Slashdot Mirror

If Alice says "I reused a carburetor from a wrecked car" it means she took a carburetor from a wrecked car and used it, as a carburetor, in another car.

If Bob says "I recycled a carburetor from a wrecked car" it means he took a carburetor from a wrecked car, destroyed it, and used the raw materials to make something new.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reuse+vs+recycle
www.care2.com/greenliving/why-reuse-beats-recycling.html

A Higgs Bosom ? ... now thats gotta be a worth a look!

Bosom

N ...

Do you really want to see Higgs' bosom? Well, whatever floats your boat.....

A Higgs Bosom ? ... now thats gotta be a worth a look!

Bosom

N ...

How often do you need to drive from Dundee, Scotland to Poole, England?

646 km seems to be about as far as one can drive in the UK --- that's just 400 miles

Rubbish, you can do 540 miles in England. If you live in Inverness, Scotland you are over 200 miles further North than that, and in a fairly sparsely populated area. If you live right in the North of Scotland, like Durness that is another 120 miles of tiny little roads which will take you about four hours to drive - though not many people do. Of curse most people would fly from Dundee to Pool, just as most people would fly from New York to Houston.

How often do you need to drive from Dundee, Scotland to Poole, England?

646 km seems to be about as far as one can drive in the UK --- that's just 400 miles

Rubbish, you can do 540 miles in England. If you live in Inverness, Scotland you are over 200 miles further North than that, and in a fairly sparsely populated area. If you live right in the North of Scotland, like Durness that is another 120 miles of tiny little roads which will take you about four hours to drive - though not many people do. Of curse most people would fly from Dundee to Pool, just as most people would fly from New York to Houston.

How often do you need to drive from Dundee, Scotland to Poole, England?

646 km seems to be about as far as one can drive in the UK --- that's just 400 miles

Rubbish, you can do 540 miles in England. If you live in Inverness, Scotland you are over 200 miles further North than that, and in a fairly sparsely populated area. If you live right in the North of Scotland, like Durness that is another 120 miles of tiny little roads which will take you about four hours to drive - though not many people do. Of curse most people would fly from Dundee to Pool, just as most people would fly from New York to Houston.

Well done, you missed the fucking point completely. Every point.

Frankly if cunts like you plan to run Scotland, the country's doomed. But the inability to articulate an economic future for the country's already demonstrated that.

Carry on being vitriolic and stupid. Just don't drag down the rest of us with you, please.

LOL the vitriolic crapioca is coming from your direction .. just have a read at what you wrote
As for the economics of it, well now... if i was you i'd read more about it and especially how westminster hides Scottish oil income and vast amounts of it by marking it as "extra regio territories" in the G.E.R.S report.. you know... the Government Expenditure and Revenue Report".

Also note that income tax raised in Scotland and corporate tax raised in Scotland isn't counted as Scottish revenues as it goes straight to westminsters coffers. Also please find a link HERE to an analysis of the GERS 2005 report done by forensic accountant Niall Aslen. Niall has been a chartered accountant for over 40 years and knows more about accounts and fiscal policy than myself or yourself...... in fact especially you.

Scotland survives at the moment and provides free education,free universal healthcare(including free prescription medicine) and much much more on the pittance on just under 31 billions per year as provided under the Barnett formula.... this is less than half of what we put into the union according to westminster numbers.

once the ACTUAL figures are worked out and the numbers crunched Scotland has revenues of just over 120 billions per year and, from that we can do better and put a little away like Norway does into a national oil fund. their oil fund is so vast now that it earns more in interest than their annual deposit... (hint it's over 300 billions now and rising)

as for running the country.... me..naaaah, but i WILL leave that happily to Alex Salmond... an economist of long standing and great repute and his chosen team from the people elected by Scotland to form government in an independent Scotland.

in summing up, i can only point someone like you in the direction of the facts but it's blatantly obvious that your prejudices and strict adherence to westminster dogma and perhaps the sun or the daily fail will always lead you to be the one full of vitriolic crapioca.
you do realise how bad you are making your side of the debate look don't you? i freely admit to taking a few wee sideswipes for a laugh as your point of view is dated and amusing to me, however you just come out with coarse insults, and frankly, it's making you look very muppet like
it's up to Scotland and it's electorate to decide whether it wants to be in the union or not.

it's not up to people not registered to vote in Scotland, it's not and English vote, Irish, nor Welsh..... it's ours and we will take the first step in the referendum in 2014.
Saor Alba (Free Scotland)

Google is in the process of developing a tool to help users generate strong passwords...

