I'm pretty sure that a chesty woman with any sort of writing on here shirt will get attention much more quickly. I've always sort of wondered on what basis they get upset for people looking. If you don't want to get looked at putting writing on the shirt is probably not the wisest approach.
That's much more consistent with what I've seen. I've never worked for UPS, but I did run the loading dock at a high rise. UPS seemed to be much more professional in terms of the way they conducted things and in my experience I've rarely had any trouble with them manhandling my packages.
As long as you don't need low latency the sneakernet has and probably for the foreseeable future will beat the snot out of wires in terms of bandwidth. Even by train it takes me 2 days to get say halfway across the country. For approximately 1880 miles or so. 6Tb over 2 days would be round about 38gbps, if I got the figures correct. That would be like 3 2Tb drives, and not even going as quickly as one could got. Driving makes it even faster, and if you're in for a plane ride it gets pretty ridiculously fast.
Or you could solve the problem more or less completely by removing the network card and not having to worry about that at all. Of course if something happens anyway, I recommend running to the nearest Catholic Church and seeking a young priest and an old priest post haste.
At that age, there's little in my view to be gained by giving a kid access to the internet and quite a bit to lose. Loading on a small number of appropriate games is going to be more than enough to get the kid interested in computers in the future.
Yeah, it's safe to assume that. Kids at that age are supposed to be developing social skills, coordination, imagination, sense of self and the ability to combine those. Sure a computer can help with imagination, but with the others it tends to be counterproductive for most people. On top of that, there's still plenty of time to gain computer literacy, I mean I started with computers in a basic way at age 8 or so, and my parents didn't own one till I was 11. I ended up being perfectly capable of using computers, more so even than the few friends I had who did have access to computers before that point.
The point being that at age 4, there's far more to lose by giving a kid a computer than there is to gain.
Because learning to entertain oneself on rainy days is part of growing up. At age 4, kids definitely shouldn't be spending any time in front of a computer screen. Yeah, I know, I'm suggesting that it be done the way that it was with me, but hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it. At age 4, I hardly think that the need to use a computer is there. Hell even age 8 is young enough. the OP is hardly going to be condemning the tyke to computer illiteracy if he waits to allow regular access to a computer until he's a preteen.
OTOH, if he dose that rather than the normal things like balls and bikes that definitely could screw up the kid. It's necessary for human development to develop portions of the brain in a relatively consistent sequence failing to do so can and does have real consequences.
I have to agree, when I was a kid, the first time I touched a computer was when I was like 7 or 8, I didn't have access to a computer on a guaranteed basis until I was 11. While, I do admit that just because it was done that way isn't a justification, it did work out well. Much before 7 or 8 and it's unlikely to be any appreciation or understanding. It's a good age to start them out at, but that was without the internet.
I'd definitely recommend against putting internet on the thing until he's at least old enough to know to check with the OP before doing anything too stupid.
Since we decided that the standards set out during the Nuremberg trials didn't apply to US intelligence agents. A lot of what President Bush ordered constituted war crimes. You cannot order torture no matter how significant the information is, that isn't something that international law allows, no matter how you gussy it up. You don't get to arbitrarily label it something else because you chose the other definition of torture.
Any one of those individuals could have said no, that they wouldn't have any part of it. I am not aware of any individual ever being prosecuted for refusing a criminal order. And definitely none in the US or most of the developed world.
Apparently. It shocks me that anybody out there honestly believes that the Wikileaks folks do anything more than collect leaked information they've been handed and finds a way to publicize it. Consequently, the fact that most of it seems to be about the US, might just be because the US is an easy target. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to have the most material related to the leaks happen to be terribly unpopular abroad.
What's more shocking is that much of the material was already suspected if not specifically known. It's kind of a how dare you prove that the sky is blue sort of thing.
If that's the case, then we need to fire our intelligence personnel and hire competent ones. Intelligence work has been rapidly changing, particularly from the 20th century on, and it will continue to change. During the cold war there were all sorts of thing which adversely effected our ability to collect intel.
You must be new here. I mean they did call it the "Patriot Act" for a reason. I doubt it's a uniquely America thing, but people get so bent out of shape over the little lapel pins when the same morons wearing them pass crap like the Patriot Act.
It's a strategy that's worked well for fascists for a really long time and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
Guaranteeing debts isn't inherently problematic. What is problematic is when you do so without any oversight or financial backing to do so. The FDIC and NCUA do that in the US fairly successfully. And had provisions of Glass-Stegal not been repealed it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as bad.
If the Irish government is having trouble with it, I'm guessing that they failed one or both of those items. Probably a lack of sufficient oversight combined with a failure to ensure that banks were having to pay enough insurance money for the service.
The problem with them is that they never say what it is that they're going to cut if elected. Same goes for the Republicans in general. They say that they can do things more efficiently and cut government spending, but you never hear any sort of meaningful explanation of what's going to be cut and how they're going to find new savings.
Not that the Democrats and Liberals in general are much better, but at least their plans for the economy are within the realm of reason.
