Not exactly. The people who are ruining it for the everyday homosexual are the ones that have half a dozen "hate is not a family value" stickers on their car, have a wardrobe that is 75% rainbow-ornamented, and/or have affected distinctive and stereotypical speech affectations in order to feel more properly homosexual.
Yes, there are people who will freak out at every little mention of homosexuality, but there's also people who freak out at the mention of *any* sexuality (and then run to HR, etcetc). The point is, people who are "matter of factly" gay don't make the waves, it's the people who make it the focus of their existence. It's no different than the people who are "matter of factly" homosexual vs the people who have to comment on every member of the opposite sex they see to anyone who happens to be standing near them, or bring up their need to get laid this weekend, etc.
While I am generally sympathetic to gay rights and the associated societal adjustments implied therein, the idea that heterosexuality is broadcast constantly is slightly problematic. First off, since the default sexual orientation for humans is heterosexuality, it isn't necessary to broadcast anything. Heterosexuality is *assumed*, because by and large you can assume that humans are heterosexual and be correct the overwhelming amount of the time. Furthermore, the idea that every day tasks and activities broadcast sexuality is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of every day tasks are asexual.
Now, it might be correctly argued that every day asks may indicate *gender roles*, but in order to equate that with sexuality means that all heterosexuals indicate their gender roles and view their sexuality equally, which obviously is a flawed premise. It's as correct as saying that all homosexuals express their sexuality in the same fashion (that is, all gay men are lispy, overdressed flamers, and all lesbians of the "butch" stereotype) instead of there being a wide range of different attitudes and appearance choices made by the whole subculture.
The practical solution, one employed by heterosexuals every day, is not to wear your sexuality on your sleeve. I'd go so far as to say that homosexuals who make their sexual preferences part of their all-day-every-day personality are just as annoying (and worthy of mockery) as the heterosexual guy who never quite grew out of his fraternity days and keeps nudging you while making purposefully-louder-than-necessary comments about how hot the woman who just got on the bus happens to be.
Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Sounds to me like they're saying the imaging process was at fault for the first test, since the second test was fine. At least, if I were troubleshooting this, that's where I'd look. Not at the operating system on the original machine.
Wouldn't be surprising to me, as well, if the Acronis tool didn't support a BETA OPERATING SYSTEM.
No, they make money by offering games that statistically favor the House. That's very different, since "cheating" implies they break the rules. Everyone knows the House has an advantage if you play. Fortunately, there's games that are not totally random which you can "beat the house" at eventually.
Overall, taking the entire population of gamblers, the House beats them the overwhelming majority of the time, this is true. However, people do indeed win at gambling. It's very profitable for the House, and fun in moderation for the rest of us.
It is incorrect to believe that every gambling game is entirely random. There are some *variables* that are random with most games, but it is not true that every gambling game (there are some) is wholly random. That's why card counting is a "problem" for the house, for example.
You seem very passionate about this particular topic. You should get that looked at.
Sounds like someone really sucks at gambling, to me.
For the record, aside from one time, I've never left a casino with less money than when I arrived. Sure, maybe it wasn't a jackpot, but I still came away with a profit AND had a good time.
Maybe your tinfoil hat gets in the way of your gambling ability, or your ability to enjoy frivolous things.
I would imagine there really isn't a very reliable way to check for such a thing that's not done on a large scale (onesie-twosie purchases probably end up under the radar)?
They stopped using thimerosal in the MMR vaccine *years* ago. In fact, that is what makes it so trivially easy to show that mercury from thimerosal in the MMR vaccine was unrelated to autism. They removed it, and nothing changed.
(And by nothing, I mean not even the anti-vaccination rhetoric. It's about as bad as the buffoons who claim that Coke is addictive because they surreptitiously still add cocaine -- undetectable cocaine, even!)
Mod this guy up. Thimerosal hasn't been used in first world vaccines for several years now. If it was the cause, we would have seen a precipitous drop in Autism cases.
One of the PBS stations in Denver had a problem that shut down their analog tower in December. They decided it wasn't worth it to fix it, and so have been running crawls all last month about how they're DTV only now.
Apps certainly are there. Except for some special cases, there's an equivalent app for everything you have on windos. Especially for a normal office environment, it definitely is all there.
But, it's not the very same apps that people know. And people prefer the known bad to the unknown good, and the known abysmal to the unknown unknown, if you know what I mean.
That's kind of the point. There's enough things to do in a business day without changing from the current application suite for a company, to another suite that does the exact same thing, on the basis of ideological OS reasoning.
Not to mention that the "alternate" OSes just don't really count outside of some minority situations on the corporate desktop. I get annoyed by Windows quirks as much as anyone, but until Microsoft stops making Office and Exchange (not to mention Sharepoint) while the other OSes will wax and wane, MS will remain the standard deployment.
This is because support for XP still existed and downgrade options were available.
Corporate IT departments don't upgrade OSes on a whim and hold onto installed OS bases as long as possible. Vista wasn't necessary to upgrade to because the licensing and support terms for XP were still usable.
