I'm no expert but I do have two healthy and productive kids that are now adults. They're even mostly sane - though they share my sense of adventure and sense of humor. We've got a bit in common, actually.
But, I like to share this story and then I'll get to my point.
We moved to a new location and my daughter crawled up on the couch. She was just a little thing and not at all coordinated. She fell off the couch and everyone wanted to comfort her and run over and pick her up. I did not let them - I literally got in the way. We had family and friends there as we were just moving in - I got in their way.
She landed right on her head, too. Meh, it was a carpeted floor. She got up, cried a bit, and got back on the couch. To the best of my knowledge, she never fell off again.
My point? You don't have to be abusive and it shouldn't be considered abusive to get out of the way and let them learn on their own.
Require? Nope. Not at all. Use? Yes. I prefer it. Help files are still very much available. I even have the entire man pages in HTML format, no terminal needed. You really should try it - then you can make more legitimate complaints. There are many legitimate complaints to be made, this is not one of them.
A couple of other things... Err... I don't actually care what OS you use? I don't even really care if Linux gains market share. I'm not an idealist nor a zealot. I give two shits what OS you use, I do hope you make an informed choice. I do hope that you have more options. Of those options, I couldn't give two shits about which one you prefer. Pick what you like and use it.
I know that. Under what authority does the judge issue this order? Namely, procedural-wise. Who has been charged? A writ is, if I understand correctly, basically a fancy name for motion for discovery which means that someone must have been charged at the point of issue.
Once we get past that, we can debate the merits. We can then argue that it is overreach. We can then argue that it is an undue burden. But, more important (to me - and seemingly to this judge, if I'm understanding) is where hell do they get off thinking that they have this authority?
I see a bunch of other replies. I'll read 'em all when I get a minute but I'm not sure that I've time (or inclination) to answer them all as they all seem to miss the question. I know I have one from Ray, I've not gotten there yet. He's pretty smart, he might know. I could well be missing something obvious but I really am not seeing where this authority comes from. Judges have lots of authority but only once they are in the loop. At this point, there's no case in front of the judge beyond the scope of warrants and this is clearly not a warrant.
Is that more clear?:/ Sorry - I'm not the most articulate.
Why do you think the horses will bolt? To use your analogy, there's still plenty of oats in the feedbag. You think the companies are going to just abandon the US market? Really? I gotta tell you, that's not the most logical of conclusions to leap to. I'm gonna guess you don't actually own or run a business of any reasonable size, do you?
The founding fathers were a bunch of stodgy old white dude who owned slaves and live in walled forts and shit like that. They'd have happily built the damned wall if they could have enslaved a bunch of Mexicans to build it and/or make Mexico pay for it. Well, it would have been Spain, I guess. Yeah, they'd have built the wall.
Clinton only gets less than ¼ true if you are honest about it. "Mostly true" is not true. (I just posted the link yesterday.)
I am not a Trump supporter but it's amusing that you throw out his "mostly true" and list 1% while including her "mostly true" to list 41%. Why'd you do that?
There's a couple of things wrong with that. Nobody paid those top marginal rates, nobody. The % of GDP that goes to taxes today is higher than it was then - as is the total number, and that's adjusted for inflation.
In other words, our government doesn't have an income problem - it has a spending problem. We can debate all we want about how much money the government should have but all evidence suggests that they will never be satisfied with that number.
> If this guy wins then sane political discourse in America is well and truly dead.
Where the fuck have you been? Sane political discourse has been well and truly dead for a very, very long time. I'm not even sure that it was sane when I was a kid - and I was a kid when the Sun still had a price tag hanging off the side of it and dinosaurs hadn't even evolved.
Has it gotten worse? Absolutely. However, I'm not sure that it was ever good. The difference is we now have more ubiquitous communication and access to knowledge, it was never good.
I'm reminded of the folks who think Slashdot was a beacon of intelligence and civil discourse. I can link to but one thread and dispel that notion entirely. Like Slashdot, politics was never good. Even "better" is debatable.
