Way to miss the point. We haven't been judging the right wingers on their most extreme element. We've been judging them for not noticing the most extreme element and being not bothering to distance themselves from it. Ultimately, anybody that tunes into O'reilly, Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Beck or Limbaugh, is in part responsible for what comes of their rhetoric.
Yeah, they should be in jail. The only way that a family like that can subsist is by making the older children parent the younger ones, and all the children end up suffering the effects of neglect. Having food, shelter and medical care isn't all the a parent needs to provide for a child to grow up to be a well adjusted, contributing member of society.
It would've been more sound to make the mandate a more reasonably limit of 2. With their limits structured the way they are there's going to be serious problems down the line. It wasn't ever really a limit of one. It was a limit of one unless you were an only child in which case the limit was somewhat higher. The big issue with it is how they went about enforcing it and the tendency of the policy to result in female fetuses being aborted with greater frequency and the subsequent discrepancy in number of girls and boys.
Not likely, 19 kids is almost impossible without modern medical advances. Women of that generation may have gotten pregnant 10 or more times, but the likelihood of surviving that many pregnancies, let alone getting viable babies out of it is highly unlikely. Even in India and China pre-regulation, the average family size was much smaller than that. Even the families in that average the largest family size in India are still averaging under 6. This is more than 3x as many children under arguably better conditions than our great grandparents had. Indian states ranking by household size
They have families that size because there isn't an equivalent to Social Security in India, and so they need the extra children so as to have support in old age. Additionally to counter the higher mortality rates. Not sure how much of that is still the case, but historically those were very serious concerns which drove family planning. If they've been able to get away with families that size, I think it's perfectly fair to call 19 children obscene.
Depends how you measure it. There's probably more people out of work now than there were during the great depression, even though the percentage is lower. The last completed census put the US population at ~281m, whereas the 1930 census put the US population at ~123m, so while it's hard to say with any certainty, it's definitely possible that there are more people out of work now than there were then. Plus we haven't got any WPA style programs going to help those out of work earn their keep even as we do little to fix the problems.
Where have you been? If you think that the elderly are low status, you clearly haven't been a kid any time recently. Trust me, I still recall what it was like being a teen, no respect, few prospects for any sort of decent job, poor schools, exposure to violence, the elderly at least had their shot at avoiding that sort of ignominious fate, unless you're proposing the kids decide who their born to and state of living before being born.
The difference is that the young aren't robbing the elderly blind. The elderly had their chance to make it big, but for whatever reason now feel entitled to year after year of social security increases, even as the wages that everybody else gets are flat or even shrinking with respect to the cost of living. Perhaps if the elderly as a whole had spent a bit more providing the youth with a proper education, keeping the jobs from going overseas and expecting them to work for free, there wouldn't be so much Schadenfreude going on.
Well, no he's correct. The Baby Boomers were the original me first generation. Prior to them, it was considered a part of ones civic duty to make sure that the next generation had at least as much as they did and consequently there was still a social safety net at that point. The problem is that whereas in previous generations most of the problems were the result of ignorance, the Boomers were much more willful in it. Buying into malarkey like Ayn Rand and the notion that there was little to no obligation to ones fellow man. Not to mention that one got where one is by pure hard work and effort rather than the more realistic answer of nepotism and good fortune.
You look at people in their 20s and 30s and we're expected to be willing to work for free for a period if we want a decent job, the cost of education has gone up dramatically in the last 40 years, while the pay out for getting a college education has been going down. I may have missed it, but I don't think that back in the 60s people with a PhD were asked to work for what was barely a living wage, let alone even hired for coffee house type jobs.
Probably the fact that it doesn't seem to be getting any better. It's a waste of resources for pretty much everybody involved and it makes software more expensive/less available for everybody as a result.
Linux has had that for as long as I can remember, which is at least 8 years. And I believe that FreeBSD has had that via at least KDE and Gnome for quite a while as well, although I can't recall as I haven't used that function. But I think the salient point is that this shouldn't be eligible for a patent as providing the functionality for a GUI system to be shut down in this fashion is completely common sense. You don't want to shutdown a system while applications are writing to disk, and you want the user to be able to initiate it.
It's an archaic thing to do, in the modern era of ACPI most of us just go shutdown -p now, or perhaps halt -p, which saves the trouble of having to press the power button.