I wonder if it will involve giving the user random selections from Shakespeare.

Don't define functions inline of your statement.

Why? What is the negative consequence of doing so. If the function only needs to be referenced once, what is wrong with defining it where it will be referenced? It is more direct, and makes the action of the call to click() clearer.

Don't perform evaluations in your return statements.

Why? In what way is this:

var newElement = $("#showhidecontrol").clone().click(function () { hideableElement.toggleClass("hidden"); })});
return newElement;

clearer than

return $("#showhidecontrol").clone().click(function () { hideableElement.toggleClass("hidden"); })});

?

Avoid calling methods/functions on objects via the return of another evaluator.

Why? The API is a fluent API, specifically designed to allow this. Why not use this feature? Are you saying that respected programming writers like (e.g.) Joshua Bloch and Martin Fowler are wrong to recommend this style?

The code sample he provided is counter to reusability

I'd say it's very reusable: I can simply include this code fragment on any page I want hideable elements on, and it's reused. If necessary, I can wrap it in a function. If I wanted to make it more reusable, it wouldn't be hard to turn it into a jquery plugin, so then all I'd need to do is $(".hideable").addHideControl();

But in the end, how reusable do you need a 3-line code fragment that was written in less than 5 minutes to be?

readability

There are a lot of people who'd disagree with you there. Yes, you need to be vaguely familiar with jquery to understand what I wrote, but if you aren't familiar with the tools I'm using, what are you doing trying to maintain my code?

unsafe in that it doesn't evaluate possible nulls

There are no possible nulls. $(selector) is defined to always return a result set (which is possibly empty). The clone() method always returns a copy of the object set it was called on. The click() method always returns the object it was called on.

and arguably impossible to debug

I was debugging very similar code only yesterday, and didn't find it even remotely difficult.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=quartz+die
quartz is used as spacers in chip packaging.

And this isn't meant as flamebait. Seriously, go to an Occupy protest sometime and just look at the sheer number of Mac's, iPhones, and iPads you'll see. It's fucking creepy. They've been for shit at organizing on any other point, but they've apparently almost all agreed on at least *one* thing.

Really? Fucking retarded moderators, looks like any old rhetoric is taken as gospel these days with not one cited reference. Why should it be creepy that Apple products are used anyway, as opposed to any other foxconn branded gear?

BTW, here is an example of how to cite a reference, it would be nice if you earned your mod points: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=occupy+wall+street+laptops&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=xA4nT53LGYbG8QO4r53uBg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CEcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1224&bih=612

Ah yes, [Citation needed], AKA, "I'm far too lazy to check the facts, but I'm going to disagree with you regardless, because I prefer to wallow in my own ignorance."

What are you disputing exactly? Here, have a bunch of links, not that I expect you to read them if you can't even be arsed to use Google to confirm a point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3074669.stm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NsJGLW_hX3IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Film+piracy,+organized+crime,+and+terrorism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P3QdT6CWNsvOsgbIm9xI&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Film%20piracy%2C%20organized%20crime%2C%20and%20terrorism&f=false

http://cryptome.org/ltte-vigil.htm

There's plenty more sources out there, it's a pretty well researched area. I'm not sure what exactly you're disputing, because you just posted a meaningless one liner, but terrorist groups of all shapes and sizes have long used counterfeit goods as a source of funding, as has organised crime. If you're not disputing that I can only assume you're disputing that these groups act in the UK, and if it's that you're disputing I can only ask, where have you been for the last few decades? There's been many cases of individuals linked to terrorism being guilty of financing terrorism in the UK- and they're only the ones the police have detected and been able to build enough evidence for a criminal case against. You only have to look at my 3rd link to see the scale of the Tamil operations in the UK to see that they absolutely are operating here.

Honestly, I'm all for defending digital piracy, but let's please not try and blur it all in together and hide the ugly facts of physical piracy. Read my other post in response to the AC that replied to me - I made it quite clear that I actually see digital piracy as the cure to physical piracy which genuinely does fund terrorism and organised crime.