I am not a gamer* and I'm not a Linux zealot. I am, however, the submitter. I figured this might make a good subject to rehash, again, as we've not touched on it in a while. What I am concerned with is choice. Even though I'm not a gamer, I want people to be able to choose the OS that they prefer to use, be it BSD, Linux, OS X, or even Windows.
* I haven't played any games seriously in a very long time. Except for a foray into KoL, I've not played since Fallout Tactics. Yes, it was that bad. I did just buy a game last night. I bought Wasteland 2. It looks like it might be fun but I've yet to install it or anything.
You obviously haven't seen my girlfriend's purse. I have no idea what's in there or how such a small person carries that much weight with 'em everywhere they go. There's probably a printer in there. There's probably a few bricks in there. She asks me to get something out of it and I just go bring it to her and let her retrieve it herself.
LOL If you saw my home you'd think I'm a photography buff. I'm not. I just like old cameras. They all work, I've actually shot pictures with them all. However, I'm about as artistic as is required to make stick figures.
Well, that's not true. I've taken loads of classes (required, mostly) over the years and I can draw and paint and whatnot. I even do 'okay' at it. Left to my own devices, I can't think of a thing to draw or paint. It's much the same with a camera. I travel, a lot. I don't generally take a lot of pictures. If I do, they look like post-cards. They're unimaginative and just a picture that's descriptive in nature.
I've got a bunch of newer digital cameras. I buy one that looks interesting and use it for a week before I just get bored. Then I stop carrying it and use my cell phone - if I take any pictures at all. But, I even keep those cameras around. I like interesting, tactile, and mechanical things. I've got a giant old antique globe that fills up a good chunk of room. It's useless but kind of neat. I've got a few older telescopes, again - I don't even watch the stars. There are some neat old cameras on shelves and bookcases. Why? I think they're kind of neat.
I am not sure but I think I understand their perspective. You said it right in your post - "normative." They probably want normal kids.
No, no I'm not trolling. I just suspect that's their view. It doesn't even need to be religion that prompts it, just stupidity.
Why stupidity? Well, you can't beat (or pray) the gay away. If they're gay then, well... There's fuck all you can do to stop it. Even if you kill 'em, you'll just have a dead and gay offspring. You might as well do the smart thing and accept it and love 'em for who they are.
And no... Nobody turns anyone gay. They might convince you to have sex with them but that doesn't mean they're gay.
At some point, you just have to laugh at what we humans have become. We're a bunch of overly sensitive, protectionist, worrywarts. Kids aren't that fragile. My kids, as an indicator, grew up to be healthy and fairly normal. No, no I have no idea why - or how. But they're well-rounded, productive, and generally kind. If a kid sees or hears about BDSM, or homosexuality, they'll still make their own choices.
Hmm... I have to refer back to Brian Greene again. IIRC...
Einstein was right, he thought he was wrong. It's seen as unfortunate that he died believing he was wrong about when he was actually right. At the other end of the spectrum, it's also unfortunate that he died believing that God does play dice.
At least that's how I recall him saying it. Buggered if I know... I'm just pretty sure that's what Brian Greene (or maybe one of the many physicists in his documentary) said. It was either his series on the universe or his series on quantum mechanics, both from Nova.
I seem to recall reading that you're correct and that the MBR would have a "fingerprint" if there were other universes. Another thing I recall is that we might be able to see it at the very edge of the universe much the same way we should be able to see (in theory) the information about what is in a black hole by looking at the outside of the black hole. It was either reading something or by a documentary from Brian Greene.
What are we defining as life? I guess that needs to be well defined and I've heard a few definitions. It's funny that life. It does seem to always find a way. Look at just the 'extremophiles' we have on Earth. The Earth is teeming with life and, as you said, it seems unlikely that there's nowhere else that has not also developed some form of life. It seems likely to happen in some rather varied situations. While it's a particularly unique set of circumstances for the life we see here, odds are that that has been replicated and, even if not, it seems unlikely that there's no other life - somewhere...
The big question is, to me, will we discover it? I think it's more interesting to ask, when will we conclude that there is none if we keep searching and find none? It is pretty much impossible to check everything. The universe is a mighty big place and has a past-due-date.
