This is the argument I've been using against the BBC when they've been removing my posts.
How am I, Joe Public, supposed to know this super-injuction even exists?
You aren't supposed to know. No penalty is applied to you.
The BBC is supposed to know. A penalty could be applied to them if they did not remove your posts.
"David Regev suggests that the location bar should be replaced with a tool to support more than just one command" eh? We'll all be back to using the command line soon.
Evolution - as a good scientific theory - is able to make predictions. Based on those Tiktaalik was found. What is Tiktaalik? Well, Google it and be amazed.
I Googled it. Tiktaalik was found because Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Professor Farish A. Jenkins, Jr were digging around in the shale. It wasn't found because of any evolutionary theory. It doesn't do science any favours to make false claims about it.
Yes. As far as I can see it refers to a specialism, not a position on the issue. And anyway, a physicist for example could -- at least in theory -- decline to take a position on evolution on the grounds that it's outside their field and they didn't believe that they'd considered the issue in sufficient detail.
Probably because you're maintaining the assumption of old analog clocks of one alarm per clock.
No I'm not. Tap the clock on my phone and it lets me set multiple alarms, and enable or disable existing alarms. The real problem is not the plus sign, it's the "it's not easy to get back again" if you do the wrong thing, which is pretty near always bad design.
If you instead do what this bill appears to propose, then the city government can ensure that their service goes to places that the private companies won't go right now, but it still leaves the door open for the private companies to go there later once the population grows enough to make it worthwhile.
Except the only credible reason that private companies won't go there is that it's not commercially viable, so the city government can't do what this bill proposes.
But once everyone rides transit, who is going to fund its losses? Better to lay the foundation of a transportation system that can pay its own way* now rather than squeeze cash out of private car drivers who will become increasingly scarce as time goes by.
Who pays for the road infrastructure? In most places all road transport receives a hidden subsidy in the form of the road infrastructure. The only fair way would be to charge all road users -- cars, lorries, bikers, pedestrians, cyclists, horses... -- per use, according to their demands on the system. It's not going to happen, so there will be subsidies. The argument is over where the subsidies will fall.
If "it's not easy to get back again" then it's a fundamental design flaw that discourages experimentation, not "necessarily simple". And having the plus sign is an unnecessary complication -- tap the clock on my phone and it goes to the alarm setting menu with other configuration available from there. I'm sure the younger generation could cope with that too.
What we need to do is agree on a standard that can do all this: text messages, files transfers, audio calls, video calls, from one to multiple users for each of those.
Unfortunately it doesn't help if we agree a standard. We also need to get enough people using the standard for it to be a viable competitor to Microsoft. All the people I want to call abroad are on Skype and will stay on Skype unless they have a reason to move. And none of them consider "It's Microsoft" or "There is an alternative" to be a reason to move. They'll stick with what works for them.
I think the vast majority of art that is produced using grant money is stuff that only a very small percentage of the population enjoys or appreciates.
Typically, if a large percentage of the population enjoys or appreciates it then it doesn't need arts grants: it can be commercially viable. Arts grants are for the stuff that hardly anybody would pay the going rate for, but that the budget holders think is important for some reason.
When an animal is threatened, it seems to make sense for it to take in extra calories, if they're available, that it can use for fight or flight. Only so many extra, or it will just want to lie down and snooze, but nature isn't usually so generous with calories for evolution to take that into account. Of course, the choice of the form those calories comes in does seem to be specific to the threat.
If you are not working for a company of appreciable size, the amount of work you have to do is probably more than if you work in a big company -- the small company is less able to carry slack, and there are fewer places to hide. I've done both, and pretty much have to manage my own Windows PC at the moment. It hardly takes any time.
Slashdot Mirror
In Switzerland and elsewhere I can already pay for vending machine purchases with my phone. In Hong Kong I can use my Octopus card.
This is the argument I've been using against the BBC when they've been removing my posts. How am I, Joe Public, supposed to know this super-injuction even exists?
You aren't supposed to know. No penalty is applied to you.
The BBC is supposed to know. A penalty could be applied to them if they did not remove your posts.
"David Regev suggests that the location bar should be replaced with a tool to support more than just one command" eh? We'll all be back to using the command line soon.
Fizzy ammonia doesn't do it for me.
What are my books doing at U. Chicago's library?
