Just to clarify, while Colorado charges $10.50 for an ID card, the cost to the potential voter is greater when you factor in travel time, expenses, and costs of having a mailing address.

One where you express your concerns tactfully, then when your superiors make a decision you either accept it and adapt or don't accept it and find new superiors. In both cases, you take responsibility for the choice *you* made.

Either you agreed with them it was the right thing you do, in which case you don't blame Microsoft for changing their platform that you signed up to use, or you disagree with them and find a job that does things differently.

I'm not saying you made the wrong choice here. I'm saying that moaning about Microsoft's change to their platform after you and your superiors signed up for the Microsoft way of doing things is trying to deflect responsibility and gets little sympathy from me.

In an earlier post, you blamed Microsoft, with your comment "You stupid Fuckers, Microsoft", for the headache they've caused you with their ecosystem. Your blame is misplaced, though. It is the fault of your authorities, who selected that ecosystem, and yourself, for agreeing to use that ecosystem. It's common knowledge that when you give control over your platform to another company, you accept the risk that the platform no longer suits your needs in the future.

Your options are to accept the change and rewrite your applications with the new Microsoft system, or if you are to rewrite it anyhow, to choose an ecosystem that has a wider support network than one vendor.

I would hate to see what you have outside of your immediate vicinity, unless you tend to keep all your GPS devices around you all the time and the rest of your space is free of GPS.

Can you explain what you mean by one-to-one? Most models of relationships are graphs, not functions. I am unsure what one-to-one means in this context. It does not appear that you mean each node may only have one mapping to another node, which would be, perhaps, the most sensible reading of a one-to-one relationship here.

In any case, node may be connected to any number of nodes, which means that a construct where you have six nodes, one self-identifies as "conservative" and five self-identify as "liberal". The "conservative" node may then be connected to each of the five "liberal" nodes. Is that one-to-one, by your usage?

Why?

Was it deliberate, your commenting on an unpublished article to illustrate a point about how people don't read articles?

People want to firms making these machines to curl up and die not because of intelligent users like yourself. They have the desire because of the masses of people who buy disposable, non-recyclable, non-reusable plastic cups of bad coffee, in the manner *that these companies want people to use them*.

The standard use case is a vastly wasteful enterprise, and designed to be that way.

Certainly, people can change their impressions, but impressions are not facts. Only the impressed can decide that his impression is incorrect.

If you have the impression that he was stating a fact, that's your impression. Your impression is not wrong.

My impression is that he was stating his impression.

In no way, did anyone claim that Ananonymous Coward was stating a fact that aliases are not a feature of PowerShell, but you seemed to have the impression that is what he, in fact, stated.

Those were impressions, not examples. Impressions cannot be wrong. Perhaps you missed the first, and most important, line of Anonymous Coward's post?

The ability and manner in which one does things are very different. Being able to do something does not mean it is easy, convenient or maintainable, for example.

A woman is held hostage and you comment on her being her own worst enemy and dis her choice of food, but ignore commenting on the morality of the man, who through violence and force held her hostage?

A market solution to healthcare does not work. For a market to function effectively, the consumer must be able to make rational choices. When it comes to healthcare though, patients do not have the expertise required to make rational choices. They turn to experts to advise them, but those experts, doctors, are compensated by the purveyors of medicines, tests and treatments for recommending those medicines, tests and treatments.

Basically, I was attempting to show that a claim that bus efficiency [much less than] (not sure how Slashdot wants me to typographically represent less-than less-than) car efficiency needs some data because a quick dig showed that it was far, far closer. You exemplified this closeness by showing that on fixed-length trips they are even closer than I claimed.

I agree that mpg is a poor metric for efficiency in passenger-miles. I used those, because that's what I found quickly and I did not want to put in the effort of conversion.

My post was not meant to be a rigorous study. I was merely asking the poster to who I was replying for their data, because my cursory look for their data did not show anything even resembling what they were claiming.

I don't require a link, but perhaps a name of an engineer or a name of a study or which RAS meeting? I am not finding any of what you mention online. Perhaps my search terms are lacking, so anything else to go on?