What about the process of getting far enough into the process that you can't do anything, then failing to actually complete the task at hand. Forcing you to then manually turn it off and fix the resulting damage to the filesystem.
I'd like to see the FCC require that ISPs provide tools to assess the actual bandwidth being provided and require a third party audit of the tools periodically. Perhaps just the top 3 or so ISPs in the market, but in any case enough of them to know what the status quo should be. Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods all the ISPs suck, this is Qwest country, which allows me to buy from Qwest, Comcast and a Satellite provider. The only DSL provider out there that I've found that people seem to really like is Sonic, and they aren't available here pretty much all the ISPs out here do terrible with latency and the bandwidth isn't too good either. I hear rumors of people in the US with access to 40 and 50 mbps connections, and the best that's available here is, something like 10mbps, and I'd be surprised if it were really even half that.
Within reason that's fine, but the only thing that's within reason is the amount of bandwidth that you're paying for. For instance if I'm not paying for enough bandwidth to watch streaming video, that's a legitimate reason not to provide it, however it's not legitimate to make technical adjustments to the routing so that I can't watch it.
The real problem is that AT&T hasn't felt inclined to update it's infrastructure to handle newer demands because that would result in less profit in the short term for investors. Qwest out here is in similar trouble, but probably worse since they sold their wireless business. The problem is that if we allow them to repair that by holding certain businesses hostage there's not going to be the sort of innovation necessary to provide better service. They'll most likely just kill off new services which they have trouble providing service for by raising rates on them.
They were referring to the fact that wikileaks failed to redact the names of the informants that were being used. And those people definitely could be killed if the wrong people found out who was snitching on them. Or at least that's my understanding of the argument there. The big concern was informants not wanting to come forward for fear of their names being published.
There are numerous ways of doing it. There probably isn't one key, there's probably many parts of it available in various places, probably held by confidants and his personal lawyers. It will probably have to be cracked, but I'm sure he's got it worked out so that it's very hard to do without the keys, and relatively quick with them.
Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time. By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges. I'm sorry, but there's something very wrong here. Given the claim she's making that he broke the condom on purpose, I have to assume that there's something going on here because that's a very strange assertion to make. And probably grounds for a slander suit as well.
Strikes me that the rape charge could be motivated by the CIA or another intelligence organization, or more likely she's using the claim as a way of protecting herself should she wind up pregnant as a result. I'm not sure about her religious beliefs, but there's a lot of Christians that believe that abortion is only OK in the case of rape or incest.
Swype isn't likely to ever be available via the market. They've said as much in the past. They don't have the resouces/don't want to provide end user support. So shy of Google paying for a license or agreeing to support it for a chunk of the revenue, it's not going to happen.
Indeed, I was beyond pissed when I found out how locked down the Backflip was, which is a shame because I liked the form factor. I ended up ditching it within the first couple weeks and replacing it with a Nexus One. Not a perfect phone, and at times I miss the physical keyboard, but it's quite a bit less locked up, and I can completely unlock it if I so choose.
But in general I think that hardware manufacturers ought to be required to be more forthcoming about things like that. Sony for instance ought to be required to print on it's box that there are fewer features in the latest PS3 than in previous editions, CDs which have DRM on them should be required to specifically state that they have DRM and may or may not play on your equipment, and phones that are locked down ought to come with clear warning about what's locked down and give instructions as to how to get it unlocked when the contract period expires.
After all it's your device not theirs, and it's high time they started acting like it.
By the same token, Google really ought to include a provision to make the application request permission to do certain things after it's been installed. Such as placing phone calls. Most applications that ask for that permission do so in order to allow you to select a phone number from the application and place it as a convenience. They don't generally need the permission all the time, so for something like that making it ask each time is probably reasonable and not going to cause too much trouble for anybody. The ones I really question are the apps which request GPS access which isn't relevant to the apps primary function. That strikes me as something that we ought to be able to disable as there's no legitimate reason why random apps ought to be spying on us.
I'm guessing that there's other stuff in there as well. Urine isn't purely one substance or another, it's water plus whatever salt and crap your kidney's felt like passing on.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to miss the point. We haven't been judging the right wingers on their most extreme element. We've been judging them for not noticing the most extreme element and being not bothering to distance themselves from it. Ultimately, anybody that tunes into O'reilly, Coulter, Tucker Carlson, Beck or Limbaugh, is in part responsible for what comes of their rhetoric.
