Slashdot Mirror

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=poop+-%3E+eletricity

I responded above, but just to be sure you read it.

What can't you understand in people's responses? Since you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept, here is a link. I never mentioned FISA in my post! The UK has the same (or perhaps worse) "secret" court system.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=epa+approved+wood+stoves

Rare-earths in a catalytic converter? That's the first I've heard of that. That could bring down the cost quite a bit, since rare-earths are quite a bit cheaper that the precious metals, like platinum and palladium, that I'm used to them using.

There actually are such things as rare-earth catalytic converters, although I have no idea if they are useful for wood-burning stoves or not.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frelling

and is all but impossible on mobile devices

Now you are just spreading FUD. LMGTFY

Yep, and I think if anything the WTO has been too gentle with the US. Our violation of our agreements has cost Antiqua and Barbudos ~$1B per year, and the WTO has only authorized them to make $21M per year from ignoring their agreement to honor our copyrights.

Bullshit. Antigua's GDP is a little over $1 billion, and yet you believe that this online gambling law is costing them "~$1B per year"? You believe that they could double their GDP purely through Americans playing online poker?

You're just eating up their propaganda. Think for yourself.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bing

Seriously?

I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

How about that you read or watch news about world events once in a while? Note that by world events I do not mean what Rihanna wore on the red carpet or what Justin Bieber did last night but actual politics as in that stuff that pretty much play an important part in our daily lives. Bone for the search engine impaired and generally ignorant.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=whooosh+yoda

I don't know what je ne sais quois means

Don't worry, I can help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=je+ne+sais+quois&l=1

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obamacare+amendments+written+by+republicans the Chuck Grassley one is pretty funny: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/obamacare-congressional-coverage_n_3697021.html

Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?

I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android

Hmmm 1.9million hits.

I wonder... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+lightning+port

10.6million hits. Thanks proof accepted.

Thanks for being a moron: All of my hits are about the port breaking, making the phone useless, yours are about the plug breaking making your argument useless.

Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?

I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android

Hmmm 1.9million hits.

I wonder... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+lightning+port

10.6million hits. Thanks proof accepted.

Thanks for being a moron: All of my hits are about the port breaking, making the phone useless, yours are about the plug breaking making your argument useless.

Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?

I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time -
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android

Hmmm 1.9million hits.

I wonder...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+lightning+port

10.6million hits. Thanks proof accepted.

Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?

I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time -
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android

Hmmm 1.9million hits.

I wonder...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+lightning+port

10.6million hits. Thanks proof accepted.

Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?

I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android

I usually find LMGTFY a bit obnoxious, but in this case it is the top hit for "take point". Goodness.

Sometimes, obnoxious is appropriate.

Like when someone disproves the axiom that there are no dumb questions by demanding the world hold his useless damn dick because he's too lazy and stupid to figure something out on his own.

I usually find LMGTFY a bit obnoxious, but in this case it is the top hit for "take point". Goodness.

Whoosh...!

Interestingly enough, I haven't caused any accidents yet. Go figure....

Like to dance with the devil, do we?

Key operatives in your statement: "I" and "yet."

Nope, I'm just a good enough driver to keep my eye on the road at all times and use technology to my advantage instead of letting it distract me.

Well, that's good (albeit making statements like that, you'd be wise to find some wood to knock on), but in my experience that makes you an exception to the rule.

Isn't your rant the same thing that they said about radios, GPS devices, etc.... You forget that people eventually adapt and learn how to use new technology safely.

Not according to the NHTSA, who I'm more inclined to believe than some random Slashdotter.

From the article:

The NHTSA states that 80% of accidents and 16% of highway deaths are the result of distracted drivers

Did you miss the point in the Wiki that distracted driving can be anything from drinking, eating, checking on your kid in the rear view mirror, watching that cute girl on the side of the road, etc... (see the article you linked to).

Nope; did you miss the rest of the paragraph, after the part I quoted?

The National Safety Council (NSC) estimates that 1.6 million (25%) of crashes annually are due to cell phone use, and another 1 million (18%) traffic accidents are due to texting while driving. These numbers equate to one accident every 24 seconds attributed to distracted driving by cell phone use. The NSC also reported that speaking on a cell phone while driving reduces focus on the road and the act of driving by 37%, irrespective of hands-free cell phone operation.

If someone is a bad driver, they are going to be a bad driver no matter what they have in the car to distract them.

Not untrue.

The point of technology is to provide solutions that reduces this distraction to a minimum level.

Not true - the point is to sell people cars. GM, Ford, et. al. could give a shit less what you do with it, so long as you give them money.

That aside, any technology in an automobile that is not directly related to driving inherently increases distraction, by mere virtue of the fact that the devices do not relate directly to driving. Of course, that's not to say that all technologies are equally distracting; a radio is less of a distraction than a satnav, and both are far, far less distracting than, say, an 'infotainment' system* that puts Google searches on your dashboard would be.

