Actually, all the Republicans "blamed" Obama for with the last underwear bomber was Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked" when the only reason the guy was stopped was because of the actions of other passengers on the plane, not because of anything done by the TSA.
That assumes that the law actually specifies these searches. Additionally, it is clear that there were some in the Administration who felt that the Texas law was actually enforceable, otherwise why did they threaten to shut down all flights into and out of Texas if the law passed. There are several federal laws which grant rather broad powers to administrative agencies that it would be interesting to see how they held up in court if the regulations created based on those powers came into conflict with state laws.
First, how is that a car analogy?
Second, I think it is likely that they have taken the amount of funding that these researchers have obtained through their own efforts (as opposed to getting funding from grants that someone else at the university did the actual application work for). I worked at a company that as part of what it did did research. It applied for grants and received grants for some of that work. One of the bigwigs at the company took a lot of credit for many of those grants when in fact they were obtained despite his presence with the company, rather than because of his presence with the company (he did do some of the research work on those grants and did contribute something useful to some of them...although he was also an obstacle on more than one of them as well). This example is not directly related to the story, but it illustrates how someone might be getting paid out of grant money that their absence would not negatively effect.
Well, yes, but exactly how would you recomend that the university determine if they are actually doing any of the work they are being paid for?
The fact of the matter is that the university is paying them to conduct research because published research papers increase the prestige of the university. If they do not publish anything they are not delivering value to the university.
This does not mean that this is a good idea. It just means that it is unlikely that most of us on slashdot will be able to judge this action fairly.
Except that Oxford did not "put up with that". Andrew Wiles was only at Oxford from 1988-1990 according to your wikipeia link. He appears from that link to be have been a professor at Princeton for much of the time that he spent working on his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It is not clear whether or not he was teaching classes during the time that he was at Princeton.
The end-user, also, doesn't care about the distinction between a battery pack consisting of multiple batteris, a battery consisting of multiple cells and a battery consisting of one cell. At least not unless they are considering which one of the three is best for their device that will accept all three, which the Tesla Roadster does not. The Tesla Roadster accepts only one of those options, so most end-users consider it perfectly acceptable to refer to that option as "a battery".
Actually, the "rebuttal" article seems to say that yes, the battery will become unrechargeable if you leave your Tesla car unplugged for too long....which is what the article it is "debunking" says as well.
The first article says, "This is a problem and Tesla should do something about it." The second article spends three paragraphs explaining that the original article gave a simplified explanation of how the Tesla works and is wrong about the possibility it discusses and how something the original article never said can't happen. Then it spends a paragraph explaining how the problem the original article actually talks about can indeed happen and how that is the nature of rechargeable batteries and there is nothing Tesla can do about it. Finally it spends another paragraph talking about how the original article is one of many that is spreading misinformation about electric vehicles.
Yes, the term is overused. However, the usage in the original blog post was borderline to acceptable (even if it was wrong). The original blog post said that the Tesla Roadster became unusable if the battery pack became discharged beyond a certain point unless a fairly expensive part (the battery pack) was replaced. Since the claim was that the car could not even be rolled somewhere in this condition the use ofthe term "bricked" was appropriate. Of course, this story is about arguing that the original blog post was wrong.
I just skimmed both articles. The new one does not actually address the point made in the first one, only the oversimplifications that the first one made. The first one contended that if you leave a Roadster sit for 11 weeks not connected to a charger the battery pack will become so discharged that you will need to replace it. The second article says at one point that if you leave a rechargable battery sit long enough without it receiving at least a trickle charge, it will discharge to the point of being forever unrechargable. That to me sounds like the same thing. Now other posters on this site have made arguments that suggest that this is not true for the type of battery used in the Roadster, but that is not an argument made by the article claiming to debunk the first. As I said, the article claiming to debunk the first actually supports the claim made by the first, but then says that there is nothing that can be done about that because that is just the nature of the physics of batteries.
Actually, "bricked" did not start with cellphones. It is a term referring to any electronic device that has stopped working. My first experience with it comes from early PCs, where people would talk about turning their PC into a "brick" or into a "doorstop".
The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.
That all depends on whether or not Obama gets re-elected. Obama has shown a tendency to believe that the UN is already some sort of world government (see going to war in Libya with UN approval, but without ever even consulting with Congress about it).
