Yeah, really, they took away our ability to have smart folders with Fx 19, and apparently we're never going to get them back. I'm not sure what the point of having tags is if you can't use them to create custom folders on the fly. I do know that there's an extension that does that for you, but how long before that no longer works?
Really, Fx developers need to stop fucking up the browser, yes, it's hit the point of maturity, but that's a good thing. Change for the sake of change is a piss poor way of managing a project.
My Fx maxes out at about 500mb of RAM, so I'm curious as to what you're doing that's breaking the browser. I'm guessing that there's a few addons that you're not mentioning here, because Fx itself uses less memory than any current browser, at least as far as the notable ones go.
Fx isn't the most unstable browser in use. Fx has some unstable addons and extensions, but it isn't itself unstable.
Honestly, I wish you trolls would do some research.
That being said, I wish the developers of Fx would get their heads out of their asses and focus on undoing a lot of the stupid shit they've been putting into the browser. I don't want this sort of social media tie in to my browser. One of the reasons why I switched to Fx was that it functioned stand alone without trouble.
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to refuse to hire somebody who has sued a previous employer. And with good reason, why would any employer hire somebody that might actually expect to enforce their rights in court?
Bottom line here is that there's no point in having rights if you can be deprived of employment for enforcing them.
Easy, just hang out with Republicans. Not a lot of thinking or analysis goes on with them. And being wrong about a good many things is required to be a member.
Good luck with that. In order to get a shot like that, you'd have to have the camera directly on the wall, and you'd have to do that without the person noticing, and you'd have to have enough light.
Just saying, the likelihood of this working out, is pretty small, and you'd likely be caught by somebody that thinks it's suspicious to be taking photos of people in such a fashion.
Only if they're holding the key still, and good luck doing that without anybody noticing. You're also presumably using a tripod to take those photos.
I've been a photographer for years, and if you're seriously suggesting that this is in some fashion realistic, I seriously doubt that you know anything about photography.
And yes a 200mm lens isn't rare, but getting one that could plausibly do this is quite expensive. And even then, you're talking about an F2.8 brick that everybody is going to notice. Even then, if you're inside or in the shade, you're not going to get adequate shutter speed to make out the detail on the key.
Not really. Unless somebody is holding the key incredibly still, and you're using an incredibly fast shutters speed and you know exactly where to point the camera.
Even a 200mm lens, which isn't going to be getting you a good view from far away, is going to have serious issues picking up sufficient detail on the key to make a duplicate.
Not true. I used to work security in a building that had a lot of electronic locks. And ultimately, you can't enter them without leaving a trace. Sure, they might not know who it is that entered at 2:26 AM, but we would know that somebody entered at that time. Whereas with regular keys, we would at most know that somebody went to that floor around that time, but we'd have no clue as to which door they went into.
In other words, we could probably get video footage of the person that went into the door secured by an electronic lock, or at least narrow it down substantially, but would have no way of doing that with a traditional lock as we would have to have video of them getting into the elevator, not at the actual door.
What's more, with electronic locks, there's the ability to lock people out during periods of the day that you can't do with a traditional lock and you can change the key much more rapidly.
Yes, they aren't perfect and can be prone to attacks that a normal lock and key aren't. But, ultimately, suggesting that they're not any sort of improvement ignores reality.
We're not Luddites. I studied extensively in the natural sciences, including coursework in genetics, when I was in college. Before that I spent a substantial amount of time cleaning up the mess that exotic species made when introduced.
To suggest that there's anything extreme about being anti-GM is to completely misunderstand the risks that the incompetent research is subjecting us to. Even a normal exotic in the wrong environment can be costly to clean up after. Scot's broom, for example, has to be pulled yearly for 80+ years to be removed from the area and if you miss a single year when it goes to seed, you have to continue for 80+ years from that point.
And that's a species that doesn't have any man made immunities or special powers.
What's more, in this case, we don't have trouble growing enough meat for people to have a healthy amount of it, we're going to have problems providing people with enough meat to make them sick on the stuff.
The point of that is for people who can't tolerate dairy products. I suppose vegans as well, but I think it's mainly for those that can't tolerate dairy.