Evolution - as a good scientific theory - is able to make predictions. Based on those Tiktaalik was found. What is Tiktaalik? Well, Google it and be amazed.
I Googled it. Tiktaalik was found because Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Professor Farish A. Jenkins, Jr were digging around in the shale. It wasn't found because of any evolutionary theory. It doesn't do science any favours to make false claims about it.
Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"?
Yes. As far as I can see it refers to a specialism, not a position on the issue. And anyway, a physicist for example could -- at least in theory -- decline to take a position on evolution on the grounds that it's outside their field and they didn't believe that they'd considered the issue in sufficient detail.
Probably because you're maintaining the assumption of old analog clocks of one alarm per clock.
No I'm not. Tap the clock on my phone and it lets me set multiple alarms, and enable or disable existing alarms. The real problem is not the plus sign, it's the "it's not easy to get back again" if you do the wrong thing, which is pretty near always bad design.
The end began almost fourteen billion years ago (probably). The only question is how long it will take.
If you instead do what this bill appears to propose, then the city government can ensure that their service goes to places that the private companies won't go right now, but it still leaves the door open for the private companies to go there later once the population grows enough to make it worthwhile.
Except the only credible reason that private companies won't go there is that it's not commercially viable, so the city government can't do what this bill proposes.
But once everyone rides transit, who is going to fund its losses? Better to lay the foundation of a transportation system that can pay its own way* now rather than squeeze cash out of private car drivers who will become increasingly scarce as time goes by.
Who pays for the road infrastructure? In most places all road transport receives a hidden subsidy in the form of the road infrastructure. The only fair way would be to charge all road users -- cars, lorries, bikers, pedestrians, cyclists, horses... -- per use, according to their demands on the system. It's not going to happen, so there will be subsidies. The argument is over where the subsidies will fall.
Well, I can see why she would appeal to a footballer.
It's on Wikipedia...
I don't think Harold Camping was the first kook by a looong shot.
From the article: "The end of the world has been predicted more than 100 times in the last 100 years."
Expect Hallmark to be announcing an annual "Apocalypse Day" and marketing cards anytime now. But what date should they choose? It's not always 21 May.
If "it's not easy to get back again" then it's a fundamental design flaw that discourages experimentation, not "necessarily simple". And having the plus sign is an unnecessary complication -- tap the clock on my phone and it goes to the alarm setting menu with other configuration available from there. I'm sure the younger generation could cope with that too.
What we need to do is agree on a standard that can do all this: text messages, files transfers, audio calls, video calls, from one to multiple users for each of those.
Unfortunately it doesn't help if we agree a standard. We also need to get enough people using the standard for it to be a viable competitor to Microsoft. All the people I want to call abroad are on Skype and will stay on Skype unless they have a reason to move. And none of them consider "It's Microsoft" or "There is an alternative" to be a reason to move. They'll stick with what works for them.
The same country that recognizes ketchup and potato chips as vegetables now recognizes game as High Art.
Who said anything about high art?
I think the vast majority of art that is produced using grant money is stuff that only a very small percentage of the population enjoys or appreciates.
Typically, if a large percentage of the population enjoys or appreciates it then it doesn't need arts grants: it can be commercially viable. Arts grants are for the stuff that hardly anybody would pay the going rate for, but that the budget holders think is important for some reason.
When an animal is threatened, it seems to make sense for it to take in extra calories, if they're available, that it can use for fight or flight. Only so many extra, or it will just want to lie down and snooze, but nature isn't usually so generous with calories for evolution to take that into account. Of course, the choice of the form those calories comes in does seem to be specific to the threat.
and that it is a Miracle Cure for Cancer* / Carcinogenic* (select one depending on prevailing mood, or coin toss)
Why select only one? The Daily Mail would have no problems claiming both in the same issue.
Yes, agreed on the had damn well be sure about it. But do shop security make a habit of random searches on prams?
The correct response is to detain the woman and conduct the search with a witness present.
If you are not working for a company of appreciable size, the amount of work you have to do is probably more than if you work in a big company -- the small company is less able to carry slack, and there are fewer places to hide. I've done both, and pretty much have to manage my own Windows PC at the moment. It hardly takes any time.
I'm sure I remember one from 1961.
They'd just keep the wrestling and ghost-chasing shows and pocket the subscriptions.