT at all even slightly for eliminating online anon; but playing the devil's advocate:
So you think making it possible for bullies to determine the RL identities of their victims is going the REDUCE online abuse?
No, but determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
That doesn't follow, you just shop "environmental impact statement companies" until you find one willing to take your money in exchange for permission.
That says nothing about the importance of anything, merely that one can usually find someone who is corrupt.
I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath. A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do. Not ad hominem -- merely an observation.
Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.
To whom?
So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all.
Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.
if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.
Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded. Whether he'd have cared about an anti-tivoization clause at the time... you'll maybe recall that Linux 0.01 through 0.11 was released under a license that forbade commercial use in 1991.
He switched to the GPL in 1992. Your indulging in some serious mythologizing to even suggest he had such an extremely nuanced understanding and appreciation for a license that had only been around for a couple years. (GPL v1 was released in 89), and GPLv2 was barely 6 months old when Linus adopted it.
You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up. Unless maybe, just maybe Linus' stance on the license has evolved and become a lot more nuanced over the last 20+ years.
So what is your point?
1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.
2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.
They want the society to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions (which no civilization in the history of the world has ever equated with regular marriage).
You sure about that? Pre christian roman, ancient chinese, and ancient egypt all have instances of same sex marriages.
For example, the Roman Empire's equivalent of gay marriage was banned in the 3rd century Roman Empire, where it had previously been legal.
Your sense of the word marry as being specifically man to female is clearly proto-Christian; and quite bluntly archaic in the face of modern understanding that many *people* are neither strictly maile or female. Are you going to deny them the ability to get married too? If you are hermaphroditic? What if you are chimeric with both male and female DNA? Nevermind the transgendered.
There is no way the legal status 'marriage' in any modern country should be tied to such an archaic and religious definition. Society itself has largely moved on to understand and accept that a relationship can have all the characteristics of marriage irrespective of the absence or presence of physical appendages or genetic markers.
"Straight marriage" is just as much a tautology [..]
Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.
The idea that it necessarily and inherently implies straight is as ridiculous as the idea that it implies male ownership of the bride as chattel, such as it did in the Hebrew bible.
Printing a fake card is dirt cheap, and the 'customer can put an accomplices number on the back. Remember, the whole scam revolves around the card not working properly in the machine; so they can pretty much hand you anything.
You must call your own merchant account provider, and THEY will look up any bank phone numbers that they might need to validate the card and authorize the transaction.
On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.
What is this "something else that goes wrong"?
That someone outside the system gains access to the system via the ports that were publicly open, that the firewall would have let them in through anyway? (And once in, they can change your firewall... so that's not buying you much.)
What else can go wrong? That you the admin opened a service you weren't supposed to? Ok... yes, that could happen.
And a firewall gives you some defense in depth to that. But so would a separate hardware firewall between the server and the rest of the network.
I suppose you could misconfigure THAT one too. Oops. Is adding yet another firewall really a solution? Why not 2 hardware firewalls, one after the other? Why not 7 just in case you botch the first 6? Is that better? If you need that, maybe you shouldn't be in network admin?
Meanwhile, this additional firewall you add, its software, so you've added another point of failure that could itself have vulnerabilities, defects, and of course you have to configure it correctly.
Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.
Not true. If we redefine, what "karate" means [...]
Then there is no point in talking about karate anymore in the context of the argument, and we should switch to another sport that is defined such that the point makes sense.
Arbitrarily redefining the terms to suit your argument doesn't make you right, and ins't a valid form. If karate is suddenly redefined as something else, then naturally any claims I've made about it become meaningless.
Why not redefine "marriage" as "eat" and then "barglespock" as what was formerly meant by marriage, and perhaps "homosexual" to mean "fish" and "cheetos" as what was formerly meant by homosexual. And then you can triumphantly declare that homosexuals can marry (fish can eat) all they like. Win!!
But the real debate now is whether cheetos can barglespock.
So how about we leave "marriage" and "karate" defined the way they commonly defined, rather than try to splice new semantics which only confuse the argument.
There are, indeed, organizations trying to keep the semantics of the term "marriage" from being redefined to include same-sex partners.