Consumer Reports had a strong anti-Chrysler bias for many years. One of its senior editors had a personal grudge against Chrysler. I no longer remember what it was over, but it meant that their reports on Chrysler products were notoriously bad.
Because why spend the money on oil changes if you are going to buy a new car every two years, which is what the guy he was responding to said that he did?
I remember when I first started reading slashdot around 5 years ago there were several stories about public transportation agencies in several cities suing people to stop them from distributing easy to use digital versions of their schedules. These lawsuits were for the most part successful. In those cases where the public transportation agency lost their suit, my recollection is that they changed the way they did their scheduling to make the private scheduling services fail. This was roundly condemned here on slashdot (rightly so), although it had a few defenders.
My point is, how much quicker would we have had something like this, and how much better would it already be, if we hadn't had to wait for somebody as big as Google to start doing it for the public transportation authorities to start cooperating with it?
The difference is that the cloud service provider needs to make a profit on that service. So, yes, they can do it cheaper than your company can, but will it still be cheaper after you factor in their profit? Unless you are a pretty small company, you can hire the people to do the job in house and set it up to do it just as efficiently as they do (or close enough). You will not be able to do it as cheaply as they can, but the question is can you do it cheaper than what they charge to do it? The answer to that question depends on the size of your company. However, I am quite confident that if your company employs over 200 people, it will be cheaper to do it in-house and if you hire the right people it will be better.
In what way was the destruction of private property aided and abetted by an officer of the law? There is no mention in the article of any "officers of the law" being present at the site where the shooting took place. I had not read the story before seeing this comment, but one thing interesting here is that apparently the shooters were on ATVs. This sounds like it may have been a couple of teenagers who knew that the "animal rights" activists were going to be there launching their drone and decided to shoot it down. When I was in high school I knew a couple of guys who would have done something like this. And when I was in college I knew a guy from South Carolina who would have done something like this when he was in high school (except that the "estimated damages" to the drone would have been the total cost of the drone because he would have used a gun powerful enough to completely destroy the drone).
What gun permits are you talking about? Is there any reason to believe that any of these people had concealed carry permits? These were not concealed carry weapons. South Carolina is one of those states that still believes in the Second Amendment. There is no permit necessary to own and/or carry a shotgun in South Carolina.
So, you appear to be saying that you would have no problem with Rick Santorum becoming President, you just think that Obama will beat him in the general election? Or are you saying that you prefer Obama as Emperor to any other choice?
You can attempt to pretend to be an over the top supporter of Rick Santorum, but I am aware of the website you referenced in the post I first responded to. I fully understand how someone like you would be scared to death of someone like Rick Santorum as President after what Obama has done to dismantle the limits on Presidential power (as in, there really are none left).
There are very few if any microbes in most of the meat we ingest (the exception being ground meat) just as there are few, if any, microbes in the muscle tissue of the human body. That is why when you hear about food born illness outbreaks relating to meat they almost always involve ground meat (grinding meat adds numerous avenues for microbes to be introduced into the meat).
While there are numerous microbes essential to the proper health of any animal, they are overwhelmingly on the skin or in the digestive track.
There is something to that. However, if that was all it was, the U.S. would have descended into anarchy after Washington's death until a unifying, dictator sort emerged. If things had been only a little different, Andrew Jackson could have been such a figure. I still think the fact that each of the states was a semi-independent government and that each of those state governments joined in the revolt from Britain (rather than the revolt being an overthrow of the state governments as well as of the British government) played a significant role in the American Revolution turning out differently.
As another poster points out, the American revolution was different from other revolutions for several reason. At least one of which was the fact that it ended up being a war between armies. In addition, it was a war of independence rather than a traditional revolution.
On the other hand, the French Revolution ended up exactly as the poster you replied to said. The French Revolution did not end in a democratic government for France. It ended in Napoleon's imperial rule of France.
Of course they will when that amount gets to a high enough amount to cover the cost of writing a check. Now you have to keep in mind that there is only $0.50 per student being distributed to copyright holders, the rest of the $27.50 per student goes to the administrative costs that Access Copyright incurs to facilitate this process (I may be underestimating their administrative costs).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, all the Republicans "blamed" Obama for with the last underwear bomber was Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked" when the only reason the guy was stopped was because of the actions of other passengers on the plane, not because of anything done by the TSA.
