I meant "seeing the past through rose colored glasses" not the future.
I meant "seeing the past through rose colored glasses" not the future.
I'm pretty sure it's a product of negative thinking about the present and the future of society vs the past. In other words it goes with the idea that some time in the past was an ideal that that has somehow been lost.
I think it starts as by frequently referring to what one perceives as having been lost from the past ex) "people just don't have morals anymore now that they are all using birth control" After thinking this way for so long one begins to see time in general that way, today is just a degeneration of the glorious past. This is all we have left "any more". So.. any more just becomes a way to talk about the present vs the past.
Is it regional? I think seeing the future through rose colored glasses and being pessimistic about the future is a common disease that has infected people in all times and places. However.. it is probably more pronounced in the Bible Belt where conservatives dream of living in some idealized version of the 1950s.
Are you offended yet? This doesn't mean that anyone and everyone who uses the phrase necessarily is thinking that way. They might just have a lot of people around them who do. Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar but you don't necessarily want to know what your neighbors would do with it.
I guess the concept of a rhetorical question is too difficult for some A/Cs.
"I thought we were trying to end sexism?"
Nope! What ever gave you that idea?!?! The only people who have any interest in doing that are the ones who never talk about it. The moment someone talks about it they are obviously trying to tip the scales one way or the other.
"Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?"
Should I let my daughter chose her school? She is 5, next year will be kindergarten. The school in our district has horrible test scores and we are very concerned. Do you think she has all the knowlege, wisdom and maturity to make that kind of decision herself?
At Maker Faire last year I came across a booth for our local tech high school. I'm very interested in all things tech myself and would love to see her grow up the same. One of the kids at the booth started talking to me.. he told me how the school was so great because there was no sports art or music stuff. They could spend all day working on "STEM".
Now I wish everyone would learn more science and technology but hearing this kid go on about how great it was to not have any sports or arts and smiling about it.. I found that rather apalling!
Balance people! Be a well rounded individual! Otherwise you really are losing out on something great!
So.. unless she really really wants this... and then.. only after much discussion I don't intend to send her to THAT school!
So... now in an effort to reduce the imbalances between sexes even more children will be subjected to unbalanced educations.
Then again... from what I remember of going to a 'normal' school.. they were pretty unbalanced already. Mostly towards big reading, writing and social studies programs with stunted science and technology classes. Although.. they seemed to do ok with math.
Well, that sounds like things are improving then. That still sounds kind of sucky though. Imagine explaining whatever doesn't work to a non-geeky new user! That is the kind of thing that makes Linux look bad.
Ok but that's just RandR. What about Xinerama?
Can I use the tools built in to my desktop manager to configure a multi-headed desktop environment? I mean to do things like add/remove screens, switch between extending the desktop or cloning it, swap monitors left/right, up/down, etc...
Or.. do I have to use Twinview, NVidia's proprietary tool still? Even though... with any other manufacturer the built in tools work fine.
Even if the NVidia now supports doing all that stuff through their own tool without restarting X and even if their propietary tools has some snazzy, good looking and easy to use interface.. that solution still sucks!
The problem is that it leaves an important part of the Desktop environment's control panel non-functional. It means that in the obvious place that a new user would click to change those settings.. settings exist.. but they do'nt do anything. It means said new user has to go search for how to do it "the Nvidia way".
That makes Linux look cheap, unfinished or broken. It's a really shitty way to do things.
You realize I'm not asking "can Nvidia do those things". Nvidia had "Twinview(tm)" when I last used them which allowed multiple monitors and was compatible with Xinerama on an API level.
That just meant you could extend your desktop across two monitors and when you maximize something it only maximizes in the monitor it is displayed in. It doesn't stretch across the whole virtual desktop splitting itself between the two screens.
However.. since it was only an Nvidia proprietary thing which was emulating Xinerama that meant utilites meant for configuring Xinerama didn't work with Nvidia cards.
Here's why that matters.
If you were using for example KDE (and I am assuming Gnome was similar) you could go into the control panel and change how your multiple monitors are set up. You could switch between desktop stretching vs cloning. You could swap left/right, etc... It was very easy and tidy... very Windows like.
BUT if you had an Nvidia card.. nope! You still have those functions in your control panel... but... THEY DON'T WORK! Instead you had to load this proprietary Nvidia app which then makes edits to your xorg.conf for you. Then.. it would restart X! So... all your applications you had open... now are closed.
I just did a Google search for Nvidia and Xinerama. The first result was an Ubuntu page about using Twinview. I take that to mean that your "years and years" comment is wrong and you are just assuming everything is ok because yes.. you can have two monitors.
Oh, and do you still have to recompile a wrapper every time you upgrade the kernel?
"Nvidia's drivers do work 100% with Linux."
Do they? It's been a long time since I have used Nvidia. Do their drivers work properly with Xinerama and XRandR now? So you can do things like setting up your multiple displays, screen rotation, etc... inside of the normal config panel of your favorite desktop manager?
Or do you still have to use that funky proprietary Nvidia utility for that which writes stuff to the xorg.conf file that only Nvidia cards undertand.
Chimps kill each other.
"Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free."
What are you talking about? Nobody is asking for anything for free. Well.. except Verizon and Comcast. They seem to think that they can have our money for free.
If I pay an ISP for a connection to all of the Internet and I decide that I want to watch Netflix or I want to play a video game or any of the other stuff that those a-holes have been throttling and/or blocking then I am not getting what I paid for. They owe me a product for the money I paid but they are keeping it. That's theft!
Talk about vision! They are teaching their children to make things with 3d printers. AND they are converting their air into something that can be fed into the extruders instead of filament. Just plug it in and start printing.
It's going to be like everyone having a Star Trek replicator!
In a perfect world every criminal would 3d print their guns. Think how much safer we would all be after their plastic weapons blow up in their faces!
The rest of us would build them from metal using lathes. Imagine a world were everyone (well everyone now that the criminals have removed themselves) has that kind of DIY skills!
Why the hell would anyone want to stop the criminals from offing themsleves?
No. The internet was fine when it was regulated. After regulation was dropped large providers such as Verizon and Comcast have been caught time and time again slowing down or completely blocking traffic that they did not like.
All the "new" regulations do is put things back to where they were a decade ago when the internet really was fine.
I assume this means a higher percentage survive. It wouldn't be very interesting to note that a higher overall number of people in a group survive when that group had more people to start with!
Anyway.. if a higher percentage really do survive then I find that much more interesting than the fact that taller men have more children.
I'm not sure I would even call taller men having more children "natural" selection. Modern society and technology means that women have a wider variety of men to chose from. They don't have to chose one of the few unrelated males in their village. They probably live in a big city and even if not travel is relatively easy today. Also.. as for preference. We have TV now to tell us all what to prefer and that it is important. Maybe tall men are what's "cool" on their TV.
I'd call that unatural selection.
However.. if a higher percentage of tall men's children survive.. What's killing the short ones? Do the short genes come with predispositions towards ilness? Does society somehow make being short more dangerous? (ex, difficult to see over obstacles before crossing the road or something) What is going on?!?
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.