* I absolutely fucking hate the word 'infotainment.' Sounds too much like reptilian, er, I mean, marketing-speak.

As an example, current technology allows you to text and read texts using voice through the car system. This will reduce the potential distraction of cell phones.

So, are we pretending that all those studies showing that hands-free is no less dangerous than hands on, or have we not payed attention to any news for the past half decade?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=hands+free+distracted+driving

Most cars also now have avoidance and lane change warning systems.

No, some cars do - mostly brand new, expensive high-end ones. I.e., the kind of car the vast majority of drivers do not own. Besides, said systems are not perfect, nor should they be a replacement for drivers who pay attention. Personally, I find such technology irresponsible, as it will inevitably lead to lazy people relying on it instead of not being shitty drivers. We'd be better off with fully automated driving, as much as I

At the national level, we've gone from taking a few years to put a man on the moon to taking four years to pass an ANNUAL budget through just the senate. We've gone from "defeat the Soviet Union" to "emulate the French"

Are you aware of what the income distribution and income tax rates were in this country before you claim we started to "emulate the French"?

Let me google that for you.

At the national level, we've gone from taking a few years to put a man on the moon to taking four years to pass an ANNUAL budget through just the senate. We've gone from "defeat the Soviet Union" to "emulate the French"

Are you aware of what the income distribution and income tax rates were in this country before you claim we started to "emulate the French"?

Let me google that for you.

I think Douglas Adams worked this one out a while back:

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Bistromathics

The third and most mysterious piece of nonabsoluteness of all lies in the relationship between the number of items on the check, the cost of each item, the number of people at the table and what they are each prepared to pay for.

You'd have thought that Google, of all people, would have checked to see whether there was an app for that already...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=restaurant+bill+app

What do you mean by "fractally wrong"?

This.

True, but...

The end. There is no "but"; Either it's a correct statement, and you need to admit your original was mistaken and try again, or it's not, in which case no 'but' is required. All that using the word 'but' means is that your pride was hurt. While I sympathize, please stop using your busted argument.

No one really knows at the outset if they've got what it takes,

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." -- Carl Sagan

No, people do know. It takes the ability to observe natural phenomenon, form conclusions based on that, then test them until you can get the same result multiple times. That's it. As I said before -- animals do this all the time. Not just people. So you don't need to climb mountains and risk death to be a scientist. Maybe you do to get paid, but science is something anyone can do.

But that's not the same thing as "doing science" the way Einstein did,

Are you saying you can't pick up a piece of chalk and write on a blackboard? That you can't stare into space having a good think on something? Are you suggesting you're incapable of looking with fascination at something happening around you and say "I think I would like to know more about that." Because that's what Einstein did, he just happened to do it particularly well.

Look, at this point you're arguing just for the sake of argument; Science is the light of reason. It is something available to all. You don't have to pay for it. You don't have to be smart. You don't have to put on a lab coat, or get a PhD, or climb mountains, or risk death. All you really need is to be observant and enough mental capacity to see how your own interactions with the environment change it. Everything on top of that is just extra.

There is no reason why we cannot all be scientists. I get that you wanna hero worship Einstein because you feel that your own intelligence should be rewarded and acknowledged, at least in some small measure, like his was. But drop the emotional neediness here and look at the big picture: The pursuit of science is its own reward. You don't need recognition or publication to benefit from your own pursuit of knowledge.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the senators that shut gov't down are is still being paid.

You could save a fortune if you defunded them and kicked them out of our home.

Ref Ref Ref You know, what, Lemme just google that for you

Google it? It's dpreview.com, man. Were you trying to be cute or something?

No, no. This is being cute.

I must have been holding it wrong, right?!?!

Or something, yes. I work in IT and support includes the phones (smart and dumb). I have never, ever seen someone break a microUSB connector.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port - About 1,050,000 results
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android - About 1,860,000 results (shouldn't a more specific search give less results?)

I must have been holding it wrong, right?!?!

Or something, yes. I work in IT and support includes the phones (smart and dumb). I have never, ever seen someone break a microUSB connector.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port - About 1,050,000 results
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android - About 1,860,000 results (shouldn't a more specific search give less results?)

Here, I googled it for you. There are apparently many sites explaining how and why gasoline spoils. Your story is one anecdote, if true. Thanks for wasting your time telling it though. You sure showed that vehicle snob.

Can I have text selected in two windows at once? Which one wins?

I forgot my other pet peeve, how do I highlight to replace when the system is being smart enough to synchronize the clipboards?

1. I never said the feature was rocket science. The problem I run into is discovering the correct keyword for the magic. How am I supposed to know that xsel is a copy-paste thing vs some Excel clone? The question I have is, "After I get to the desktop, how do I discover what I can do?" http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+controls+middle+click+paste+in+linux does not return xsel. The question does have other interesting answers though. How did you learn that xsel exists and what it does?

