And the obligatory reply is, who has been responsible for more mass murder? Christians or Atheists?
You're asking the wrong question.
Among both religious and non-religious people, there are those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, and those who insist on the conversion/destruction of dissimilar people.
It doesn't matter whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Democrats or Republicans, etc., what matters is that those in the latter category do not tolerate the others. Those are the ones who are dangerous.
PBS Frontline's 2002 documentary Bigger than Enron (watch online here) gives a good summary of how Enron and other big companies and accounting firms use stock options to fuddle-duddle their performance, and how they pay off Congress to keep it that way.
Does this constitute a "clear handicap"? Perhaps so. Does that handicap cause a "significant potential" for my friend to get in a collision? So far, it hasn't.
While your statement sounds very clear, it's open to interpretation.
The question could also be posed as, "if a blind person can do this safely, why should we prevent them?"
Both questions are valid; however, which question is asked, and how it is interpreted, varies greatly by where it is being asked.
Compare Microsoft's software with Wal-Mart's business model: we see the output of it, but we don't quite know what techniques they used to get there (like upper-level management techniques, how they decide where to locate their stores, etc.) Try to track down the manufacturers for Wal-Mart products. Try to get a tour of the factory to see the working conditions. Hell, try to take a look at Enron's accounting practises (oops. Too late for that one).
There are many companies in many sectors who go to great lengths to protect their "source": what it is they're doing that will eventually be their output. An "open" company (okay, I admit that the "source" part is unnecessary, but it does add context to what is meant by "open") will let you see the practises of the company, so that company can show it has nothing to hide.
With business as with software, openness builds trust.
I was initially a bit confused by the comment's title "9 shut down options to boot", but given all the confusion with Vista's shutdown features, I can only assume that booting is an intended function of the commands on the Vista shutdown menu.
By your logic, the only reason to keep an army is to go out and kill people for absolutely no reason.
No, by my logic, the only reason to keep an army is to kill people, full stop. There are plenty of reasons for doing so, they just tend to be nefarious, and only serve the interests of the topmost strata of society. To the people whom these armies represent, yes, it looks like it is for "absolutely no reason."
Countries keep standing armies to intimidate (a) their own people (as in most developing countries, dictatorships, etc.), and (b) other countries' forces.
And both on the individual level with handguns, and on the state level with militaries, it only leads to an arms race, where people who want to do damage simply invest in bigger guns and better armour.
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
Try to move their addiction to another type of consumer electonics: Get the parent a high-quality digital camera and a place online to put their photos.
A friend of mine who is into photography takes his son nearly everywhere, and never stops taking photos of him. Mind you, it's the camera that's around his neck 24/7, not his son (and new daughter).
Slashdot Mirror
You're asking the wrong question.
Among both religious and non-religious people, there are those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, and those who insist on the conversion/destruction of dissimilar people.
It doesn't matter whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Democrats or Republicans, etc., what matters is that those in the latter category do not tolerate the others. Those are the ones who are dangerous.
- RG>
This pretty much looks like the optical equivalent of picking up a ball mouse and rolling the ball.
It doesn't have any sort of motion-sensing features, nor any pointing features (that is, it's not like a laser pointer with feedback).
All in all: slow news day.
- RG>
Don't be so sure...
- RG>
PBS Frontline's 2002 documentary Bigger than Enron (watch online here) gives a good summary of how Enron and other big companies and accounting firms use stock options to fuddle-duddle their performance, and how they pay off Congress to keep it that way.
PBS has a number of other +5 Insightful documentaries that you can watch for free online, including other financial-related ones on Complicated tax shelter schemes (2004), credit card company tactics (2004), and The end of pensions by 401(k) (2006).
I strongly recommend all of their documentaries, which are supported by "viewers like you".
- RG> (not affiliated with PBS; loosely affiliated with PB&J)
Just because we didn't know about it doesn't mean it didn't exist!
(Rather, didn't, since the NZ mammal is long extinct.)
- RG>
Yeah, c'mon Roblimo--you can tell us the secrets!
Just post it using valid CSS. They'll never figure it out!
- RG>
Don't let them fool you!
When they tell you that you can use the goggles to play an enjoyable game, RUN!
- RG>
No, but my deaf friend drives.
Does this constitute a "clear handicap"? Perhaps so. Does that handicap cause a "significant potential" for my friend to get in a collision? So far, it hasn't.
While your statement sounds very clear, it's open to interpretation.
The question could also be posed as, "if a blind person can do this safely, why should we prevent them?"
Both questions are valid; however, which question is asked, and how it is interpreted, varies greatly by where it is being asked.
- RG>
Did this company happen to be Verizon?
- RG>
It's like an Open Source business model.
Compare Microsoft's software with Wal-Mart's business model: we see the output of it, but we don't quite know what techniques they used to get there (like upper-level management techniques, how they decide where to locate their stores, etc.) Try to track down the manufacturers for Wal-Mart products. Try to get a tour of the factory to see the working conditions. Hell, try to take a look at Enron's accounting practises (oops. Too late for that one).
There are many companies in many sectors who go to great lengths to protect their "source": what it is they're doing that will eventually be their output. An "open" company (okay, I admit that the "source" part is unnecessary, but it does add context to what is meant by "open") will let you see the practises of the company, so that company can show it has nothing to hide.
With business as with software, openness builds trust.
- RG>
Palaeontologists suspect that, unlike the gecko's feet, the long-extinct Velcrociraptor's were self-dirtying.
I mean, try to get anything in velcro without little bits of lint and string getting stuck in there. It's impossible!
- RG>
James Bond would not be pleased with an electronic drink mixer, particularly the touch-screen version from Diebold...
Computer: Please select your drink.
Bond: Martini (shaken)
Computer: You have selected Martini (stirred).
Bond: Argh! Cancel!
Computer: Drink order cancelled. Please select your drink.
Bond: Martini (shaken)
Computer: You have voted for George W. Bush.
- RG>
I was initially a bit confused by the comment's title "9 shut down options to boot", but given all the confusion with Vista's shutdown features, I can only assume that booting is an intended function of the commands on the Vista shutdown menu.
- RG>
No, we're all Amish.
Now go throw your car away.
- RG>
So, you're suggesting his teenage son should invite his friends over for the winter?
- RG>
No, by my logic, the only reason to keep an army is to kill people, full stop. There are plenty of reasons for doing so, they just tend to be nefarious, and only serve the interests of the topmost strata of society. To the people whom these armies represent, yes, it looks like it is for "absolutely no reason."
Countries keep standing armies to intimidate (a) their own people (as in most developing countries, dictatorships, etc.), and (b) other countries' forces.
And both on the individual level with handguns, and on the state level with militaries, it only leads to an arms race, where people who want to do damage simply invest in bigger guns and better armour.
- RG>
Yes, by killing them.
- RG>
...should teach these people a lesson and pay them their salary in cents!
- RG>
So if he replies to contest the offer, does that mean that he automatically accepts it?!?
- RG>
Try to move their addiction to another type of consumer electonics: Get the parent a high-quality digital camera and a place online to put their photos.
A friend of mine who is into photography takes his son nearly everywhere, and never stops taking photos of him. Mind you, it's the camera that's around his neck 24/7, not his son (and new daughter).
- RG>
Heck, if that's the direction we're going in, I'm investing in potatoes!
- RG>
Well, with the number of employees at their stores, I think they have enough overlap to allow this for store employees, too.
- RG>
Yeah. Ever had it happen to you while you were cycling? *That* is bothersome.
- RG>
Yeah, don't you wish they were right?
- RG>
That must be why they're pushing Microsoft IE7^W Firefox Downloader...
- RG>