And that's a much larger group than a lot of people realize, I didn't realize that I had trouble with dairy, until I moved to a part of the world where dairy is hard to get, and I felt physically better than I had in years.
In this case what he's trying to get people to eat is pretty fucking disgusting. What's more, it serves no purpose. Whether real animal or lab generated sludge, meat shouldn't make more than about a third of ones diet either way, and ultimately, there's no point to this invention. We can raise an adequate number of animals for food. Especially now that China's population seems to be leveling off.
OTOH, this is an invention to placate vegetarians and quite frankly, few of them are going to go back to eating meat, just because they can eat meat that doesn't come from animals.
Right, and you don't understand insurance. And you also don't understand basic statistics. It doesn't really matter if it's a 1 in a million risk if ultimately it does happen and you lose your house over it. That's where insurance comes in handy. The insurers have actuaries that estimate the likelihood of the event happening and the price tag if it does happen. And they're surprisingly good. They might not know exactly what your risks are, but they're pretty good.
Insurance isn't really there for things you can easily save for. It's for times like when your house burns down or when somebody steals your car. Of course, claiming on something that's barely over the deductible is going to cost more than what it's worth. But, what about the other things that they cover, like liability if you cause a crash or if your parking brake fails and your care rolls off and kills somebody?
It's up to you whether or not you want to have insurance, but part of being a responsible member of society is having the ability to pay for any damages that you cause in some fashion. For most people, insurance is the most realistic way of doing so.
Then again, you're one of those assholes that thinks that nothing bad ever happens if you're careful. I Hope you never cause any damages to anybody other than yourself.
He should have read the fine print. Also, I find this highly improbable. My insurance has a similar clause in it for when I go to a different hospital that they don't have a contract with. They still have to pay, it's just that I have to get authorization and I might have to be moved to a different hospital. I'd have contacted the insurance commissioner, because that doesn't sound legal.
As for the casino analogy, that's a stretch. Insurance is there to put you back where you would have been had you not resulted the misfortune. It's not to make people rich. What's more, casinos have rules and they're generally available, a casino has to post the pay schedule for those machines and stick to it, provided there's nothing wrong with the machine.
No system is 100% secure or safe, insurance takes a fee to pay for the repairs or lawsuits if something that you can't prevent happens. For instance, auto insurance often times covers uninsured motorists that crash into you due to their negligence. Sure, you can sue them, but a person like that might not have sufficient assets to pay reparations for the damage. And if they die, the estate may not have sufficient cash to pay off any claims. In terms of crackers, even if you do manage to catch them, how many of these people have the millions of dollars that would be required to fix the damage they've caused?
I disagree with the notion that most people are over insured. How much insurance you should have really depends upon how the specifics of your situation. Only a third of renters have renter's insurance and few people seem to have flood or earthquake insurance, even in areas where that's relevant.
Bottom line is that unless you've got sufficient cash or easily ligidated assets, to cover the damages, then you're going to need insurance. But, more than that, insurance companies provide things like access to attorneys when they come up. For instance, around here auto insurance companies are legally required to put up a vigorous defense if you're sued while on the road.
That's what re-insurance is for, they insure the insurance company in case there are too many pay outs for them to remain insolvent.
What's more, insurance is typically regulated, which means that there are limitations on when they can refuse a claim. In most cases they have to pay out, provided the incident is covered and unless they have evidence of insurance fraud.
In practice, they'll usually pay unless there's flagrant fraud going on, but if the incident shouldn't have been covered, they'll often times just cancel the policy afterwards and not cover you in the future.
I get that people like to hate insurance companies, but they're not as scummy as you seem to think. They do make a profit, but I'm not sure how an insurance company could remain soluble if it were paying out more than it was taking in from premiums.
I stopped using them when they stopped researching the items they were offering for sale. I'd go through and most of the products wouldn't have any specs and their return policy was such that you could only get store credit and you'd have to pay for shipping both ways.
Which was a shame because when I first started shopping there the prices were generally good and the merchandise wasn't bad either.