Indeed, which is why you see inflation at the tail end of a recession. The money has been there all a long, it's just not until it enters the economy from where ever it's been stashed that it can be measured. Doesn't matter whether it's stashed literally in a mattress or being stored in some sort of vault.
Obama? Are you seriously suggesting that he's got anything to do with this? News flash, the problems were inherited by him, the Republican party ran up somewhere in the neighborhood of $10tn in debt.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is to make the banking industry pay back in full what the government has had to pay out plus some. And not just the TARP money, all of the money that they lost on behalf of other people. Will it happen, in a word no, the Republican party is just way too opposed to any sort of meaningful reform that might hurt the wealthy.
It's also important to note that we are coming out of the recession because of the stimulus not in spite of it, and that the folks at the bottom, you know the ones that actually create wealth, are still hard hit. The bills that folks tend to point to as fiscally irresponsible are probably the least of the problems. The biggest being the oversized DoD budget and tax cuts for the rich.
The healthcare reform pushed the point of insolvency down the road by at least a decade alone, and the Republicans are the main champions of extending the tax cuts to the rich as well as delaying any sort of DoD cuts.
Yes, but suing for something that's known to be frivolous can get you slapped for vexatious litigation in some jurisdictions. And ultimately when they lose the suit, which they will, they'll almost certainly have to pay his fees and probably a bit more.
So, if they're politi-critters, does that mean that we have to be very careful not to have any committee meetings going after midnight? I'd hate to think that something bad would happen were they to have a snack.
Unfortunately there's a lot of people out there that aren't capable of comprehending that copyright infringement is anything other than theft. Even on/. you see an embarrassingly large number of posts that claim that copying is theft. In no jurisdiction that I know of is copyright infringement a form of theft.
Beyond that people, in the US atleast, aren't educated in rhetoric, logic or debate. Which tends to make such discussions a waste of time as the only way of winning an audience like that is to scare them worse than the opponent.
It does indeed matter a great deal. What you're proposing is the ends justify the means. After all the piracy wouldn't happen if the ISP cut them off, now would it?
If you think that the piracy apologists are bad, just look at folks like you that will go to any length to justify placing the blame on the middle man, that doesn't even possess or transmit the copyrighted materials in the first place. And you end up with all sorts of constitutional problems in doing so. Violations of due process and privacy amongst other things. Along with the use of tax payer dollars to enforce private parties properties rights that were deemed previously to be a civil matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that a chesty woman with any sort of writing on here shirt will get attention much more quickly. I've always sort of wondered on what basis they get upset for people looking. If you don't want to get looked at putting writing on the shirt is probably not the wisest approach.
That's much more consistent with what I've seen. I've never worked for UPS, but I did run the loading dock at a high rise. UPS seemed to be much more professional in terms of the way they conducted things and in my experience I've rarely had any trouble with them manhandling my packages.
As long as you don't need low latency the sneakernet has and probably for the foreseeable future will beat the snot out of wires in terms of bandwidth. Even by train it takes me 2 days to get say halfway across the country. For approximately 1880 miles or so. 6Tb over 2 days would be round about 38gbps, if I got the figures correct. That would be like 3 2Tb drives, and not even going as quickly as one could got. Driving makes it even faster, and if you're in for a plane ride it gets pretty ridiculously fast.
Or you could solve the problem more or less completely by removing the network card and not having to worry about that at all. Of course if something happens anyway, I recommend running to the nearest Catholic Church and seeking a young priest and an old priest post haste.
At that age, there's little in my view to be gained by giving a kid access to the internet and quite a bit to lose. Loading on a small number of appropriate games is going to be more than enough to get the kid interested in computers in the future.
Yeah, it's safe to assume that. Kids at that age are supposed to be developing social skills, coordination, imagination, sense of self and the ability to combine those. Sure a computer can help with imagination, but with the others it tends to be counterproductive for most people. On top of that, there's still plenty of time to gain computer literacy, I mean I started with computers in a basic way at age 8 or so, and my parents didn't own one till I was 11. I ended up being perfectly capable of using computers, more so even than the few friends I had who did have access to computers before that point.
The point being that at age 4, there's far more to lose by giving a kid a computer than there is to gain.
Because learning to entertain oneself on rainy days is part of growing up. At age 4, kids definitely shouldn't be spending any time in front of a computer screen. Yeah, I know, I'm suggesting that it be done the way that it was with me, but hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it. At age 4, I hardly think that the need to use a computer is there. Hell even age 8 is young enough. the OP is hardly going to be condemning the tyke to computer illiteracy if he waits to allow regular access to a computer until he's a preteen.
OTOH, if he dose that rather than the normal things like balls and bikes that definitely could screw up the kid. It's necessary for human development to develop portions of the brain in a relatively consistent sequence failing to do so can and does have real consequences.
I have to agree, when I was a kid, the first time I touched a computer was when I was like 7 or 8, I didn't have access to a computer on a guaranteed basis until I was 11. While, I do admit that just because it was done that way isn't a justification, it did work out well. Much before 7 or 8 and it's unlikely to be any appreciation or understanding. It's a good age to start them out at, but that was without the internet.
I'd definitely recommend against putting internet on the thing until he's at least old enough to know to check with the OP before doing anything too stupid.
