Funny thing is that both of those things tend not to happen in households where nobody owns firearms.
What's more, slingshots are rarely fatal and require dexterity and practice that firearms do not. Bombs are more likely to kill the person making it than anybody else. What's more, they're unstable and can't easily be stored for future use, unless you're buying the highly regulated commercial stuff. Chemicals are tougher to use than you seem to think, unless you don't care about killing yourself and everybody else in the room. And even then, people tend to run away from them.
Bottom line here is that you're not helping your cause, you're just underlining the notion that people who are strict 2nd amendment supports are badly in need of medication.
Sort of, but the judges don't have to grant them that right. And if it's anything egregious they typically won't. If it were really as hard to file a suit, then there wouldn't be so many cases resulting in the government having to pay restitution.
Part of that has to do with the audience watching cops. They edit out most of the boring stuff, the times when the officers aren't actively busting heads or doing things that are "interesting." Being a police officer is a bit like being a security officer, there's like 95% mind blowing boredom and maybe a few percentage of the time, you're actively engaged in something interesting. But, you still have to be paying attention for the bulk of the time, just in case something relevant happens. Or keeping up whatever contacts you can make.
Contrast that with Cops and similar shows, where it's pretty much the opposite.
So, you hate what Fx has become, and then you switch directly to the browser that Fx most wants to be...
And you don't see anything wrong with that line of reasoning?
I'm seriously concerned because Fx is the last not terrible browser out there and they're working hard to copy every ill conceived and stupid design decision that everybody else is doing, without considering the fact that people chose to start using Fx, which suggests that it had something right.
LOL, that's a good one. Google has a hard enough time with the carriers from bloating the hell out of the Android handsets as it is, and Mozilla is seriously expecting to have any say at all in what happens after they RTM?
I guess they aren't Chrome supporters, they're insane.
That's a myth. Students today work far harder than they did previously and are also expected to know more about their subject.
The main difference is that students are more focused in their studies now than they were a hundred years ago. Which became necessary as it took more and more time and effort to contribute to a field. Back in olden times it was realistic for most college students to be able to cover a huge number of topics and still be able to get a PhD in some subject. These days, the standards for getting a PhD are substantially higher than they were a hundred years ago. Because in most specialties there's been a hundred years worth of advancement and most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
A consequence of this is that rather than being able to do your own research, or in a small group, now people are needing specialists for all the specific tasks involved. It applies to other things as well, where a business will have people with specific degrees rather than a couple of generalists that could handle most of the tasks.
As far as standards go, the standards aren't any lower now than they used to be. At least not if the asinine comments by people that ought to know better are indicative of the education being handed out in the past. I keep hearing about grade inflation, but the students I see, and my classmates when I was in college, work harder and are expected to know more than what was previously required. In fact at least a year of the material that I studied during my undergrad was new within the preceding decade and roughly 80% of my master's level work was new.
As far as the reason that kids today often times seem so stupid, it's because rather than having a broad based education, they now are being required to specialize, and with specialization comes limitations in flexibility.
Perhaps, but the reality is that he actually moved those technologies forward and made them available. There are a huge number of brilliant ideas born and killed every day by people who can't or won't move them forward. Yes, it is true that he didn't invent the lightbulb, but he did take the previous work and turn it into something that could be used. And his ability to bring together tons of scientists to work on projects was ultimately a huge benefit to society at large.
Sure it does, how do you think you get to become the chair of the GOP?
Answer, not understanding climate change, not understanding abortion, not understanding economics and not understanding that you actually need to reach out to voters that disagree with you when you're the minority party.
No, people know how the internet works. The reason why it's so hard to make changes is that it's unpredictable at what rate the changes will propagate and in which order. And in some parts of the world there are only 2 or 3 lines into that part that would need to be upgraded. So, if they screw it up, they're completely without internet and the ability to google "WTF did I do wrong upgrading the internet?". Whereas in other parts of the world there are much larger number of lines that are probably not all upgraded at the same time.
The internet is rather chaotic, not random, it can be hard to predict how the changes will occur as you don't know how they'll propagate, but you can estimate the results if people actually do it. And in practice, you always have to factor in 3-4x the cost when most of the change is done at the last minute.
The water around here doesn't do that. And the people complaining about this didn't have flammable water until the oil companies started drillling.