A recent-watched documentary suggested that if the universe had expanded at a greater rate that gravity would not have been a strong enough force for things to be attraction so that not only would not the right kind of stars form, nothing would have formed.
However, given your statement, I'm inclined to wonder if there's more flexibility and somewhere betwixt the two where some things would form and not others. It makes sense that there's some gray area. I'm not sure if it was expressly stated but it was certainly implied that the line was pretty fine between what we have and the point at which nothing would have been attracted enough to form anything of note.
I forget the statement but they claimed that one number (I want to say the speed of light which tied into the speed of the universe's expansion) had been just a little different then it would have been so different that nothing would have formed and that if it has been the other way then the Bang Theory wasn't correct and if anything had been creative that it would have collapsed in on itself or something along those lines.
The scale is simply too large for me to speculate. I'll be damned if I know how much that single difference makes but it does seem likely that things would be much different. But the implication was that the difference need only be slight.
Hmm... I should make it clear, I am not a physicist. I watch documentaries for entertainment, any education or things that stick are entirely incidental and certainly not the intent. Some do stick but that was not the objective.
Ha! You made me win a sandwich. When I opened the thread I knew there'd be some goober in here that said that. I told the missus and she said, "No, nobody's that dumb." (Yes, that is verbatim.) I said that I'd bet her a sandwich and she bet me a back rub. I'm getting a tune fish sandwich thanks to you! You're truly appreciated Mr. AC, truly appreciated. The best part is that you're using a computer made in China.
You're really predictable Mr. AC. Keep it up and I might raise the stakes for the next thread.
Innovative is not limited to design. Why are you even here? You're like the third person to mention this, I'm inclined to think you're just parroting the first person - or are the same person. Think for yourself as to what the word innovative means. If it's limited, in your lexicon, to design then Fark and Reddit are down the road and to the left. Hell, if it includes just the design then I believe Digg is still open and Facebook needs some additional users - they're down the road on the right.
'Innovative' and even 'unique design' don't immediately scream aesthetics to me - not on this site. On other sites? Yeah, I'd expect 'unique design' to mean that it was some form factor other than rectangular. On this site? Not so much. We, as a group, seem more inclined to look at the engineering than the appearance.
On top of that, I'm not sure it's an ad? If it were an ad, why filter it through a third party site? That's a pretty popular and reasonably well trusted site here. It seems a rather roundabout way to do an ad and would mean that the site was probably in on it. I'm not sure that he'd risk his reputation on such as it might be seen as him biasing his reviews.
So, it's possible that it's an ad but it seems unlikely to me. It's a rather convoluted way that requires a conspiracy or complacency.
Oh, I understand that. What I don't get is how does it apply in this case? Right now, nobody has been charged. There are lots of other problems but the first and most pressing is, to me, where does this authority come from in *this* case? Who has been indicted? Who has been formally charged. Until someone has been charged then the judge doesn't have the authority to demand all writs (all papers) associated in a wide-sweeping matter of discovery. At least not historically - I looked and was unable to find any precedent for this. I'm no expert so I might have missed something but, frankly, the very first thing to look at is process and this is not following the procedures.
Nobody has been charged. There's nobody for the judge to judge. Thus, they have no authority. That's why I used the horrible analogy of the judge ordering a random person to pick up litter.
Right, but that requires someone to have been charged, yes? It's about procedure, more than anything else, in my head. (Due process.) As I've said, the procedure's lacking in that nobody has been charged. Thus, under what authority is this order being given?
As I've said, nobody has been arraigned, charged formally, indicted, or anything. There is no due process here - there's no charges made. This is not a warrant but a writ. It comes from the All Writs Act. The All Writs Act applies (if it does even apply here eventually) only if someone's charged - it's not used as a sweeping discovery, or at least it hasn't been.
Not to mention, it's turning over all papers. It's not got anything to do with decrypting them but that's a whole other subject. The first subject (and issue) is procedural and is due process related, where does the judge get the authority to make this order?
Slashdot Mirror
> a mass of Randian libertarians
Thank you for differentiating.
> ... I'm not saying we should abuse kids ...
I'm no expert but I do have two healthy and productive kids that are now adults. They're even mostly sane - though they share my sense of adventure and sense of humor. We've got a bit in common, actually.