Once that goes away, you'll see Vista and/or Windows 7 become more prevalent.
This is the difference between how real, medium-large scale corporate IT works, and how Linux fanboys (and annoying, anti-MS cheerleaders) think it works.
He didn't say anything about the political affiliation. This isn't even a "Republicans always do this!" type of comment. It's a "Katherine Harris is crazy" comment.
Stop helping to politicize everything. You're hurting America.
My point is that the US gets the blame for collateral damage, but not credit for killing Bad Guys(tm). Really that's the crux of my position.
Also, Israel managed to kill only ~1000 in a hugely populated area of over 1,000,000. In the media, there's not a single mention of how many of those are combatants. Whether or not I agree with Israel going into Gaza, you have to agree that when it comes to US and Israeli military action in the Middle East, they can "do no right" almost 100% of the time, in spite of being the best military forces in the world.
I'm not arguing that collateral damage never occurs. However, I'm pointing out that in the countries/areas where the "local reports" come from, there's a distinct lack of any acknowledgment that there's a reason why the action was taken (namely that valid combatants were around, and it's plainly obvious that many of these combatants don't give a rats ass about who gets killed when they do, since they routinely put their non-combatant countryfolk in harms way). The implication always is that the US is either incompetent and/or malicious in its actions. This phenomenon was very apparent in the recent Gaza flareup, where Israel managed to apparently kill 3 Hamas members out of 1000+ casualties, if you are to believe the news reports, instead spending most of their time blowing up hospitals and UN shelters.
Obviously it is unfortunate, but if you allow Bad Guys(tm) to get a wash simply because they purposely hide behind non-combatants, you'd just lost any given modern conflict.
Strangely, in the middle east, American (or Israeli) attacks never seem to kill anyone with a weapon, just women and children. Either the most military in the world is also the worst at finding armed combatants, or 90% of "local reports" are full of shit.
I have to wonder if this is another example of a trend I've seen lately, where anything that isn't seen as "smooth sailing" and "virtuous follow-through", no matter how small or misleading the "anything" might be, is cause for alarm and panic -- a secret indicator of Obama's true political boogeyman ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, perhaps, maybe you should just know what you're talking about before hitting "submit"?
Not exactly. The people who are ruining it for the everyday homosexual are the ones that have half a dozen "hate is not a family value" stickers on their car, have a wardrobe that is 75% rainbow-ornamented, and/or have affected distinctive and stereotypical speech affectations in order to feel more properly homosexual.
Yes, there are people who will freak out at every little mention of homosexuality, but there's also people who freak out at the mention of *any* sexuality (and then run to HR, etcetc). The point is, people who are "matter of factly" gay don't make the waves, it's the people who make it the focus of their existence. It's no different than the people who are "matter of factly" homosexual vs the people who have to comment on every member of the opposite sex they see to anyone who happens to be standing near them, or bring up their need to get laid this weekend, etc.
Which I addressed in my last paragraph. However, it's the minority of heterosexuals to engage in that particular variety of public behavior.
While I am generally sympathetic to gay rights and the associated societal adjustments implied therein, the idea that heterosexuality is broadcast constantly is slightly problematic. First off, since the default sexual orientation for humans is heterosexuality, it isn't necessary to broadcast anything. Heterosexuality is *assumed*, because by and large you can assume that humans are heterosexual and be correct the overwhelming amount of the time. Furthermore, the idea that every day tasks and activities broadcast sexuality is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of every day tasks are asexual.
Now, it might be correctly argued that every day asks may indicate *gender roles*, but in order to equate that with sexuality means that all heterosexuals indicate their gender roles and view their sexuality equally, which obviously is a flawed premise. It's as correct as saying that all homosexuals express their sexuality in the same fashion (that is, all gay men are lispy, overdressed flamers, and all lesbians of the "butch" stereotype) instead of there being a wide range of different attitudes and appearance choices made by the whole subculture.
The practical solution, one employed by heterosexuals every day, is not to wear your sexuality on your sleeve. I'd go so far as to say that homosexuals who make their sexual preferences part of their all-day-every-day personality are just as annoying (and worthy of mockery) as the heterosexual guy who never quite grew out of his fraternity days and keeps nudging you while making purposefully-louder-than-necessary comments about how hot the woman who just got on the bus happens to be.
This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I can hear your axe grinding from all the way over here. PS3 games mostly suck because they're on the PS3 :)
Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Sounds to me like they're saying the imaging process was at fault for the first test, since the second test was fine. At least, if I were troubleshooting this, that's where I'd look. Not at the operating system on the original machine.
Wouldn't be surprising to me, as well, if the Acronis tool didn't support a BETA OPERATING SYSTEM.
This is a slightly problematic article.
No, they make money by offering games that statistically favor the House. That's very different, since "cheating" implies they break the rules. Everyone knows the House has an advantage if you play. Fortunately, there's games that are not totally random which you can "beat the house" at eventually.