Whether the chemicals are causing it or just the typical oil industry carelessness is a moot point. In either case, it's the oil companies' fault and they should be required to behave in a more cautious fashion.
Have you tried browsing with dial up lately? Even with the poor quality connection I had last year, which was substantially better than dial up, the whole process just crawled. Companies target the broadband that's commonly in use, so slow connections will suffer.
Exactly, and I work with those people pretty much every day. They're not typically stupid or lazy and they often times don't even have a learning disorder. It's just that they didn't have the access to education that they needed to round out one or two key subjects.
I mean, hell, until I took remedial math in college, I thought that I sucked at it. These days, I'm helping other people with it and contemplating becoming a high school math teacher.
I currently tutor math, physics, chemistry, computer science, statistics and whatever else people come into our learning center for.
Some of these people have been out of college for years. Some are there because they had an undiagnosed learning disorder. And the bulk of the remainder are there because the school they went to was stocked with incompetent teachers using an incompetent curriculum.
If we prevented everybody that needed help in these sorts of areas, we would filter out some of the best and brightest out there. As well as filtering out a ton of lesser minds that are still well suited to college. for instance, following that route we probably would have filtered out Einstein, Edison. Leonardo amongst others. And those three contributed an unimaginably large amount of ideas that we use regularly in modern society.
When I was in college, we did very, very little homework. We spent a huge amount of time actually in class discussing things and doing projects, but comparatively very little in terms of homework.
The point that you're missing is that studying isn't homework or projects. It isn't tests or any one thing. Studying is time spent interacting with the field and learning the nuances of it. And online course pretty much just give you one way of doing it. If that doesn't work for you, or something comes up, then you end up failing.
When all is said and done, the success rates of these classes tend to be quite low.
Not true, or at least not true for any college that people want to attend. It might be true for private for profit colleges, but most colleges care about their reputation rather than just skimming money off students that are unlikely to ever complete their degree.
Having the best program in subject X allows them to attract better students and better faculty. And having better students and better faculty means being able to better attract grants for research. It also means that students going to that school in that highly sought after program are more likely to be able to afford to pay higher tuition than students that go to one where the school is basically just rubber stamping the diplomas.
Then again, I'm guessing that you either didn't go to college or you went to one which was sub par. I personally went to a very good school, and it shows.
$57 is extremely cheap for even 100mbps in the US. I'm paying roughly that much for 5mbps. And there are folks paying not much less for 1.5mbps locally.
Yes, but if that's truly the case, then where precisely are the chemicals coming from that are making the water flammable?
If, for the sake of argument, it really isn't the result of fracking, then there's still work that needs to be done to identify where the pollution is coming from. And yes, correlation is not causation, but it seems like a bit of a coincidence that the flammable water just happened to show up in regions with fracking after they began fracking.
Theoretically if the NSA had keys to decrypt the traffic coming over the wire, then they could get access to that. However, because of the way that bittorrent works, it would be challenging for them to gain access to the full files after the first time that a full sync was completed for a given file.
I'd be more concerned with them just breaking into my house and slurping down the contents of my HDD when I wasn't home.
Keyword here is self defense. Instigating a confrontation that you could easily avoid does not entitle you to claim the right to use lethal force. Around here that would get you a minimum of manslaughter and more likely some sort of murder charge.
What's more, given that GZ was in fact armed at the time, TM would have had the legal right to beat GZ to death were that to have happened around here.
Killing people that don't actually represent a threat to your life doesn't make anybody safer. There's a reason why we have a list of situations under which lethal force is authorized and why there needs to be more than your own word that they were a threat.
The law is bullshit because there are no requirements other than the ability to say that you were seriously fearing for your life.
We have the right to defend ourselves here as well, but there are actual requirements involved. Seeing a black person wearing a hoodie is not sufficient to give us legal right to use lethal force. That man would have to be engaged in a forceable felony or represent a real threat.
As passed, there's a ton of situations where one could technically claim the right to use SYG where common sense would dictate otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns cause more deaths than they save. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states There's plenty of other places to find figures like that such as the CDC.
Funny thing is that both of those things tend not to happen in households where nobody owns firearms.