I used to shop at computergeeks.com, which was then geeks.com and quite frankly the service was abysmal. Early on it wasn't so bad, but about the time I stopped shopping there they stopped bothering to even fill out the specifications on the things they were selling. The last order I made with them was to use a credit I had from returning the previous thing. The Bluetooth head set didn't work right, and I found out that it was incompatible, but they didn't bother to fill in the specs. I didn't even bother to return it as it would have cost me more to return it, just to get another store credit.
It used to be a decent shop, but this was a self inflicted wound, I'm just surprised they lasted as long as they did, considering how crappy the service had gotten.
That's not at all the same thing. Computers, even then served a purpose, but this pink slime doesn't serve a purpose. Meat of any origin shouldn't be making up a large part of your diet anyways. And the planet can definitely support enough livestock for us all to eat 10-30% of our diet from meat.
The problem with that is things like this require scale in order to bring the costs down. But, if people aren't interested in eating enough of it to make it cost effective, the price won't come down. And if the price doesn't come down, it's going to continue to be viewed as disgusting pink slime.
In other words, you wind up with a catch-22 and ultimately there's no particular reason to go for this. There's plenty of other areas where we could help the environment and eating a small amount of meat as a part of your diet does help the environment out.
One of the problems with that is that things tend to build up. The only reason why Mad Cow was a problem was that it wasn't just one generation of cow being fed to another, it went on for several generations, leading to a build up in prions. Normally, the prions wouldn't be common enough to cause the sorts of problems that are seen with mad cow.
It's not a false generalization. The GOP is opposed to birth control and is opposed to abortion and is opposed to sex education that would include information about STI prevention other than abstinence.
Sure, folks within the party might not agree, but the party wouldn't be able to support those things if people didn't vote for it.
What's next, getting on people for false generalization because Catholics agree with the Pope?
No, the radio is one of the most deadly innovations because it facilitates coordination. Coordinating 5 people can result in far more damage than hundreds cooperating, assuming the right tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, really, they took away our ability to have smart folders with Fx 19, and apparently we're never going to get them back. I'm not sure what the point of having tags is if you can't use them to create custom folders on the fly. I do know that there's an extension that does that for you, but how long before that no longer works?
Really, Fx developers need to stop fucking up the browser, yes, it's hit the point of maturity, but that's a good thing. Change for the sake of change is a piss poor way of managing a project.
My Fx maxes out at about 500mb of RAM, so I'm curious as to what you're doing that's breaking the browser. I'm guessing that there's a few addons that you're not mentioning here, because Fx itself uses less memory than any current browser, at least as far as the notable ones go.
Fx isn't the most unstable browser in use. Fx has some unstable addons and extensions, but it isn't itself unstable.
Honestly, I wish you trolls would do some research.
That being said, I wish the developers of Fx would get their heads out of their asses and focus on undoing a lot of the stupid shit they've been putting into the browser. I don't want this sort of social media tie in to my browser. One of the reasons why I switched to Fx was that it functioned stand alone without trouble.
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to refuse to hire somebody who has sued a previous employer. And with good reason, why would any employer hire somebody that might actually expect to enforce their rights in court?
Bottom line here is that there's no point in having rights if you can be deprived of employment for enforcing them.
Easy, just hang out with Republicans. Not a lot of thinking or analysis goes on with them. And being wrong about a good many things is required to be a member.
Good luck with that. In order to get a shot like that, you'd have to have the camera directly on the wall, and you'd have to do that without the person noticing, and you'd have to have enough light.
Just saying, the likelihood of this working out, is pretty small, and you'd likely be caught by somebody that thinks it's suspicious to be taking photos of people in such a fashion.
Only if they're holding the key still, and good luck doing that without anybody noticing. You're also presumably using a tripod to take those photos.
I've been a photographer for years, and if you're seriously suggesting that this is in some fashion realistic, I seriously doubt that you know anything about photography.
And yes a 200mm lens isn't rare, but getting one that could plausibly do this is quite expensive. And even then, you're talking about an F2.8 brick that everybody is going to notice. Even then, if you're inside or in the shade, you're not going to get adequate shutter speed to make out the detail on the key.