If people are going to start lumping physical piracy in with digital piracy and argue that piracy is fine, then the battle is already lost, because those defending piracy really are genuinely being irrational at that point, and the MPAA really can bill them as terrorist sympathisers. That's not right, because digital piracy is a separate issue, with separate knock on effects - the effects of digital diracy are IMO harmless, and potentially even beneficial (increased access to knowledge, no evidence of decreased profits as a result), whilst the effects of physical piracy are quite problematic (funding of organised crime etc.). As I say, the former can actually act as a market that counters the latter, which means digital piracy likely actually decreases funding for terrorism and organised crime because people are no longer buying counterfeit content when they can download it at home. They will though, if that option is taken away.

Good NTFS support on Linux has only been around for the last 5 years or so. and no thanks to Microsoft of course. Before that it was fairly risky to write to NTFS partitions from linux. In the media-streamer world, there is a lot of demand from users to manage their NTFS based portable storage from embedded Linux based streamers. Despite commercial 3rd party NTFS drivers, it still seems a bit risky to me.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Anetworkedmediatank.com+ntfs

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.

Easy, WMV DRM.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=wmv+malware

Well, the argument is that it does add liquidity to the markets, and tightens bid-ask spreads, which are useful functions for investors and traders both large and small: your orders are more likely to get filled quickly, and at a better price.

However, high-frequency trading (HFT) does lead to some very interesting, um, emergent phenomena. Check out the beautiful graphics produced by Nanex, dissecting the Flash Crash and other assorted HFT weirdness.

according to the BBC, there was a lot of pushback against some of Newton's workings ... this may damage Newton's place in history...

There are plenty of nuts who are keen to get publicity by claiming to debunk Einstein, Newton, or almost anybody famous who will get them some attention.

'Never at Rest' by R S Westfall (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3ngEugMMa9YC) was widely reviewed as a good scientific biography. The biographer more or less admitted that he was somewhat hostile towards his subject but even so there's plenty of solid information there.

Look at, say, York. I'm not familiar with it, but I see Boroughbridge Road, Shipton Road, Wigginton Road, Huntingdon Road, etc. All routes leading out of York to the respective place (Boroughbridge, etc). (Historically, anyway.)

In that context I don't really understand your question.

Mother Teresa was not a particularly nice person.

Mother Teresa

What might be practical, however, is to think about how to site critical pieces of infrastructure (such as... say... nuclear power plants...

Honest question - does anyone know why the Fukushima plant was built on the east coast of Japan, facing the bomb-waiting-to-go-off that is the massive subduction zone a few miles off shore?

Why wasn't it built on the west coast, so it was sheltered by the island itself? I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but looking at the map this seems like a schoolboy error to me.

What are you talking about? iOS switches nether look nor behave how you're describing. Below you can see no end of examples of iOS switches. And if you actually use one you'd find that you can indeed slide them.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uiswitch&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=pujOTsrBHIWf8gP9uezsCQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA8Q_AUoAQ&biw=1199&bih=668#hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=uiswitch&oq=uiswitch&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1g-S6g-sS1g-S1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=38918l39617l2l40348l8l3l0l0l0l1l242l486l1.1.1l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d8d6bd19e1503ed0&biw=1199&bih=668

The data does not indicate that.

The data clearly shows no statistically significant global warming for the past 13 years.

I wonder what the scope of using network over powerline to the access points is?

I think the roofs really are painted that bright blue color.

Now look at the main road, it looks like they have a scale Eiffel tower over this intersection.

So can anyone tell me what the circled numbers 1 to 5 are:

here

40ft across, irregularly spaced, close to something the size of a soccer/football field.

How about this one 41.030853,100.59948". It looks as though some of it has been painted out from the map image!

I'm English, so they don't come any more native English speaking than me. You obviously don't pay much attention to business if you're unfamiliar with the use of market cap to define the Largest Company.

What I was saying is that those variables should be irrelevant. The only people still clinging to those are the real racists. A great deal of racism and discrimination is kept alive and perpetuated by a lot of those claiming to be against it.

Oooookaaaaay....world as it is vs world as you would like it to be. "Variables *should* be irrelevant" Talk about missing the point. Yes, of course those variables should be irrelevant. What if they are not? They certainly haven't been irrelevant in the past, why should we not investigate whether they're relevant now?