What's more, slingshots are rarely fatal and require dexterity and practice that firearms do not. Bombs are more likely to kill the person making it than anybody else. What's more, they're unstable and can't easily be stored for future use, unless you're buying the highly regulated commercial stuff. Chemicals are tougher to use than you seem to think, unless you don't care about killing yourself and everybody else in the room. And even then, people tend to run away from them.
Bottom line here is that you're not helping your cause, you're just underlining the notion that people who are strict 2nd amendment supports are badly in need of medication.
Sort of, but the judges don't have to grant them that right. And if it's anything egregious they typically won't. If it were really as hard to file a suit, then there wouldn't be so many cases resulting in the government having to pay restitution.
Part of that has to do with the audience watching cops. They edit out most of the boring stuff, the times when the officers aren't actively busting heads or doing things that are "interesting." Being a police officer is a bit like being a security officer, there's like 95% mind blowing boredom and maybe a few percentage of the time, you're actively engaged in something interesting. But, you still have to be paying attention for the bulk of the time, just in case something relevant happens. Or keeping up whatever contacts you can make.
Contrast that with Cops and similar shows, where it's pretty much the opposite.
So, you hate what Fx has become, and then you switch directly to the browser that Fx most wants to be...
And you don't see anything wrong with that line of reasoning?
I'm seriously concerned because Fx is the last not terrible browser out there and they're working hard to copy every ill conceived and stupid design decision that everybody else is doing, without considering the fact that people chose to start using Fx, which suggests that it had something right.
LOL, that's a good one. Google has a hard enough time with the carriers from bloating the hell out of the Android handsets as it is, and Mozilla is seriously expecting to have any say at all in what happens after they RTM?
I guess they aren't Chrome supporters, they're insane.
Air doesn't refract the light the way that water does. It also doesn't require a new paint job when you drop down a few meters like the water would.
That's a myth. Students today work far harder than they did previously and are also expected to know more about their subject.
The main difference is that students are more focused in their studies now than they were a hundred years ago. Which became necessary as it took more and more time and effort to contribute to a field. Back in olden times it was realistic for most college students to be able to cover a huge number of topics and still be able to get a PhD in some subject. These days, the standards for getting a PhD are substantially higher than they were a hundred years ago. Because in most specialties there's been a hundred years worth of advancement and most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
A consequence of this is that rather than being able to do your own research, or in a small group, now people are needing specialists for all the specific tasks involved. It applies to other things as well, where a business will have people with specific degrees rather than a couple of generalists that could handle most of the tasks.
As far as standards go, the standards aren't any lower now than they used to be. At least not if the asinine comments by people that ought to know better are indicative of the education being handed out in the past. I keep hearing about grade inflation, but the students I see, and my classmates when I was in college,
work harder and are expected to know more than what was previously required. In fact at least a year of the material that I studied during my undergrad was new within the preceding decade and roughly 80% of my master's level work was new.
As far as the reason that kids today often times seem so stupid, it's because rather than having a broad based education, they now are being required to specialize, and with specialization comes limitations in flexibility.
Perhaps, but the reality is that he actually moved those technologies forward and made them available. There are a huge number of brilliant ideas born and killed every day by people who can't or won't move them forward. Yes, it is true that he didn't invent the lightbulb, but he did take the previous work and turn it into something that could be used. And his ability to bring together tons of scientists to work on projects was ultimately a huge benefit to society at large.
Sure it does, how do you think you get to become the chair of the GOP?
Answer, not understanding climate change, not understanding abortion, not understanding economics and not understanding that you actually need to reach out to voters that disagree with you when you're the minority party.
No, people know how the internet works. The reason why it's so hard to make changes is that it's unpredictable at what rate the changes will propagate and in which order. And in some parts of the world there are only 2 or 3 lines into that part that would need to be upgraded. So, if they screw it up, they're completely without internet and the ability to google "WTF did I do wrong upgrading the internet?". Whereas in other parts of the world there are much larger number of lines that are probably not all upgraded at the same time.
The internet is rather chaotic, not random, it can be hard to predict how the changes will occur as you don't know how they'll propagate, but you can estimate the results if people actually do it. And in practice, you always have to factor in 3-4x the cost when most of the change is done at the last minute.
The water around here doesn't do that. And the people complaining about this didn't have flammable water until the oil companies started drillling.