Overall, taking the entire population of gamblers, the House beats them the overwhelming majority of the time, this is true. However, people do indeed win at gambling. It's very profitable for the House, and fun in moderation for the rest of us.
It is incorrect to believe that every gambling game is entirely random. There are some *variables* that are random with most games, but it is not true that every gambling game (there are some) is wholly random. That's why card counting is a "problem" for the house, for example.
You seem very passionate about this particular topic. You should get that looked at.
Sounds like someone really sucks at gambling, to me.
For the record, aside from one time, I've never left a casino with less money than when I arrived. Sure, maybe it wasn't a jackpot, but I still came away with a profit AND had a good time.
Maybe your tinfoil hat gets in the way of your gambling ability, or your ability to enjoy frivolous things.
Yes.
Mod.
Parent.
Up.
I would imagine there really isn't a very reliable way to check for such a thing that's not done on a large scale (onesie-twosie purchases probably end up under the radar)?
They stopped using thimerosal in the MMR vaccine *years* ago. In fact, that is what makes it so trivially easy to show that mercury from thimerosal in the MMR vaccine was unrelated to autism. They removed it, and nothing changed.
(And by nothing, I mean not even the anti-vaccination rhetoric. It's about as bad as the buffoons who claim that Coke is addictive because they surreptitiously still add cocaine -- undetectable cocaine, even!)
Mod this guy up. Thimerosal hasn't been used in first world vaccines for several years now. If it was the cause, we would have seen a precipitous drop in Autism cases.
One of the PBS stations in Denver had a problem that shut down their analog tower in December. They decided it wasn't worth it to fix it, and so have been running crawls all last month about how they're DTV only now.
I don't get the "Access" part, either.
Apps certainly are there. Except for some special cases, there's an equivalent app for everything you have on windos. Especially for a normal office environment, it definitely is all there. But, it's not the very same apps that people know. And people prefer the known bad to the unknown good, and the known abysmal to the unknown unknown, if you know what I mean.
That's kind of the point. There's enough things to do in a business day without changing from the current application suite for a company, to another suite that does the exact same thing, on the basis of ideological OS reasoning. Not to mention that the "alternate" OSes just don't really count outside of some minority situations on the corporate desktop. I get annoyed by Windows quirks as much as anyone, but until Microsoft stops making Office and Exchange (not to mention Sharepoint) while the other OSes will wax and wane, MS will remain the standard deployment.
This is because support for XP still existed and downgrade options were available.
Corporate IT departments don't upgrade OSes on a whim and hold onto installed OS bases as long as possible. Vista wasn't necessary to upgrade to because the licensing and support terms for XP were still usable.
Once that goes away, you'll see Vista and/or Windows 7 become more prevalent.
This is the difference between how real, medium-large scale corporate IT works, and how Linux fanboys (and annoying, anti-MS cheerleaders) think it works.
He didn't say anything about the political affiliation. This isn't even a "Republicans always do this!" type of comment. It's a "Katherine Harris is crazy" comment.
Stop helping to politicize everything. You're hurting America.
My point is that the US gets the blame for collateral damage, but not credit for killing Bad Guys(tm). Really that's the crux of my position.
Also, Israel managed to kill only ~1000 in a hugely populated area of over 1,000,000. In the media, there's not a single mention of how many of those are combatants. Whether or not I agree with Israel going into Gaza, you have to agree that when it comes to US and Israeli military action in the Middle East, they can "do no right" almost 100% of the time, in spite of being the best military forces in the world.
I'm not arguing that collateral damage never occurs. However, I'm pointing out that in the countries/areas where the "local reports" come from, there's a distinct lack of any acknowledgment that there's a reason why the action was taken (namely that valid combatants were around, and it's plainly obvious that many of these combatants don't give a rats ass about who gets killed when they do, since they routinely put their non-combatant countryfolk in harms way). The implication always is that the US is either incompetent and/or malicious in its actions. This phenomenon was very apparent in the recent Gaza flareup, where Israel managed to apparently kill 3 Hamas members out of 1000+ casualties, if you are to believe the news reports, instead spending most of their time blowing up hospitals and UN shelters.
Obviously it is unfortunate, but if you allow Bad Guys(tm) to get a wash simply because they purposely hide behind non-combatants, you'd just lost any given modern conflict.
See http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1102577&cid=26579795 This isn't even worth of "this sucks". It's almost a non-story. I'm sure that Wired is getting tons of ad impressions, though.
sorry, should have said "most advanced military in the world"
Strangely, in the middle east, American (or Israeli) attacks never seem to kill anyone with a weapon, just women and children. Either the most military in the world is also the worst at finding armed combatants, or 90% of "local reports" are full of shit.
I have to wonder if this is another example of a trend I've seen lately, where anything that isn't seen as "smooth sailing" and "virtuous follow-through", no matter how small or misleading the "anything" might be, is cause for alarm and panic -- a secret indicator of Obama's true political boogeyman ways.
Mod parent up.