Nobody is out there trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It is not the law, that prevents them from entering into marriage, it is their own biology (or preference, or whatever).
Now you are just being obtuse. Gays want to be "married". We all KNOW what they mean by that. And your silly argument is attempting to substitute a particularly narrow legal definition of marriage (that only applies in *some* jurisdictions) for the common and well understood broad definition of marriage, in a silly attempt to score points.
Stop playing games with sematics. Its clear to everyone that when I wrote "the law prevents gays from getting married" I was not suggesting that the law prevented gays from entering into straight marriages.
At this stage your just trolling. Perhaps that was your intent, in which case, gratz, you got me.
Slashdot Mirror
"You have to deprive some owner of the benefits of his ownership."
That quote?
The 'owner' is the guy who bought the oscilloscope. The guy who sold it to him doesn't still own it.
Wi-Fi support is nice to have
For anybody over the last 10-15 years wifi is not "nice to have" its fundamentally broken if it doesn't work.
l. As for touchpad, I have tried disabling it in both Windows 8, and on a different laptop, in Windows 7. Didn't work
If you disable it in device manager its gone.
Reason I complained about Weather is that Windows 8 is the first OS that wants to know my location.
It wants to know what city you are in so it can show you the right weather. I'm having hard time getting upset. Even windows 95 wanted to know what time zone you were in so it could show you the right time.
On Linux this is done in many distros by selecting the nearest large city on a map... Oh noes!
I don't know why you don't want to tell your local pc what city you are in. This is not 'secret'. For most of us, it could fairly accurately geolocate itself by public ip address anyway, at least to city/country sized regions.
Rather, they could have just made Skype the platform for sharing contacts b/w phone & laptop, assuming that it's needed.
Not all of us use skype. There are a multitude of softphone software out there -- a 'contacts' app makes sense.
Linux has "GNOME Contacts" and has had it forever. OSX has a contacts app too. Its hardly a new idea on computers. You many not need it, and that's fine... its not like you have to use it.
Especially Penny swings from 'willing to accept Leonard's idiosyncracies', to the mainstream standard 'grow up and throw your toys away' attiturde.
Wildly inconsistent perhaps; but that's women for you. Show nails it. (*ducks*)
In all seriousness, people aren't that rigid and conflicting emotions are common -- what bubbles to the surface today may not be the same as tomorrow. For example I usually tolerate my kids rooms being messy until the days I don't, and then make them clean them up thoroughly - dusting, vacuuming, nothing loose under the bed, even the closet.
Is my "characterisation of a real person inconsistent and flawed" or am I just a real person, who is somewhat inconsistent and flawed? :)
1. Unlike previous versions, in this OS, you have to have a hotmail/live/outlook.com account to do the first step - logging in. Something that wasn't required in Windows 7. I had a Nokia Lumia Phone previously and had no issues w/ that, but the requirements are different. In Windows Phone 8, having that profile enabled me to just transfer everything to a new phone if needed.
No. You don't. There's any number of ways to configure it not to require a Microsoft Login.
Here's the steps with screenshots:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/...
I agree its stupid and designed to lead you into creating/usding a Microsoft account, but its trivially easy to bypass.
2. The apps ain't much different either. Contacts - w/ phone#, just like in Windows Phone? Are they retarted - this is a PC. Yeah, one can Skype, but there's a separate Skype app for that. Doesn't need a separate Contacts list
How is this a "problem".don't use contacts. Right click on it, unpin it from your start screen. Done. That said, for people who drank the MS kool-aid and bought a phone and signed in with their MS Live account -- easy automatic sync from phone to PC to Tablet ... etc. Is it useful? To someone probably, to me? Not at all, but I don't use the MS calculator app either, but I don't go around complaining about it.
3. Weather - see #2. On a phone, it makes sense. On this, how is it any better than the sidebar that Vista had? Oh, and now PCs/laptops, like phones, want my permission to determine my location. Naah-ah!!!
See number 2 above. Really, you are complaining about the selection of bundled freebie apps? Weather is at least marginally useful, its the ONE tile I let be "live" on the start screen on my HTPC.