I'm a bit curious as to why Twitter allows people to tweet about illegal activities.
Since we decided that the standards set out during the Nuremberg trials didn't apply to US intelligence agents. A lot of what President Bush ordered constituted war crimes. You cannot order torture no matter how significant the information is, that isn't something that international law allows, no matter how you gussy it up. You don't get to arbitrarily label it something else because you chose the other definition of torture.
Any one of those individuals could have said no, that they wouldn't have any part of it. I am not aware of any individual ever being prosecuted for refusing a criminal order. And definitely none in the US or most of the developed world.
Apparently. It shocks me that anybody out there honestly believes that the Wikileaks folks do anything more than collect leaked information they've been handed and finds a way to publicize it. Consequently, the fact that most of it seems to be about the US, might just be because the US is an easy target. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to have the most material related to the leaks happen to be terribly unpopular abroad.
What's more shocking is that much of the material was already suspected if not specifically known. It's kind of a how dare you prove that the sky is blue sort of thing.
If that's the case, then we need to fire our intelligence personnel and hire competent ones. Intelligence work has been rapidly changing, particularly from the 20th century on, and it will continue to change. During the cold war there were all sorts of thing which adversely effected our ability to collect intel.
You must be new here. I mean they did call it the "Patriot Act" for a reason. I doubt it's a uniquely America thing, but people get so bent out of shape over the little lapel pins when the same morons wearing them pass crap like the Patriot Act.
It's a strategy that's worked well for fascists for a really long time and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
It's luck the way that a Mob boss winning at cards is luck. Threaten enough people and you tend to get exactly the sort of "luck" you need.
Guaranteeing debts isn't inherently problematic. What is problematic is when you do so without any oversight or financial backing to do so. The FDIC and NCUA do that in the US fairly successfully. And had provisions of Glass-Stegal not been repealed it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as bad.
If the Irish government is having trouble with it, I'm guessing that they failed one or both of those items. Probably a lack of sufficient oversight combined with a failure to ensure that banks were having to pay enough insurance money for the service.
The problem with them is that they never say what it is that they're going to cut if elected. Same goes for the Republicans in general. They say that they can do things more efficiently and cut government spending, but you never hear any sort of meaningful explanation of what's going to be cut and how they're going to find new savings.
Not that the Democrats and Liberals in general are much better, but at least their plans for the economy are within the realm of reason.
Indeed, which is why you see inflation at the tail end of a recession. The money has been there all a long, it's just not until it enters the economy from where ever it's been stashed that it can be measured. Doesn't matter whether it's stashed literally in a mattress or being stored in some sort of vault.
Obama? Are you seriously suggesting that he's got anything to do with this? News flash, the problems were inherited by him, the Republican party ran up somewhere in the neighborhood of $10tn in debt.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is to make the banking industry pay back in full what the government has had to pay out plus some. And not just the TARP money, all of the money that they lost on behalf of other people. Will it happen, in a word no, the Republican party is just way too opposed to any sort of meaningful reform that might hurt the wealthy.
It's also important to note that we are coming out of the recession because of the stimulus not in spite of it, and that the folks at the bottom, you know the ones that actually create wealth, are still hard hit. The bills that folks tend to point to as fiscally irresponsible are probably the least of the problems. The biggest being the oversized DoD budget and tax cuts for the rich.
The healthcare reform pushed the point of insolvency down the road by at least a decade alone, and the Republicans are the main champions of extending the tax cuts to the rich as well as delaying any sort of DoD cuts.
Shut up, you'll give them ideas.
I'd seriously recommend watching Postal, from what I gather it's the only decent film he's made. And yes, I do hear that whooshing sound.
Yes, but suing for something that's known to be frivolous can get you slapped for vexatious litigation in some jurisdictions. And ultimately when they lose the suit, which they will, they'll almost certainly have to pay his fees and probably a bit more.
So, if they're politi-critters, does that mean that we have to be very careful not to have any committee meetings going after midnight? I'd hate to think that something bad would happen were they to have a snack.
Unfortunately there's a lot of people out there that aren't capable of comprehending that copyright infringement is anything other than theft. Even on /. you see an embarrassingly large number of posts that claim that copying is theft. In no jurisdiction that I know of is copyright infringement a form of theft.
Beyond that people, in the US atleast, aren't educated in rhetoric, logic or debate. Which tends to make such discussions a waste of time as the only way of winning an audience like that is to scare them worse than the opponent.
It does indeed matter a great deal. What you're proposing is the ends justify the means. After all the piracy wouldn't happen if the ISP cut them off, now would it?
If you think that the piracy apologists are bad, just look at folks like you that will go to any length to justify placing the blame on the middle man, that doesn't even possess or transmit the copyrighted materials in the first place. And you end up with all sorts of constitutional problems in doing so. Violations of due process and privacy amongst other things. Along with the use of tax payer dollars to enforce private parties properties rights that were deemed previously to be a civil matter.
To be fair a website like that ought to be able to handle it. I mean it's not like it's a commercial venture or anything.
It's really not that hard, the easiest way is to get those people on tape harming cats.