That's not the fake ice cream I was talking about. I was talking about the stuff that doesn't use dairy.
And generally that stuff is more expensive.
Not really. Unless somebody is holding the key incredibly still, and you're using an incredibly fast shutters speed and you know exactly where to point the camera.
Even a 200mm lens, which isn't going to be getting you a good view from far away, is going to have serious issues picking up sufficient detail on the key to make a duplicate.
Not true. I used to work security in a building that had a lot of electronic locks. And ultimately, you can't enter them without leaving a trace. Sure, they might not know who it is that entered at 2:26 AM, but we would know that somebody entered at that time. Whereas with regular keys, we would at most know that somebody went to that floor around that time, but we'd have no clue as to which door they went into.
In other words, we could probably get video footage of the person that went into the door secured by an electronic lock, or at least narrow it down substantially, but would have no way of doing that with a traditional lock as we would have to have video of them getting into the elevator, not at the actual door.
What's more, with electronic locks, there's the ability to lock people out during periods of the day that you can't do with a traditional lock and you can change the key much more rapidly.
Yes, they aren't perfect and can be prone to attacks that a normal lock and key aren't. But, ultimately, suggesting that they're not any sort of improvement ignores reality.
We're not Luddites. I studied extensively in the natural sciences, including coursework in genetics, when I was in college. Before that I spent a substantial amount of time cleaning up the mess that exotic species made when introduced.
To suggest that there's anything extreme about being anti-GM is to completely misunderstand the risks that the incompetent research is subjecting us to. Even a normal exotic in the wrong environment can be costly to clean up after. Scot's broom, for example, has to be pulled yearly for 80+ years to be removed from the area and if you miss a single year when it goes to seed, you have to continue for 80+ years from that point.
And that's a species that doesn't have any man made immunities or special powers.
What's more, in this case, we don't have trouble growing enough meat for people to have a healthy amount of it, we're going to have problems providing people with enough meat to make them sick on the stuff.
The point of that is for people who can't tolerate dairy products. I suppose vegans as well, but I think it's mainly for those that can't tolerate dairy.
And that's a much larger group than a lot of people realize, I didn't realize that I had trouble with dairy, until I moved to a part of the world where dairy is hard to get, and I felt physically better than I had in years.
In this case what he's trying to get people to eat is pretty fucking disgusting. What's more, it serves no purpose. Whether real animal or lab generated sludge, meat shouldn't make more than about a third of ones diet either way, and ultimately, there's no point to this invention. We can raise an adequate number of animals for food. Especially now that China's population seems to be leveling off.
OTOH, this is an invention to placate vegetarians and quite frankly, few of them are going to go back to eating meat, just because they can eat meat that doesn't come from animals.
Right, and you don't understand insurance. And you also don't understand basic statistics. It doesn't really matter if it's a 1 in a million risk if ultimately it does happen and you lose your house over it. That's where insurance comes in handy. The insurers have actuaries that estimate the likelihood of the event happening and the price tag if it does happen. And they're surprisingly good. They might not know exactly what your risks are, but they're pretty good.
Insurance isn't really there for things you can easily save for. It's for times like when your house burns down or when somebody steals your car. Of course, claiming on something that's barely over the deductible is going to cost more than what it's worth. But, what about the other things that they cover, like liability if you cause a crash or if your parking brake fails and your care rolls off and kills somebody?
It's up to you whether or not you want to have insurance, but part of being a responsible member of society is having the ability to pay for any damages that you cause in some fashion. For most people, insurance is the most realistic way of doing so.
Then again, you're one of those assholes that thinks that nothing bad ever happens if you're careful. I Hope you never cause any damages to anybody other than yourself.
He should have read the fine print. Also, I find this highly improbable. My insurance has a similar clause in it for when I go to a different hospital that they don't have a contract with. They still have to pay, it's just that I have to get authorization and I might have to be moved to a different hospital. I'd have contacted the insurance commissioner, because that doesn't sound legal.