But, I like to share this story and then I'll get to my point.
We moved to a new location and my daughter crawled up on the couch. She was just a little thing and not at all coordinated. She fell off the couch and everyone wanted to comfort her and run over and pick her up. I did not let them - I literally got in the way. We had family and friends there as we were just moving in - I got in their way.
She landed right on her head, too. Meh, it was a carpeted floor. She got up, cried a bit, and got back on the couch. To the best of my knowledge, she never fell off again.
My point? You don't have to be abusive and it shouldn't be considered abusive to get out of the way and let them learn on their own.
Require? Nope. Not at all. Use? Yes. I prefer it. Help files are still very much available. I even have the entire man pages in HTML format, no terminal needed. You really should try it - then you can make more legitimate complaints. There are many legitimate complaints to be made, this is not one of them.
A couple of other things... Err... I don't actually care what OS you use? I don't even really care if Linux gains market share. I'm not an idealist nor a zealot. I give two shits what OS you use, I do hope you make an informed choice. I do hope that you have more options. Of those options, I couldn't give two shits about which one you prefer. Pick what you like and use it.
I must not be articulating this clearly...
> DOJ went to the court to have them issue a writ
Stop. Right there.
I know that. Under what authority does the judge issue this order? Namely, procedural-wise. Who has been charged? A writ is, if I understand correctly, basically a fancy name for motion for discovery which means that someone must have been charged at the point of issue.
Once we get past that, we can debate the merits. We can then argue that it is overreach. We can then argue that it is an undue burden. But, more important (to me - and seemingly to this judge, if I'm understanding) is where hell do they get off thinking that they have this authority?
I see a bunch of other replies. I'll read 'em all when I get a minute but I'm not sure that I've time (or inclination) to answer them all as they all seem to miss the question. I know I have one from Ray, I've not gotten there yet. He's pretty smart, he might know. I could well be missing something obvious but I really am not seeing where this authority comes from. Judges have lots of authority but only once they are in the loop. At this point, there's no case in front of the judge beyond the scope of warrants and this is clearly not a warrant.
Is that more clear? :/ Sorry - I'm not the most articulate.
Why do you think the horses will bolt? To use your analogy, there's still plenty of oats in the feedbag. You think the companies are going to just abandon the US market? Really? I gotta tell you, that's not the most logical of conclusions to leap to. I'm gonna guess you don't actually own or run a business of any reasonable size, do you?
The founding fathers were a bunch of stodgy old white dude who owned slaves and live in walled forts and shit like that. They'd have happily built the damned wall if they could have enslaved a bunch of Mexicans to build it and/or make Mexico pay for it. Well, it would have been Spain, I guess. Yeah, they'd have built the wall.
Clinton only gets less than ¼ true if you are honest about it. "Mostly true" is not true. (I just posted the link yesterday.)
I am not a Trump supporter but it's amusing that you throw out his "mostly true" and list 1% while including her "mostly true" to list 41%. Why'd you do that?
There's a couple of things wrong with that. Nobody paid those top marginal rates, nobody. The % of GDP that goes to taxes today is higher than it was then - as is the total number, and that's adjusted for inflation.
In other words, our government doesn't have an income problem - it has a spending problem. We can debate all we want about how much money the government should have but all evidence suggests that they will never be satisfied with that number.
> If this guy wins then sane political discourse in America is well and truly dead.
Where the fuck have you been? Sane political discourse has been well and truly dead for a very, very long time. I'm not even sure that it was sane when I was a kid - and I was a kid when the Sun still had a price tag hanging off the side of it and dinosaurs hadn't even evolved.
Has it gotten worse? Absolutely. However, I'm not sure that it was ever good. The difference is we now have more ubiquitous communication and access to knowledge, it was never good.
I'm reminded of the folks who think Slashdot was a beacon of intelligence and civil discourse. I can link to but one thread and dispel that notion entirely. Like Slashdot, politics was never good. Even "better" is debatable.