4. When you do log into Windows, you are confronted w/ the Metro screen. Yeah, you can install Classic shell, like I did, but that won't change that.
8.1 lets you boot directly to the desktop if you prefer. Its simple setting change.
5. For me, the last straw was that my palms would rest on the trackpad, and while typing, sometimes the charms bar on the right would pop up, along w/ a network panel somewhere in the south west of my screen, inviting me to enable the wi-fi or whatever. It's irritating if you are in the middle of something else & are forced to tap the trackpad to get rid of it
Agreed. Hot corners are stupid. I hate them too. You can disable a couple of them in 8.1, but (last I heard at least) you can't completely turn them off without 3rd party utility/hacks.
Following this, I decided to bite the bullet and install PC-BSD, a DVD of which I had gotten some days ago
Here we go...
I initially had some issues, since it wouldn't recognize either my mouse nor the wi-fi. So I had to get another mouse, and an ethernet cable, and then disable UEFI, and then install it
Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.
Of course, I'd be happier once FreeBSD/PC-BSD supports Wi-Fi on this laptop.
The last straws for windows 8.1 was the charms bar, and a weather app you didn't need, but apparently network support is only a "nice to have"? Get real.
Typing however is a charm, since PC-BSD doesn't recognize the trackpad, so it never comes in the way and I don't need touchfreeze or anything like it.
You realize you can turn your trackpad off in windows too right? You don't need touch freeze, you can disable it outright in device manager. Not to mention other options depending on the trackpad.
The only idiots who like using those "apps" are the ones who would probably be better off with a tablet or smartphone instead of an actual desktop computer,
I like the netflix app, that's about it.
Ok, maybe I'm just a bitter throwback who's resentful that my desktop is being marginalized.
The pendulum looks to be swinging back towards sensibility from 8 to 8.1 to what we've seen of 9.
Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic.
I don't think skeuomorphic means what you think it does.
But regardless, for those in marketing change is king, so these things are cyclical, and we'll just endlessly circle around a good UI without ever settling down and saying "nailed it". :)
Assuming the balance needs to be paid exactly 1 month after spending, we get 1.03^12 ~= 1.42. Ie. that 3% amounts to the same as a 42% annual interest
That 3% is charged to the merchant, and is built into the list price in virtually all cases, so you are "paying" that whether you use a card or not.
Some cultures were tolerant of homosexuality itself (even if they mocked it a bit), but none equated homosexual unions with marriage.
They were tolerant to the point of recognizing the unions; sanctioning and accepting them within society with the same deference as hetero unions.
What "equivalent of gay marriage"?
The roman equivalent of marriage; since marriage in 200 AD doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as marriage means today.
"With this man[1] Elagabalus[2] went through a nuptial ceremony and consummated a marriage [...]"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/T...
[1] - Zoticus, a male consort of Elagabulus
[2] - Elagabulus, Roman Emperor, AD 218 to 222
And he was hardly the first or only, but at least this one is rather clearly and unambiguously documented as a "marriage", and not some other male-male relationship.
but it was always "hetero".
It really wasn't though.
Exactly. And the primary (if not the only) purpose of it â" always and everywhere â" was to rear children.
That would only be necessary in monogamous marriages within a Christian framework. It was plenty common for plural marriages to include marriages to both men and women.
And where did those children come from? Adoption? Surrogate mothers?
Additional female wives, concubines, consorts...
I fail to see, how a union of one male and one female must imply the former's ownership of the latter.
Those marriages you speak of for the purpose of "rearing children" were much more than that.
Those "Marriages" were contracts of chattel, duties, and obligations. (And the women was the chattel). The entire purpose of those "for the purpose of child rearing" marriages was not simply to bring a man and women together to produce children, but to establish the payment to the women's family for chattel rights to the woman and the joint offspring, define the amount of the payment, and to define terms for reparations to the 'buyer' if an offspring wasn't forthcoming. (including the return of the 'merchandise' and 'refund', perhaps even damages for time etc. To suggest that those elements are of "marriage" are any more or any less intrinsic to the transaction than the hetero nature of those contracts is simply nuts.