Yeah, they should be in jail. The only way that a family like that can subsist is by making the older children parent the younger ones, and all the children end up suffering the effects of neglect. Having food, shelter and medical care isn't all the a parent needs to provide for a child to grow up to be a well adjusted, contributing member of society.
It would've been more sound to make the mandate a more reasonably limit of 2. With their limits structured the way they are there's going to be serious problems down the line. It wasn't ever really a limit of one. It was a limit of one unless you were an only child in which case the limit was somewhat higher. The big issue with it is how they went about enforcing it and the tendency of the policy to result in female fetuses being aborted with greater frequency and the subsequent discrepancy in number of girls and boys.
Not likely, 19 kids is almost impossible without modern medical advances. Women of that generation may have gotten pregnant 10 or more times, but the likelihood of surviving that many pregnancies, let alone getting viable babies out of it is highly unlikely. Even in India and China pre-regulation, the average family size was much smaller than that. Even the families in that average the largest family size in India are still averaging under 6. This is more than 3x as many children under arguably better conditions than our great grandparents had. Indian states ranking by household size
They have families that size because there isn't an equivalent to Social Security in India, and so they need the extra children so as to have support in old age. Additionally to counter the higher mortality rates. Not sure how much of that is still the case, but historically those were very serious concerns which drove family planning. If they've been able to get away with families that size, I think it's perfectly fair to call 19 children obscene.
Depends how you measure it. There's probably more people out of work now than there were during the great depression, even though the percentage is lower. The last completed census put the US population at ~281m, whereas the 1930 census put the US population at ~123m, so while it's hard to say with any certainty, it's definitely possible that there are more people out of work now than there were then. Plus we haven't got any WPA style programs going to help those out of work earn their keep even as we do little to fix the problems.
Smart ass, it happens to be pronounced "Fred."
Where have you been? If you think that the elderly are low status, you clearly haven't been a kid any time recently. Trust me, I still recall what it was like being a teen, no respect, few prospects for any sort of decent job, poor schools, exposure to violence, the elderly at least had their shot at avoiding that sort of ignominious fate, unless you're proposing the kids decide who their born to and state of living before being born.
The difference is that the young aren't robbing the elderly blind. The elderly had their chance to make it big, but for whatever reason now feel entitled to year after year of social security increases, even as the wages that everybody else gets are flat or even shrinking with respect to the cost of living. Perhaps if the elderly as a whole had spent a bit more providing the youth with a proper education, keeping the jobs from going overseas and expecting them to work for free, there wouldn't be so much Schadenfreude going on.
Well, no he's correct. The Baby Boomers were the original me first generation. Prior to them, it was considered a part of ones civic duty to make sure that the next generation had at least as much as they did and consequently there was still a social safety net at that point. The problem is that whereas in previous generations most of the problems were the result of ignorance, the Boomers were much more willful in it. Buying into malarkey like Ayn Rand and the notion that there was little to no obligation to ones fellow man. Not to mention that one got where one is by pure hard work and effort rather than the more realistic answer of nepotism and good fortune.
You look at people in their 20s and 30s and we're expected to be willing to work for free for a period if we want a decent job, the cost of education has gone up dramatically in the last 40 years, while the pay out for getting a college education has been going down. I may have missed it, but I don't think that back in the 60s people with a PhD were asked to work for what was barely a living wage, let alone even hired for coffee house type jobs.
You know what they say, if it's not Baroque don't fix it.
Probably the fact that it doesn't seem to be getting any better. It's a waste of resources for pretty much everybody involved and it makes software more expensive/less available for everybody as a result.
Linux has had that for as long as I can remember, which is at least 8 years. And I believe that FreeBSD has had that via at least KDE and Gnome for quite a while as well, although I can't recall as I haven't used that function. But I think the salient point is that this shouldn't be eligible for a patent as providing the functionality for a GUI system to be shut down in this fashion is completely common sense. You don't want to shutdown a system while applications are writing to disk, and you want the user to be able to initiate it.
The irony is that MS is patenting something for which they know very little, when patents are intended to spur innovation.
It's an archaic thing to do, in the modern era of ACPI most of us just go shutdown -p now, or perhaps halt -p, which saves the trouble of having to press the power button.