I am not a gamer* and I'm not a Linux zealot. I am, however, the submitter. I figured this might make a good subject to rehash, again, as we've not touched on it in a while. What I am concerned with is choice. Even though I'm not a gamer, I want people to be able to choose the OS that they prefer to use, be it BSD, Linux, OS X, or even Windows.
* I haven't played any games seriously in a very long time. Except for a foray into KoL, I've not played since Fallout Tactics. Yes, it was that bad. I did just buy a game last night. I bought Wasteland 2. It looks like it might be fun but I've yet to install it or anything.
You obviously haven't seen my girlfriend's purse. I have no idea what's in there or how such a small person carries that much weight with 'em everywhere they go. There's probably a printer in there. There's probably a few bricks in there. She asks me to get something out of it and I just go bring it to her and let her retrieve it herself.
LOL If you saw my home you'd think I'm a photography buff. I'm not. I just like old cameras. They all work, I've actually shot pictures with them all. However, I'm about as artistic as is required to make stick figures.
Well, that's not true. I've taken loads of classes (required, mostly) over the years and I can draw and paint and whatnot. I even do 'okay' at it. Left to my own devices, I can't think of a thing to draw or paint. It's much the same with a camera. I travel, a lot. I don't generally take a lot of pictures. If I do, they look like post-cards. They're unimaginative and just a picture that's descriptive in nature.
I've got a bunch of newer digital cameras. I buy one that looks interesting and use it for a week before I just get bored. Then I stop carrying it and use my cell phone - if I take any pictures at all. But, I even keep those cameras around. I like interesting, tactile, and mechanical things. I've got a giant old antique globe that fills up a good chunk of room. It's useless but kind of neat. I've got a few older telescopes, again - I don't even watch the stars. There are some neat old cameras on shelves and bookcases. Why? I think they're kind of neat.
When I was a kid, porn was definitely scary. It had big women, covered in hair, and not one bit of air-brushing.
Hmm... It was black and white. Hugh and Larry have done great things for this world.
I am not sure but I think I understand their perspective. You said it right in your post - "normative." They probably want normal kids.
No, no I'm not trolling. I just suspect that's their view. It doesn't even need to be religion that prompts it, just stupidity.
Why stupidity? Well, you can't beat (or pray) the gay away. If they're gay then, well... There's fuck all you can do to stop it. Even if you kill 'em, you'll just have a dead and gay offspring. You might as well do the smart thing and accept it and love 'em for who they are.
And no... Nobody turns anyone gay. They might convince you to have sex with them but that doesn't mean they're gay.
At some point, you just have to laugh at what we humans have become. We're a bunch of overly sensitive, protectionist, worrywarts. Kids aren't that fragile. My kids, as an indicator, grew up to be healthy and fairly normal. No, no I have no idea why - or how. But they're well-rounded, productive, and generally kind. If a kid sees or hears about BDSM, or homosexuality, they'll still make their own choices.
> How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant.
explain it to the kids? i run over and start stuffing dollar bills down their shirts
Hmm... I have to refer back to Brian Greene again. IIRC...
Einstein was right, he thought he was wrong. It's seen as unfortunate that he died believing he was wrong about when he was actually right. At the other end of the spectrum, it's also unfortunate that he died believing that God does play dice.
At least that's how I recall him saying it. Buggered if I know... I'm just pretty sure that's what Brian Greene (or maybe one of the many physicists in his documentary) said. It was either his series on the universe or his series on quantum mechanics, both from Nova.
I seem to recall reading that you're correct and that the MBR would have a "fingerprint" if there were other universes. Another thing I recall is that we might be able to see it at the very edge of the universe much the same way we should be able to see (in theory) the information about what is in a black hole by looking at the outside of the black hole. It was either reading something or by a documentary from Brian Greene.
What are we defining as life? I guess that needs to be well defined and I've heard a few definitions. It's funny that life. It does seem to always find a way. Look at just the 'extremophiles' we have on Earth. The Earth is teeming with life and, as you said, it seems unlikely that there's nowhere else that has not also developed some form of life. It seems likely to happen in some rather varied situations. While it's a particularly unique set of circumstances for the life we see here, odds are that that has been replicated and, even if not, it seems unlikely that there's no other life - somewhere...