Whether the chemicals are causing it or just the typical oil industry carelessness is a moot point. In either case, it's the oil companies' fault and they should be required to behave in a more cautious fashion.
Have you tried browsing with dial up lately? Even with the poor quality connection I had last year, which was substantially better than dial up, the whole process just crawled. Companies target the broadband that's commonly in use, so slow connections will suffer.
Exactly, and I work with those people pretty much every day. They're not typically stupid or lazy and they often times don't even have a learning disorder. It's just that they didn't have the access to education that they needed to round out one or two key subjects.
I mean, hell, until I took remedial math in college, I thought that I sucked at it. These days, I'm helping other people with it and contemplating becoming a high school math teacher.
I currently tutor math, physics, chemistry, computer science, statistics and whatever else people come into our learning center for.
Some of these people have been out of college for years. Some are there because they had an undiagnosed learning disorder. And the bulk of the remainder are there because the school they went to was stocked with incompetent teachers using an incompetent curriculum.
If we prevented everybody that needed help in these sorts of areas, we would filter out some of the best and brightest out there. As well as filtering out a ton of lesser minds that are still well suited to college. for instance, following that route we probably would have filtered out Einstein, Edison. Leonardo amongst others. And those three contributed an unimaginably large amount of ideas that we use regularly in modern society.
When I was in college, we did very, very little homework. We spent a huge amount of time actually in class discussing things and doing projects, but comparatively very little in terms of homework.
The point that you're missing is that studying isn't homework or projects. It isn't tests or any one thing. Studying is time spent interacting with the field and learning the nuances of it. And online course pretty much just give you one way of doing it. If that doesn't work for you, or something comes up, then you end up failing.
When all is said and done, the success rates of these classes tend to be quite low.
Not true, or at least not true for any college that people want to attend. It might be true for private for profit colleges, but most colleges care about their reputation rather than just skimming money off students that are unlikely to ever complete their degree.
Having the best program in subject X allows them to attract better students and better faculty. And having better students and better faculty means being able to better attract grants for research. It also means that students going to that school in that highly sought after program are more likely to be able to afford to pay higher tuition than students that go to one where the school is basically just rubber stamping the diplomas.
Then again, I'm guessing that you either didn't go to college or you went to one which was sub par. I personally went to a very good school, and it shows.
$57 is extremely cheap for even 100mbps in the US. I'm paying roughly that much for 5mbps. And there are folks paying not much less for 1.5mbps locally.
I'd take that deal, that's about what I'm paying for 5mbps ATM.
Since the last time you read a summary on Slashdot, I assume.
Yes, but if that's truly the case, then where precisely are the chemicals coming from that are making the water flammable?
If, for the sake of argument, it really isn't the result of fracking, then there's still work that needs to be done to identify where the pollution is coming from. And yes, correlation is not causation, but it seems like a bit of a coincidence that the flammable water just happened to show up in regions with fracking after they began fracking.
Fortunately, they would never do that without a valid warrant issued based upon probable cause...
Sort of.
Theoretically if the NSA had keys to decrypt the traffic coming over the wire, then they could get access to that. However, because of the way that bittorrent works, it would be challenging for them to gain access to the full files after the first time that a full sync was completed for a given file.
I'd be more concerned with them just breaking into my house and slurping down the contents of my HDD when I wasn't home.
Keyword here is self defense. Instigating a confrontation that you could easily avoid does not entitle you to claim the right to use lethal force. Around here that would get you a minimum of manslaughter and more likely some sort of murder charge.
What's more, given that GZ was in fact armed at the time, TM would have had the legal right to beat GZ to death were that to have happened around here.
That's a false dilemma.
Killing people that don't actually represent a threat to your life doesn't make anybody safer. There's a reason why we have a list of situations under which lethal force is authorized and why there needs to be more than your own word that they were a threat.
The law is bullshit because there are no requirements other than the ability to say that you were seriously fearing for your life.
We have the right to defend ourselves here as well, but there are actual requirements involved. Seeing a black person wearing a hoodie is not sufficient to give us legal right to use lethal force. That man would have to be engaged in a forceable felony or represent a real threat.
As passed, there's a ton of situations where one could technically claim the right to use SYG where common sense would dictate otherwise.