Oh yes... please do that. I want to log in and there be 500,000 "apps" to slum through. 100,000 phrasebooks for different languages. 200,000 photo retouching apps. Where my only hope of finding anything useful is to keep to the top 100 lists.
Yes, lets copy apple and google and replicate their problems.
There is definitely room for improvement on Nintendos store platform, OpenUp and do Apple or GooglePlay is just going full retard.
I agree with you entirely, and in the vast majority of cases, I don't think there are outright bribes.
However, say a large business is hiring you to do environmental impact studies -- you know they will shop around. On the one hand you are motivated to do a good impact study, on the other you know that they are interested in getting a pass.
Even without full on corruption or bribery, the guys doing the impact studies paycheques are coming from people who want to get permits -- and if they can get more favorable studies from another company, they will hire the other company.
That conflict of interest results in them conducting studies, and putting the results in the best possible light.
So permits may be issued, when they really shouldn't be. But the problem is difficult to resolve because who else but the company wanting access should fund the study? The general public should hardly foot the bill.
YOU DIDN'T GET THE JOKE.
I got the joke. That's why it wasn't a whoosh.
Had the BIOS authors intended the error to say that
Lol, bios has some the worst english I've ever read.
I'm not sure I follow your analogy
I'll clarify. Suppose a city has ordinances requiring certain building codes be followed for new construction.
In some cities the city employs all its own inspectors. If just one of those inspectors can be bribed, does that really mean the organization (city) is not serious about the codes being followed? That seems a stretch.
In other cities, in addition to city employees, there are 3rd party consulting companies that can perform inspections, prepare reports, and submit them to the city. Provided the building developer provides the city a report done by one of these companies, the city will authorize an occupancy permit or whatever. So now if one employee of one of the consulting companies is corrupt does that really mean the city is somehow corrupt or not serious about buildings being to code? That seems a huge stretch.
Similarly, in many cases things like "environmental impact assessments" are not done by the country itself, instead they are done by universitys, researchers, and dedicated consulting companies. If you can find a student research or consultancy employee willing to fudge some data to get a 'pass'... that hardly means the whole country isn't serious about the environment.
If some corrupt organization granted the filming permits when they weren't supposed to, the government can always revoke them anyways.
Of course.
No, I think it works just fine. If I own a gun, and suddenly they become outlawed, I too become an outlaw.
That has never been what the phrase meant. It has always meant that if you outlaw something, then it won't stop the outlaws from having it, because by virtue of being outlaws they'll ignore the law anyway.
In the case of guns specifically it amounts to effectively disarming the law abiding citizens, leaving only the criminals with guns.
It has never meant that if you outlaw something that suddenly all the law abiding citizens will be outlaws too.
The point is, if you ban something that is commonly used or owned, people will suddenly become outlaws for no other reason than because it illegal to have.
There is, of course, some truth to that too, but it is not the point the maxim makes. Law abiding people presumably will abide by the law and dispose of the contraband in an orderly fashion.
For example, If your neighbors all commonly dumped old/extra pesticides, gasoline, motor oil, etc into the river, and a law banning the dumping of such into the river was passed, I expect they are generally law abiding, and they would stop. It wouldn't suddenly criminalize all of them.
But mostly I would say ... "whoosh".
Its not a 'whoosh'
The premise is that "keyboard missing, press F1 to continue" is "funny" is because you can incorrectly interpret it to mean the following contradiction:
"The keyboard is missing, now press F1 on the keyboard to continue without one"
But it never meant that, it means the far more reasonable:
"The keyboard is missing; I'm currently configured to ensure that one is attached, so please attach one, and then press F1 on it to continue"
If the organizations that grant such permission are corrupt enough to accept a fee in exchange for ignoring the environment, then again., as I said, the environment isn't actually that important to them to begin with.
That's like saying the IRS is corrupt if it accepts even a single tax return prepared by a corrupt tax preparing accountant.
That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the organization.
Everything else you wrote i agree with though.
What happens when someone steals someone's account and does bad things?
Cyber bullying tends to takes place over a period of months years. A single death threat sure... you can use that defense and get away with it, with nothing more than "now change your damned password" and don't share it.