The big question is, to me, will we discover it? I think it's more interesting to ask, when will we conclude that there is none if we keep searching and find none? It is pretty much impossible to check everything. The universe is a mighty big place and has a past-due-date.
A recent-watched documentary suggested that if the universe had expanded at a greater rate that gravity would not have been a strong enough force for things to be attraction so that not only would not the right kind of stars form, nothing would have formed.
However, given your statement, I'm inclined to wonder if there's more flexibility and somewhere betwixt the two where some things would form and not others. It makes sense that there's some gray area. I'm not sure if it was expressly stated but it was certainly implied that the line was pretty fine between what we have and the point at which nothing would have been attracted enough to form anything of note.
I forget the statement but they claimed that one number (I want to say the speed of light which tied into the speed of the universe's expansion) had been just a little different then it would have been so different that nothing would have formed and that if it has been the other way then the Bang Theory wasn't correct and if anything had been creative that it would have collapsed in on itself or something along those lines.
The scale is simply too large for me to speculate. I'll be damned if I know how much that single difference makes but it does seem likely that things would be much different. But the implication was that the difference need only be slight.
Hmm... I should make it clear, I am not a physicist. I watch documentaries for entertainment, any education or things that stick are entirely incidental and certainly not the intent. Some do stick but that was not the objective.
Ha! You made me win a sandwich. When I opened the thread I knew there'd be some goober in here that said that. I told the missus and she said, "No, nobody's that dumb." (Yes, that is verbatim.) I said that I'd bet her a sandwich and she bet me a back rub. I'm getting a tune fish sandwich thanks to you! You're truly appreciated Mr. AC, truly appreciated. The best part is that you're using a computer made in China.
You're really predictable Mr. AC. Keep it up and I might raise the stakes for the next thread.
Innovative is not limited to design. Why are you even here? You're like the third person to mention this, I'm inclined to think you're just parroting the first person - or are the same person. Think for yourself as to what the word innovative means. If it's limited, in your lexicon, to design then Fark and Reddit are down the road and to the left. Hell, if it includes just the design then I believe Digg is still open and Facebook needs some additional users - they're down the road on the right.
'Innovative' and even 'unique design' don't immediately scream aesthetics to me - not on this site. On other sites? Yeah, I'd expect 'unique design' to mean that it was some form factor other than rectangular. On this site? Not so much. We, as a group, seem more inclined to look at the engineering than the appearance.
On top of that, I'm not sure it's an ad? If it were an ad, why filter it through a third party site? That's a pretty popular and reasonably well trusted site here. It seems a rather roundabout way to do an ad and would mean that the site was probably in on it. I'm not sure that he'd risk his reputation on such as it might be seen as him biasing his reviews.
So, it's possible that it's an ad but it seems unlikely to me. It's a rather convoluted way that requires a conspiracy or complacency.
Oh, I understand that. What I don't get is how does it apply in this case? Right now, nobody has been charged. There are lots of other problems but the first and most pressing is, to me, where does this authority come from in *this* case? Who has been indicted? Who has been formally charged. Until someone has been charged then the judge doesn't have the authority to demand all writs (all papers) associated in a wide-sweeping matter of discovery. At least not historically - I looked and was unable to find any precedent for this. I'm no expert so I might have missed something but, frankly, the very first thing to look at is process and this is not following the procedures.
Nobody has been charged. There's nobody for the judge to judge. Thus, they have no authority. That's why I used the horrible analogy of the judge ordering a random person to pick up litter.
Right, but that requires someone to have been charged, yes? It's about procedure, more than anything else, in my head. (Due process.) As I've said, the procedure's lacking in that nobody has been charged. Thus, under what authority is this order being given?
As I've said, nobody has been arraigned, charged formally, indicted, or anything. There is no due process here - there's no charges made. This is not a warrant but a writ. It comes from the All Writs Act. The All Writs Act applies (if it does even apply here eventually) only if someone's charged - it's not used as a sweeping discovery, or at least it hasn't been.
Not to mention, it's turning over all papers. It's not got anything to do with decrypting them but that's a whole other subject. The first subject (and issue) is procedural and is due process related, where does the judge get the authority to make this order?