You are saying "because these variables *ought* to be irrelevant, we therefore are morally obliged to abstain from testing whether they *are* in fact irrelevant, because to do that kind of testing means we are looking for an axe to grind". That is spectacularly broken logic. I hope you are no kind of scientist in your dayjob.

I'm not going to do the research for you. To start you on your way, you could look at this:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=male+vs+female+pay&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Or you could choose not to. I don't really care, as you've already said you don't think it's a subject worthy of study.

If you think men were, for the most part, the only people doing truly dangerous jobs, you have a stunted appreciation of history. Victorian mills were quite as dangerous as Victorian mines. Women healers and midwives were killed as witches by the hundreds of thousands. There are dozens more examples.

Nurses do not get a particularly good wage, although it varies from country to country. There are scholarly articles looking at pay differentials between this and similar jobs (eg firefighters, police officers) and nurses routinely come out worse off.

Cleaning is a crap job. Poor pay, hard physical work, unsociable hours, no job security, social isolation, treated like crap or ignored by the people you're cleaning for, etc etc. Are you a cleaner? If not, I suggest you have no idea what you're talking about.

The bias to test is whether jobs are unevenly distributed across the population on a basis other than talent and luck. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out, but then you've not proved particularly bright so far, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Looks exactly like these

Which are rice paddy fields in terraces

"Is the Lithium in LiIon batteries as explosive as other common fuels used in cars?"

  YES! look it up: it spontaneously ignites and burns vigorously when given access to air and water. lithium has an electro-potential of 3.6 volts - it's highly reactive in other words, which is the whole reason why it works well as a battery.

  other fuels at least if you expose them to air or water, they just sit there. even high-octane jet engine fuel isn't as damn dangerous as lithium. look it up: you really have to try hard to get petrol to ignite. you can put a flame to a pool of petrol: it *won't* burn. it's only when it's vapourised and mixed with air: _then_ it will ignite and explode... but so also does custard powder under the same circumstances!

"I wasn't aware that Nickel metal was considered highly toxic"

not highly toxic - just... toxic. google "nickel poisoning treatment". and it's absolute hell to get it out of a water source once contaminated.

"In the context of a car, how is a battery not a power source?"

it's not a fuel, is the point i'm making. you have to recharge it: you don't pour it in, or replace it (because replacements would be hell to transport). and, the energy storage density is much lower than gasoline or diesel.

"How would you design a car to accommodate a power source as opposed to a storage mechanism?"

the principle is well-understood - hybrids. the simplest way is "Series Hybrid" wikipedia page to the rescue...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain#Series_hybrid

however, this particular section is misleading in that it assumes that "direct drive" is efficient over the full torque and rpm range of an electric motor: i can tell you they're definitely not!

"How about giving us a hint about what your point is? The http://hybridcar.com/ [hybridcar.com] link is down"

bugger! http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Ahybridcar.com+curious+lack

ok, sorry about that. the point is that if you start from a position of a standard car, and make a single incremental change, you get nowhere, fast. in fact you get the _opposite_ of useful environmentally-friendly transport.

example: take a standard car 1.5 to 2.0 tonne vehicle and replace its engine with an electric motor. now you need 40% additional weight in batteries to make the car "socially acceptable" (i.e. long-range) you then need to beef up the suspension, chassis and so on - you've just massacred the entire point of converting to electric!

even if you take e.g. the chevy volt, or the nissan leaf, you still get fuel economy figures of only around 70 to 80 mpg. now that sounds great in U.S. fuel economy terms, but you have to appreciate that cars like the Geo Metro (Suzuki Swift to everyone else), and cars like the modern Nissan Micra and some of the VW Golfs have been getting over 70mpg for over a decade. the VW Golf can get 100mpg easily if you re-chip it so that it can't run on anything other than pure diesel (the standard factory calibration allows it to run on any kind of heavy oil or even ethanol).

but, unfortunately (as i point out in that article which is offline right now, apologies), the average mass-volume manufacturer can't cope with anything but incremental change, and even then it's touch-and-go as to whether they can cope with that.

the _real_ point is however that relying on "pure electric" is just.. madness, it really is. hybrids are the middle-ground compromise, but doing a really good job, by designing a decent aerodynamic shape, that's where i want to get to. so, i'm going ahead and designing exactly that: a decent aerodynamic bodyshell for use on an EV series-hybrid car.