That assumes that the law actually specifies these searches. Additionally, it is clear that there were some in the Administration who felt that the Texas law was actually enforceable, otherwise why did they threaten to shut down all flights into and out of Texas if the law passed. There are several federal laws which grant rather broad powers to administrative agencies that it would be interesting to see how they held up in court if the regulations created based on those powers came into conflict with state laws.
First, how is that a car analogy?
Second, I think it is likely that they have taken the amount of funding that these researchers have obtained through their own efforts (as opposed to getting funding from grants that someone else at the university did the actual application work for). I worked at a company that as part of what it did did research. It applied for grants and received grants for some of that work. One of the bigwigs at the company took a lot of credit for many of those grants when in fact they were obtained despite his presence with the company, rather than because of his presence with the company (he did do some of the research work on those grants and did contribute something useful to some of them...although he was also an obstacle on more than one of them as well). This example is not directly related to the story, but it illustrates how someone might be getting paid out of grant money that their absence would not negatively effect.
Well, yes, but exactly how would you recomend that the university determine if they are actually doing any of the work they are being paid for?
The fact of the matter is that the university is paying them to conduct research because published research papers increase the prestige of the university. If they do not publish anything they are not delivering value to the university.
This does not mean that this is a good idea. It just means that it is unlikely that most of us on slashdot will be able to judge this action fairly.
Except that Oxford did not "put up with that". Andrew Wiles was only at Oxford from 1988-1990 according to your wikipeia link. He appears from that link to be have been a professor at Princeton for much of the time that he spent working on his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It is not clear whether or not he was teaching classes during the time that he was at Princeton.
The end-user, also, doesn't care about the distinction between a battery pack consisting of multiple batteris, a battery consisting of multiple cells and a battery consisting of one cell. At least not unless they are considering which one of the three is best for their device that will accept all three, which the Tesla Roadster does not. The Tesla Roadster accepts only one of those options, so most end-users consider it perfectly acceptable to refer to that option as "a battery".
Actually, the "rebuttal" article seems to say that yes, the battery will become unrechargeable if you leave your Tesla car unplugged for too long....which is what the article it is "debunking" says as well.
The first article says, "This is a problem and Tesla should do something about it." The second article spends three paragraphs explaining that the original article gave a simplified explanation of how the Tesla works and is wrong about the possibility it discusses and how something the original article never said can't happen. Then it spends a paragraph explaining how the problem the original article actually talks about can indeed happen and how that is the nature of rechargeable batteries and there is nothing Tesla can do about it. Finally it spends another paragraph talking about how the original article is one of many that is spreading misinformation about electric vehicles.
Yes, the term is overused. However, the usage in the original blog post was borderline to acceptable (even if it was wrong). The original blog post said that the Tesla Roadster became unusable if the battery pack became discharged beyond a certain point unless a fairly expensive part (the battery pack) was replaced. Since the claim was that the car could not even be rolled somewhere in this condition the use ofthe term "bricked" was appropriate. Of course, this story is about arguing that the original blog post was wrong.
I just skimmed both articles. The new one does not actually address the point made in the first one, only the oversimplifications that the first one made. The first one contended that if you leave a Roadster sit for 11 weeks not connected to a charger the battery pack will become so discharged that you will need to replace it. The second article says at one point that if you leave a rechargable battery sit long enough without it receiving at least a trickle charge, it will discharge to the point of being forever unrechargable. That to me sounds like the same thing. Now other posters on this site have made arguments that suggest that this is not true for the type of battery used in the Roadster, but that is not an argument made by the article claiming to debunk the first. As I said, the article claiming to debunk the first actually supports the claim made by the first, but then says that there is nothing that can be done about that because that is just the nature of the physics of batteries.
Actually, "bricked" did not start with cellphones. It is a term referring to any electronic device that has stopped working. My first experience with it comes from early PCs, where people would talk about turning their PC into a "brick" or into a "doorstop".
The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.
That all depends on whether or not Obama gets re-elected. Obama has shown a tendency to believe that the UN is already some sort of world government (see going to war in Libya with UN approval, but without ever even consulting with Congress about it).
Consumer Reports had a strong anti-Chrysler bias for many years. One of its senior editors had a personal grudge against Chrysler. I no longer remember what it was over, but it meant that their reports on Chrysler products were notoriously bad.