But weeks on end? After multiple incidents reported?
"I'm sorry your honor, those darned hackers just keep breaking into my account every single day... and I'm really trying to keep them out. And all the witness testimony about how I hate the victim, and was a beast to her at school...its all lies. And those texts sent bragging about making the bullying posts from my phone after 11 different incidents -- um you know... I'm always leaving my phone where strangers can have a go at it..."
That's the thing about evidence. It accumulates until you are "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
I dunno, RL bullying tends to stay just within the law and/or incidents are very difficult to prove boiling down to he-said she-said. I ran into bullying at school at few times over the years -- and ran into first hand how hard it was to effectively combat -- they're criminals and thugs but evidence is nearly impossible, and even if the police or school want to help its really hard to get evidence or pursue a case.
When its gets anonymous and online two things happen -- the stuff is taken to whole other levels -- death threats, etc. Stuff that without anonymity would either not be made so brazenly and publicly, or could be effectively followed up on by the police since there is now real evidence of a crime.
Lol, I wish the guys who'd bullied me had posted their death threats etc on the school bulletin board, signed their names to it, all in full view of surveillance cameras. Shit would have come down on them for that.
Right now, for better or for worse, you can really go to town on someone online.
To paraphrase a quote on a different subject: "If you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous online."
Actually the quote only really works with guns.
With guns, "only outlaws have guns" is a "problem" because guns confer confer considerable power over others to the outlaws.
With anything else, the response "So what?"
For example, if you outlaw wearing red, only outlaws will wear red. So what. It makes it easy for the police to round them up and toss them in jail. Good riddance to stupid outlaws.
And it follows that if you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous -- again... so what? They are self identifying as outlaws, so its easy to just ban their pseuodoaccounts as soon as they pop up; and law-abiding society can all form ranks to just ignore them/mod them down/report them for being anonymous; etc.
These scenarios are not like guns; guns uniquely empower criminals in a way that isn't generally applicable.
*** AGAIN I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not even slightly in favor of outlawing anonymity (or the color red) -- just pointing out the flaw in the paraphrased argument. ***
I am NOT at all even slightly for eliminating online anon; but playing the devil's advocate:
So you think making it possible for bullies to determine the RL identities of their victims is going the REDUCE online abuse?
No, but determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I've lost track of the times I've had a BIOS report: "Keyboard failure. No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue..."
At which point you plug in a working keyboard and press F1.
If money can buy permission to destroy an environment, then the environment isn't really that important in the first place.
That doesn't follow, you just shop "environmental impact statement companies" until you find one willing to take your money in exchange for permission.
That says nothing about the importance of anything, merely that one can usually find someone who is corrupt.
I'm just pointing out that you are acting like a sociopath. A license (contract) is supposed to be a "meeting of minds"; perverting the intention of the contract terms is a sociopathic thing to do. Not ad hominem -- merely an observation.
Because as he has made clear many many times that's all that matters, what the authors of the GPLv2 think about that or what you think they intended the license for has no relevance whatsoever.
To whom?
So? Clearly the authors of the GPLv2 didn't consider it either or they didn't care about Tivoization at all.
Clearly. If they didn't care theyd' never have released a GPLv3 specifically to close that loop hole in what they wrote vis-a-vis their intent. Oh wait... they did release a GPLv3. Guess they cared.
if the license explicitly placed restrictions on the use of the code outside of contributing it back then the GPLv2 would not have been used because Linus has made clear many times that it is about "tit for tat" and nothing more.
Its impossible to say what Linus would have done at 22 years old in 1992 if the GPL had been slightly differently worded. Whether he'd have cared about an anti-tivoization clause at the time... you'll maybe recall that Linux 0.01 through 0.11 was released under a license that forbade commercial use in 1991.
He switched to the GPL in 1992. Your indulging in some serious mythologizing to even suggest he had such an extremely nuanced understanding and appreciation for a license that had only been around for a couple years. (GPL v1 was released in 89), and GPLv2 was barely 6 months old when Linus adopted it.