2. Android smart phones have a limited user input methods, it is easier to learn fewer options. When was the last time you middle clicked to paste on your phone?

IMarv

Just because a Russian didn't invent the smartphone, it does not follow that there are no famous Russian scientists. Broaden your horizons. Quite a number of 20th century math fields are almost entirely Russian. And hey, those rocket scientists, the ones that keep boosting out American astronauts into space - they're exclusively Russian.

Or, if you insist: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=famous+russian+scientists

Plan 9 was Bell Labs successor to Unix. It was used to test many new concepts like Unicode and UTF-8, and has some pioneering features for clusters/networks of computers. I think most current operating systems including Windows and Linux have implemented concepts that were tested on Plan 9. For more information try plan 9 google search.

SSDs are not about cost per space.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=advantages+of+ssd&l=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradeoff

Various people with various biases have estimated the rate of false accusation of rape at between 1.5% and 90%. The highest of these tend to assume that any accusation that doesn't get to trial is automatically false. Both UK police and the FBI have estimated the rate at about 8%. If you check the Home Office report, you'll find that's similar to the false reporting rates for other violent crimes (a bit lower, actually, so maybe 10-11%).

The number of men falsely charged with rape is naturally much lower, because a large proportion of false accusations never get to that stage.

If you want numbers, by the way, you could try here.

But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not. You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.

Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.

That it doesn't extend to incriminating others is, again, intuitively obvious. I'm not your high school civics teacher. Do it yourself.

I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.

Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.

Oh, and just to cut off your sanctimonious "you didn't answer the question about third-party witnesses!" because I know you won't go and actually spend the time to actually think it through, you braying ass. If any witness can refuse to answer any question, even if it does not incriminate them, our trial system wouldn't be able to function. As members of our society, we have a duty to participate in our legal system, whether it be as a juror or a witness, with criminal penalties attached if we refuse. Don't like it? Elect some folks to change it. Oh, and good luck with that. With all the flaws in our judicial system, requiring witnesses to answer questions that do not incriminate them is not one of them.

You've wasted enough of my valuable time. Based on your hagiography, one would expect more from you. If you're trying to be didactic with your obvious questions and inane comments, you've failed. Good bye.

But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not. You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.

Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.

That it doesn't extend to incriminating others is, again, intuitively obvious. I'm not your high school civics teacher. Do it yourself.

I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.

Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.

All that says is that the government has a responsibility to make sure there are militias and that they are properly equipped and trained. It says nothing about them being an army instead of a militia.

Can someone please explain why people say there's a toolbar in the Java installer? I have always gotten the JRE/JDK from http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html and have never encountered such a thing. Am I the only one who knows these even exist?

Most people just get it from the home page, and that's a different installer.
Remember, a large number of people who get Java only do so because Pogo tells them to. For those people this is "surfing the internet". And they're going to click the first search result, which is that same installer. Yeah, your page is the third result, but they will ask "Is 'Java SE' the same as 'Java'?" and they'll skip it.

When the consumer version automatically notifies you of an update, the updater has the same type of installer (with the tag-along software), so you have to uncheck the option every time you update Java now.

Sometimes I wonder if people have making life more difficult for themselves just to give them something to rant about.

More difficult like digging through a tech-net website looking for a installation program, and coming to this page (which would intimidate any non-techy person)?

Quote Lex Luthor: WRONG!!!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=-40C+in+Farenheit

No, it is not.

If you're resistant to clicking the link, it's a funny nickname for koalas, implying that they are (as a joke, because they are not) vicious horror-movie terrors that ambush unsuspecting tourists by dropping on to them from the canopy.

Wow, you picked exactly two that were not their inventions... was that on purpose? But let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+technologies+invented+by+nasa

The first link should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Here, let me google that for you.

Let's see, let's try googling "Heckler's Veto", with "Man Sekasi (I'm feeling lucky).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Heckler's+Veto&l=1

Was that so hard

Is this a technical forum or Urban Dictionary affiliate?

Here, let me help you.

Read all about it:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mers+bats

Speaking of looking things up: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Communist+Control+Act+of+1954&l=1

"Sure, IP blocking is a blocking mechanism. If I IP-block you ..,"

Listen. You proved to me that you are an idiot a long time ago. There is no need to keep trying to prove it over and over. Seriously. You cannot possibly IP Block me, since an IP Address not only doesn't identify me in any way, it doesn't even identify a state."

"And you persist in misunderstanding the legal concept of "authorization". It doesn't depend on some sort of automatic mechanism."

Again, you are a straight moron. Seriously. How many times do I have to tell you that, in order to meet the legal requirements to claim someone is not authorized, said company ... and I mean any company, on the net or off ... must make a reasonable attempt to restrict access. No company, under any circumstances, can claim they have attempted to restrict access while simultaneously not restricting access in any way.

Just accept the fact that you are an uninformed idiot and move on with your ignorance based life, such as it is.