Because why spend the money on oil changes if you are going to buy a new car every two years, which is what the guy he was responding to said that he did?
I remember when I first started reading slashdot around 5 years ago there were several stories about public transportation agencies in several cities suing people to stop them from distributing easy to use digital versions of their schedules. These lawsuits were for the most part successful. In those cases where the public transportation agency lost their suit, my recollection is that they changed the way they did their scheduling to make the private scheduling services fail. This was roundly condemned here on slashdot (rightly so), although it had a few defenders.
My point is, how much quicker would we have had something like this, and how much better would it already be, if we hadn't had to wait for somebody as big as Google to start doing it for the public transportation authorities to start cooperating with it?
The difference is that the cloud service provider needs to make a profit on that service. So, yes, they can do it cheaper than your company can, but will it still be cheaper after you factor in their profit? Unless you are a pretty small company, you can hire the people to do the job in house and set it up to do it just as efficiently as they do (or close enough). You will not be able to do it as cheaply as they can, but the question is can you do it cheaper than what they charge to do it? The answer to that question depends on the size of your company. However, I am quite confident that if your company employs over 200 people, it will be cheaper to do it in-house and if you hire the right people it will be better.
Yes, but a public school student didn't.
In what way was the destruction of private property aided and abetted by an officer of the law? There is no mention in the article of any "officers of the law" being present at the site where the shooting took place. I had not read the story before seeing this comment, but one thing interesting here is that apparently the shooters were on ATVs. This sounds like it may have been a couple of teenagers who knew that the "animal rights" activists were going to be there launching their drone and decided to shoot it down. When I was in high school I knew a couple of guys who would have done something like this. And when I was in college I knew a guy from South Carolina who would have done something like this when he was in high school (except that the "estimated damages" to the drone would have been the total cost of the drone because he would have used a gun powerful enough to completely destroy the drone).
Their gun permits should be revoked,...
What gun permits are you talking about? Is there any reason to believe that any of these people had concealed carry permits? These were not concealed carry weapons. South Carolina is one of those states that still believes in the Second Amendment. There is no permit necessary to own and/or carry a shotgun in South Carolina.
So, you appear to be saying that you would have no problem with Rick Santorum becoming President, you just think that Obama will beat him in the general election? Or are you saying that you prefer Obama as Emperor to any other choice?
You can attempt to pretend to be an over the top supporter of Rick Santorum, but I am aware of the website you referenced in the post I first responded to. I fully understand how someone like you would be scared to death of someone like Rick Santorum as President after what Obama has done to dismantle the limits on Presidential power (as in, there really are none left).
There are very few if any microbes in most of the meat we ingest (the exception being ground meat) just as there are few, if any, microbes in the muscle tissue of the human body. That is why when you hear about food born illness outbreaks relating to meat they almost always involve ground meat (grinding meat adds numerous avenues for microbes to be introduced into the meat).
While there are numerous microbes essential to the proper health of any animal, they are overwhelmingly on the skin or in the digestive track.
My mind has been changed on the ethics of that and it was Peter Singer who convinced me of the fact.
You mean the ethicist who believes that parents should be able to retroactively abort their children?
Yes, because Rick Santorum would be so much worse than a President who unilaterally changes the law because he can't convince Congress to do so.
There is something to that. However, if that was all it was, the U.S. would have descended into anarchy after Washington's death until a unifying, dictator sort emerged. If things had been only a little different, Andrew Jackson could have been such a figure. I still think the fact that each of the states was a semi-independent government and that each of those state governments joined in the revolt from Britain (rather than the revolt being an overthrow of the state governments as well as of the British government) played a significant role in the American Revolution turning out differently.
As another poster points out, the American revolution was different from other revolutions for several reason. At least one of which was the fact that it ended up being a war between armies. In addition, it was a war of independence rather than a traditional revolution.
On the other hand, the French Revolution ended up exactly as the poster you replied to said. The French Revolution did not end in a democratic government for France. It ended in Napoleon's imperial rule of France.
Of course they will when that amount gets to a high enough amount to cover the cost of writing a check. Now you have to keep in mind that there is only $0.50 per student being distributed to copyright holders, the rest of the $27.50 per student goes to the administrative costs that Access Copyright incurs to facilitate this process (I may be underestimating their administrative costs).