You are saying the same person that you argue thought tivoization was a good thing when he selected GPL was against any commercial use at all just a few months earlier? That doesn't add up. Unless maybe, just maybe Linus' stance on the license has evolved and become a lot more nuanced over the last 20+ years.
So what is your point?
1) That Linus in 2007 isn't really the same kid that picked GPLv2 for his experimental kernel project in 1992.
2) That Linus in 1992 wasn't really making pro-tivoization arguments in 1992 when he selected that license.
They want the society to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions (which no civilization in the history of the world has ever equated with regular marriage).
You sure about that? Pre christian roman, ancient chinese, and ancient egypt all have instances of same sex marriages.
For example, the Roman Empire's equivalent of gay marriage was banned in the 3rd century Roman Empire, where it had previously been legal.
Your sense of the word marry as being specifically man to female is clearly proto-Christian; and quite bluntly archaic in the face of modern understanding that many *people* are neither strictly maile or female. Are you going to deny them the ability to get married too? If you are hermaphroditic? What if you are chimeric with both male and female DNA? Nevermind the transgendered.
There is no way the legal status 'marriage' in any modern country should be tied to such an archaic and religious definition. Society itself has largely moved on to understand and accept that a relationship can have all the characteristics of marriage irrespective of the absence or presence of physical appendages or genetic markers.
"Straight marriage" is just as much a tautology [..]
Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.
The idea that it necessarily and inherently implies straight is as ridiculous as the idea that it implies male ownership of the bride as chattel, such as it did in the Hebrew bible.
What reasons? Because it isn't obvious.
Printing a fake card is dirt cheap, and the 'customer can put an accomplices number on the back. Remember, the whole scam revolves around the card not working properly in the machine; so they can pretty much hand you anything.
You must call your own merchant account provider, and THEY will look up any bank phone numbers that they might need to validate the card and authorize the transaction.
On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.
What is this "something else that goes wrong"?
That someone outside the system gains access to the system via the ports that were publicly open, that the firewall would have let them in through anyway? (And once in, they can change your firewall... so that's not buying you much.)
What else can go wrong? That you the admin opened a service you weren't supposed to? Ok... yes, that could happen.
And a firewall gives you some defense in depth to that. But so would a separate hardware firewall between the server and the rest of the network.
I suppose you could misconfigure THAT one too. Oops. Is adding yet another firewall really a solution? Why not 2 hardware firewalls, one after the other? Why not 7 just in case you botch the first 6? Is that better? If you need that, maybe you shouldn't be in network admin?
Meanwhile, this additional firewall you add, its software, so you've added another point of failure that could itself have vulnerabilities, defects, and of course you have to configure it correctly.
Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.
Not true. If we redefine, what "karate" means [...]
Then there is no point in talking about karate anymore in the context of the argument, and we should switch to another sport that is defined such that the point makes sense.
Arbitrarily redefining the terms to suit your argument doesn't make you right, and ins't a valid form. If karate is suddenly redefined as something else, then naturally any claims I've made about it become meaningless.
Why not redefine "marriage" as "eat" and then "barglespock" as what was formerly meant by marriage, and perhaps "homosexual" to mean "fish" and "cheetos" as what was formerly meant by homosexual. And then you can triumphantly declare that homosexuals can marry (fish can eat) all they like. Win!!
But the real debate now is whether cheetos can barglespock.
So how about we leave "marriage" and "karate" defined the way they commonly defined, rather than try to splice new semantics which only confuse the argument.
There are, indeed, organizations trying to keep the semantics of the term "marriage" from being redefined to include same-sex partners.
Nobody is out there trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It is not the law, that prevents them from entering into marriage, it is their own biology (or preference, or whatever).
Now you are just being obtuse. Gays want to be "married". We all KNOW what they mean by that. And your silly argument is attempting to substitute a particularly narrow legal definition of marriage (that only applies in *some* jurisdictions) for the common and well understood broad definition of marriage, in a silly attempt to score points.
Stop playing games with sematics. Its clear to everyone that when I wrote "the law prevents gays from getting married" I was not suggesting that the law prevented gays from entering into straight marriages.
At this stage your just trolling. Perhaps that was your intent, in which case, gratz, you got me.