As for the casino analogy, that's a stretch. Insurance is there to put you back where you would have been had you not resulted the misfortune. It's not to make people rich. What's more, casinos have rules and they're generally available, a casino has to post the pay schedule for those machines and stick to it, provided there's nothing wrong with the machine.
No system is 100% secure or safe, insurance takes a fee to pay for the repairs or lawsuits if something that you can't prevent happens. For instance, auto insurance often times covers uninsured motorists that crash into you due to their negligence. Sure, you can sue them, but a person like that might not have sufficient assets to pay reparations for the damage. And if they die, the estate may not have sufficient cash to pay off any claims. In terms of crackers, even if you do manage to catch them, how many of these people have the millions of dollars that would be required to fix the damage they've caused?
I disagree with the notion that most people are over insured. How much insurance you should have really depends upon how the specifics of your situation. Only a third of renters have renter's insurance and few people seem to have flood or earthquake insurance, even in areas where that's relevant.
Bottom line is that unless you've got sufficient cash or easily ligidated assets, to cover the damages, then you're going to need insurance. But, more than that, insurance companies provide things like access to attorneys when they come up. For instance, around here auto insurance companies are legally required to put up a vigorous defense if you're sued while on the road.
That's what re-insurance is for, they insure the insurance company in case there are too many pay outs for them to remain insolvent.
What's more, insurance is typically regulated, which means that there are limitations on when they can refuse a claim. In most cases they have to pay out, provided the incident is covered and unless they have evidence of insurance fraud.
In practice, they'll usually pay unless there's flagrant fraud going on, but if the incident shouldn't have been covered, they'll often times just cancel the policy afterwards and not cover you in the future.
I get that people like to hate insurance companies, but they're not as scummy as you seem to think. They do make a profit, but I'm not sure how an insurance company could remain soluble if it were paying out more than it was taking in from premiums.
I stopped using them when they stopped researching the items they were offering for sale. I'd go through and most of the products wouldn't have any specs and their return policy was such that you could only get store credit and you'd have to pay for shipping both ways.
Which was a shame because when I first started shopping there the prices were generally good and the merchandise wasn't bad either.
I used to shop at computergeeks.com, which was then geeks.com and quite frankly the service was abysmal. Early on it wasn't so bad, but about the time I stopped shopping there they stopped bothering to even fill out the specifications on the things they were selling. The last order I made with them was to use a credit I had from returning the previous thing. The Bluetooth head set didn't work right, and I found out that it was incompatible, but they didn't bother to fill in the specs. I didn't even bother to return it as it would have cost me more to return it, just to get another store credit.
It used to be a decent shop, but this was a self inflicted wound, I'm just surprised they lasted as long as they did, considering how crappy the service had gotten.
That's not at all the same thing. Computers, even then served a purpose, but this pink slime doesn't serve a purpose. Meat of any origin shouldn't be making up a large part of your diet anyways. And the planet can definitely support enough livestock for us all to eat 10-30% of our diet from meat.
The problem with that is things like this require scale in order to bring the costs down. But, if people aren't interested in eating enough of it to make it cost effective, the price won't come down. And if the price doesn't come down, it's going to continue to be viewed as disgusting pink slime.
In other words, you wind up with a catch-22 and ultimately there's no particular reason to go for this. There's plenty of other areas where we could help the environment and eating a small amount of meat as a part of your diet does help the environment out.
One of the problems with that is that things tend to build up. The only reason why Mad Cow was a problem was that it wasn't just one generation of cow being fed to another, it went on for several generations, leading to a build up in prions. Normally, the prions wouldn't be common enough to cause the sorts of problems that are seen with mad cow.
It's not a false generalization. The GOP is opposed to birth control and is opposed to abortion and is opposed to sex education that would include information about STI prevention other than abstinence.
Sure, folks within the party might not agree, but the party wouldn't be able to support those things if people didn't vote for it.
What's next, getting on people for false generalization because Catholics agree with the Pope?
Fortunately, they also oppose sex, so they should die out before too long.
No, the radio is one of the most deadly innovations because it facilitates coordination. Coordinating 5 people can result in far more damage than hundreds cooperating, assuming the right tactics.