I watched a (UK TV) documentary by a defence journalist a year or so back, where he suggested that the whole UFO business dating back to Roswell was a dis-information campaign by the USAF to disguise their new product testing - now Area 51. I thought he made his case well.

No need.

Yes, it's been out on Android for a year. Which means it was behind all the other phone platforms for availability of Vlingo.

BlackBerry Jun 2008
iPhone Dec 2008
Nokia May 2009
Windows Mobile June 2009
Android March 2010

The difference with Vlingo is the processing is done on a web-service. So you need a data connection, if you have a limited data plan you'll use some of it, it doesn't integrate as well with the built-in apps as Siri does.

As to which is better, that takes someone do do a side by side review of the two. Which I'm damn sure you haven't.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=siri+vs+vlingo&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=jG2jTrXUDNK78gP96cDKBQ

The drop-in jokes aren't the only reason I don't care for Seth's stuff: it's far too heavy on offensive jokes directed against jews, gays, the disabled, black people, women and most any other group you care to name. It's generally puerile and it doesn't help that - because of the characters - each of his shows is pretty much the same as another (hence The Simpson's jab)

You mentioned South Park; their 'flavour of the month' plots are exactly why I stopped watching that show. The same happened with The Simpsons, but that show has recovered somewhat since the movie.

Real programmers enter the program using a line of toggle-switches on the front panel.

Ever played FarmVille? No? Give it a try. [It is] essentially free of challenge, all the game requires is clicking on stuff to get rewards

I first came across this worthless type of game around 4 years ago, some time before Farmville, when spam links to something called "MyMiniCity" started appearing on Slashdot.

While it was dressed up as something superficially resembling a cut-down Sim City, it didn't take a genius to quickly figure out that the game had no metric beyond how many people from different IPs visited your page that day (and presumably see their advertising). In other words, your progress in this worthless "game" was only a reflection of how many people you had managed to convince- or con- into visiting your lousy page.

It was clever... on the part of the designers, who figured out a way to rope in easily amused (and not necessarily clever) people into doing their spamming by turning the process into a pseudo-game that pandered to some warped sense of achievement.

Androgynous.
Hourglass.
Fat.
What happens when the denial goes away.

HTH.

Androgynous.
Hourglass.
Fat.
What happens when the denial goes away.

HTH.

Androgynous.
Hourglass.
Fat.
What happens when the denial goes away.

HTH.

Oh I don't know maybe like this or this, or maybe even this

Ahem:

(US$ 20 000 000 000) / 30 000 000 = 666.666667 U.S. dollars

In short: Amazon pays what they want to pay. Not a penny more, nor less.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, I'm sure that Amazon would *want* to pay thruppence ha'penny, but that's not going to happen! :-)

Either the neutrinos travelled by road, or somebody does not know how to use any of the numerous mapping packages that feature a ruler tool, and has not read the paper or, indeed, the news. In this day and age, the latter seems implausible, so I suggest the hypothesis that superluminal particles can drive.

8000 Euro? I know you folks pay significantly more for electronics, but really? What type of TV is this and when did you buy it?

That's fairly typical for a television in the EU. You mean that not everyone in America has one of these babies?!

Oh MAN! I bet some of you guys are still watching on sub-50" screen. We got rid of them here years ago because we were hurting our eyes straining to see the detail on such a small display.

I think I still have some of them in my attic. If you want them just ask, I'll have them sent over in my private jet- though you might have to wait, as I'm having its gold-plated exterior covering replaced. (Nothing wrong with it, it's just that plain gold is a little passe, so I'm getting it done with green gold instead. I'll reuse the old gold plating the next time I'm oven-cooking a roast pheasant and running short on foil. Waste not, want not, etc.

Er, no, we generally *don't* spend 8000 Euros on a telly. :-)

"Post Roulette" might encourage people to send postcards of things that are quite phallic

I know better than to send something like that to the USA, but I wouldn't mind receiving it -- except it's a crap card: the head is missing just to centre the phallus. If it must be centred, why not zoom out a little, but show three herms together?

I want to send cards showing my own country, so something like the Cerne Abbas Giant would be better.

What do they consider rural in the UK? Is there any truly rural space left in the British Isles? I hate to think what large swathes of Australia, Canada and the USA where plenty of people live might be considered.

Yes there is some. Some parts of The Scottish Highlands are really remote. And of course there are uninhabited islands.