What about the process of getting far enough into the process that you can't do anything, then failing to actually complete the task at hand. Forcing you to then manually turn it off and fix the resulting damage to the filesystem.
I'd like to see the FCC require that ISPs provide tools to assess the actual bandwidth being provided and require a third party audit of the tools periodically. Perhaps just the top 3 or so ISPs in the market, but in any case enough of them to know what the status quo should be. Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods all the ISPs suck, this is Qwest country, which allows me to buy from Qwest, Comcast and a Satellite provider. The only DSL provider out there that I've found that people seem to really like is Sonic, and they aren't available here pretty much all the ISPs out here do terrible with latency and the bandwidth isn't too good either. I hear rumors of people in the US with access to 40 and 50 mbps connections, and the best that's available here is, something like 10mbps, and I'd be surprised if it were really even half that.
Within reason that's fine, but the only thing that's within reason is the amount of bandwidth that you're paying for. For instance if I'm not paying for enough bandwidth to watch streaming video, that's a legitimate reason not to provide it, however it's not legitimate to make technical adjustments to the routing so that I can't watch it.
The real problem is that AT&T hasn't felt inclined to update it's infrastructure to handle newer demands because that would result in less profit in the short term for investors. Qwest out here is in similar trouble, but probably worse since they sold their wireless business. The problem is that if we allow them to repair that by holding certain businesses hostage there's not going to be the sort of innovation necessary to provide better service. They'll most likely just kill off new services which they have trouble providing service for by raising rates on them.
They were referring to the fact that wikileaks failed to redact the names of the informants that were being used. And those people definitely could be killed if the wrong people found out who was snitching on them. Or at least that's my understanding of the argument there. The big concern was informants not wanting to come forward for fear of their names being published.
There are numerous ways of doing it. There probably isn't one key, there's probably many parts of it available in various places, probably held by confidants and his personal lawyers. It will probably have to be cracked, but I'm sure he's got it worked out so that it's very hard to do without the keys, and relatively quick with them.
Yeah, that seems kind of odd to me. Failing to use a condom for the second time isn't rape unless she withheld consent from that time. By that logic, if a woman insist on using a condom each time then after several months of a committed relationship and several STI tests they have sex without he could be brought up on rape charges. I'm sorry, but there's something very wrong here. Given the claim she's making that he broke the condom on purpose, I have to assume that there's something going on here because that's a very strange assertion to make. And probably grounds for a slander suit as well.
Strikes me that the rape charge could be motivated by the CIA or another intelligence organization, or more likely she's using the claim as a way of protecting herself should she wind up pregnant as a result. I'm not sure about her religious beliefs, but there's a lot of Christians that believe that abortion is only OK in the case of rape or incest.
Swype isn't likely to ever be available via the market. They've said as much in the past. They don't have the resouces/don't want to provide end user support. So shy of Google paying for a license or agreeing to support it for a chunk of the revenue, it's not going to happen.
Indeed, I was beyond pissed when I found out how locked down the Backflip was, which is a shame because I liked the form factor. I ended up ditching it within the first couple weeks and replacing it with a Nexus One. Not a perfect phone, and at times I miss the physical keyboard, but it's quite a bit less locked up, and I can completely unlock it if I so choose.
But in general I think that hardware manufacturers ought to be required to be more forthcoming about things like that. Sony for instance ought to be required to print on it's box that there are fewer features in the latest PS3 than in previous editions, CDs which have DRM on them should be required to specifically state that they have DRM and may or may not play on your equipment, and phones that are locked down ought to come with clear warning about what's locked down and give instructions as to how to get it unlocked when the contract period expires.
After all it's your device not theirs, and it's high time they started acting like it.
By the same token, Google really ought to include a provision to make the application request permission to do certain things after it's been installed. Such as placing phone calls. Most applications that ask for that permission do so in order to allow you to select a phone number from the application and place it as a convenience. They don't generally need the permission all the time, so for something like that making it ask each time is probably reasonable and not going to cause too much trouble for anybody. The ones I really question are the apps which request GPS access which isn't relevant to the apps primary function. That strikes me as something that we ought to be able to disable as there's no legitimate reason why random apps ought to be spying on us.
I'm guessing that there's other stuff in there as well. Urine isn't purely one substance or another, it's water plus whatever salt and crap your kidney's felt like passing on.
A significant amount of what we know as taste is actually smell.