Registered Democrats in many areas of Florida in 2000 (and to a certain extent today) are Dixiecrats, not people to the left of the editorial columns in the Washington Post. They tend to vote Republican for everything except local politics. They may vote for a Democratic Senator, Congressman, or State Governor, but only if the candidate is a Dixiecrat too.
I'm not entirely sure why it's considered terrible by the average Slashdotter to ask someone, or a group of people, to stop being an asshole.
Surprisingly, with Chrome, if you enter your Google password in the Subject box of a new comment and then press the "Submit" button, the warning dialog comes up and your post won't get sent until you confirm it. Only discovered that because my Google password is (well, was) "systemd?".
Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.
The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.
I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.
Psychologists who collaborate with torturers are ethically complicit
Absolutely, which is obviously something you and I agree upon completely.
Boycotting the torturers is the only ethical stance here
If it is (and it isn't) then ethics be damned. The only moral stance is to do whatever is in your power to prevent torture from happening. Standing idly and refusing to intervene by is utterly reprehensible, even if it's an ethical one according to some code of ethics I'm unfamiliar with.
Well in fairness some modern operating system components that ship with Debian, such as recent GNOMEs, are transitioning (or have transitioned) to having systemd as a dependency. Yeah, you can "just not use GNOME", but over time more and more of the operating system will transition that way.
And it kinda ignores why systemd exists. Over time, I'd expect Debian to make itself more systemd dependent, as doing so allows Debian to introduce long awaited security and stability improvements by allowing it to transparently use cgroups and run unprivileged daemons that can listen to privileged ports, things that are not practical under sysvinit (though might be under Upstart.)
What I'd like to see is Hurd to introduce the functionality that systemd is reliant upon so it too can be ported.
Then if that were her reason, she'd be wrong.
The science is what the reviewer is supposed to review. Truth is that if it had happened the other way, this thread would consist entirely of people yelling "It's PC gone mad/SJWs suck/Feminists want to take away our computer games!"
For some reason, however, when a woman is shat upon for being a woman everyone's so eager to try to find excuses for the jerk who did it. I'm not seeing this as a positive trend.
I know nothing about the relationship between the APA and the CIA/FBI/TSA/NSA/GOP here, so it may all be terrible. But: there are reasons to cooperate with a body that might misuse your work that do not involve encouraging them to misuse it. One example might be if the advise offered was on how to get answers out of someone without torturing them.
One community that would, presumably, be very good at the whole knowing how to "Get information out of people without torturing them" would be psychologists (well, at least 43% of the time
Yes, I may be wrong here. But the truth is I'd rather wait until this report is published, than leap to assumptions.
You import your home CA into your browsers, which you should be doing anyway.
If the system does NOT pay for itself over a reasonable period of time (and within the lifetime of the product warranty), you're splurging. Not spending wisely.
Define "pay for itself" again and you might realize the problem with your logic here. You're assuming this battery is purely about saving dollars.
This is essentially a device that replaces a back-up generator and provides a means to save money in other ways in the mean time. You appear to be looking at the latter without looking at the former, so comparing apples and oranges.
OK, but is it cheaper, once off-peak-usage/solar energy/etc savings are factored in, than a back-up generator? Again, apples and oranges applies here: a typical back-up generator requires regular, easily forgettable, maintenance, replacement of fuel, and has no way to forewarn you that if push comes to shove, it might fail when you need it most. A battery is a simpler design, requires no maintenance, and it's able to alert you when its capacity drops to a level that's likely to cause you problems if you ever need to use it. That additional functionality makes the battery superior to the point there's good reason to choose it over a gasoline engine even if it supposedly costs more dollars.
Concepts like ease of use, reliability, self-maintenance, etc, have value, and they can be the difference between something lacking them being undesirable at $400, and something having those qualities being very desirable at $3000.
I can't afford the battery right now - newish Dad, two mortgages, that kind of thing. But I'll tell you this: when I can, I'll be getting one for our home. I live in South Florida, where the hurricanes come on a regular basis. A practical back-up power supply is a wonderful thing, I'd love to have one.
I think like everyone on Slashdot my heart extends to the families of the passengers who died as the ship hit Mercury. I assume there were no survivors?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It sounds as if you think I'm arguing for corporations to serve different markets, rather than observing that they do, and the consequences thereof when it comes to proposed mergers.
Well there's always this one, renowned for its modern easy to use UI and functionality, speed, lack of bugs, and that it almost never generates 504 errors.
Both are already monopolies in 90%+ of their market areas
Correct. Which means I was right. If they were monopolies in their market areas then there's no way, by definition, they could have been competing with one another, right?
By comparison, AT&T and DirecTV are competitors, they both offer TV service in the markets where AT&T operates. Therefore merging the two reduces competition.