Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
So you are a member of the group with UID divisible by 12 and are judged by the actions of other members of that group?
And donate my nickel to EFF on my behalf.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion
Just like snake is no different from any other mammal.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish
Is there a nickel available to me for you suggesting incorrectly that I am an atheist? If yes, add it to the EFF pile.
With more than 86% of the total number of moslems living in MOSLEM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES the likelihood that a moslem being killed by their fellow moslems is - of course - much higher than the likelihood of moslems
Incorrect. If there is any targeted killing of non-muslims by islamic terrorists, and they are any good at targeting and killing - this is not "of course" at all.
Even according to your "whole truth", there are only 6.14 times as many muslims living in countries with non-trivial muslim than those with very low muslim population (lower than 1.6%). Yet it is 8 times likely that a violently killed person in islamic terrorism was a muslim. 8 is greater than 6.14.
The "half-truth" indicates that either there is no targeting or it is poor. 8 being greater than 6.14 proves that there is a slight targeting of muslims rather than non-muslims. Which is a non-trivial hypothesis given the bad-mouthing islamists have received as far as their attitude to others goes.
If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish
Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists. They don't have to congregate in communes to "practice" their "persuation". Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons. Just like you are "associated with" any/. poster with user name starting with n. Or moron posters with user IDs divisible by 12 make you look like a moron.
Anyhow, the car had helmets that affixed to the rear of the seats and five point restraints, etc
While I probably haven't understood the design completely, but this appears dangerous. Some structural bend in the car which directly doesn't impact the driver fatally can now uproot his head because of this helmet?
Religion has had the first mover advantage. Law has had to ask for permission of religion for its very existence. Bending over is nothing in comparison.
So what did you expect ? People giving up religion in droves because someone came up with the idea of FSM? Do you think Henderson expected that either?
This story shows the best case that could have happened with FSM - by raising FSM to the level of the Christian God in a certain way by DMV, Christian God has been brought down to the level of FSM which is obviously ridiculous. In a small way of course. Other "recognized" Gods too.
People who have been sufficiently brainwashed might be incurable. The next generation needs some signals of the sensible point of view, at the very least. Just so that some of them might avoid , if other circumstances are also right, making the same mistake as the past zillion generations.
This is one of those signals. You give out a louder or clearer one if you can or care enough. But so far you have only managed to deride better efforts than you're own.
If they make the disingenuous argument that they are doing it due to a sincerely held religious belief and they have no such belief, I can't support it.
Who cares if you support it? The topic of discussion is if the government should care enough to enforce "fraud" laws where no one is possibly affected. Driving on left side of road in the US is dangerous for practical reasons, colander is not. Does that have to be spelled out for you?
Placebos by definition have no effect. The "placebo effect" doesn't mean placebos themselves have an actual chemical effect
This is wrong as others have indicated too. Placebo "medicine" works better than no medicine in multiple cases, so placebo surely has an effect.
an actual chemical effect
This is idiotic. Chemical effect is not the be-all-and-end-all of medical treatment. Many "proper medical treatments" have no chemical effect - they have physical / electrical / other effect by which they are better than placebos. E.g. fibre supplements, applied heat/ice pack, traction for physiotherapy, electrical shocks of various voltages used for nerves etc.
1. One good feature is - switching to the last used tab. I bind it to ctrl-tab. Most terminal emulators support going to next, previous, nth tab, but last used tab is somewhat rare.
2. If a non-current tab has any activity, its tab icon gets a notification. This feature seems to be missing in much later terminal emulators - e.g. recent releases of gnome-terminal, lxterminal, xfce-terminal. Lilyterm has this feature, though.
Rules that run counter to the prevailing culture need more enforcement. The degree to which they oppose the culture dictates how much force is required to enforce them.
Given this, some rules become counter productive due to this enforcement cost, e.g. this case. In extreme cases, it is simply not possible to apply the necessary amount of force constitutionally.
That make complete sense. So there should be a management overhead on the user when the amount of data increases. E.g no folder structure, just flat files, and no file over 50 GB. Some of Google's image storage services have a limit of 2000 images per "album", and unlimited number of folders until a very high storage limit (1TB?, not sure).
Bandwidth limit is already present, say 20Mbps. So unlimited at 20 Mbps is not unlimited in the sense that known size of universe doesn't have resources to make it available. It is just limited to 20 mega bits times the number of seconds in a month minus protocol overhead.
So *some* limit must exist is not an argument you can make here. It already exists due to other parts of the agreement.
No, because rear-endings are caused by insufficient following distance.
And the human driver behind has exactly that - insufficient following distance.
They're going to see that stuff before it even enters the roadway, so they don't have to hit it to begin with. In situations where the sides of the roadway are obscured, the vehicles will simply reduce their speed â" the same thing a human driver should be doing.
In most cities that means driving under average speed of 10 mph at all times not just traffic peaks. Autonomous cars might make a nice ride for tourists, but anyone who has work to do will choose a human driven car then.
Remember - Top speed of dog - 50 mph especially if kicked. Angle of approach - unknown. Origin - possibly boot of the car in front with insufficient following distance. Because it cut between the autonomous car and the earlier car in front because autonomous car was driving too slow, keeping too much following distance and holding up traffic.
A self-driving car won't get pissed off when it gets held up by some cyclist who won't pull over to permit passing, as the law demands.
The occupant/owner/rider will. If he has anything important to do with his own life, he will sell this autonomous car at a low price and buy a car he can drive humanly.
You're right. I even think the number of Amazon employees includes the warehouse personnel, supply chain management staff, and some guys who convince (sales guys, actually) vendors to sell on Amazon. Some of these kinds of people may not be getting company laptops, and even if they do their primary work may not be "defined" by the OS on that laptop.
OK, so you don't recognize a yes/no question when you see one. Try answering this again (hint: this can only be answered in yes or no, if you feel other words coming forth, you have not understood the question which is not surprising so read it again.)
"In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?"
So you're saying that in the context where you used the word "advantage", advantage can be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage, if the ability to audit software is advantageous. Basic cognitive function indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
So you are a member of the group with UID divisible by 12 and are judged by the actions of other members of that group?
And donate my nickel to EFF on my behalf.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion
Just like snake is no different from any other mammal.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish
Is there a nickel available to me for you suggesting incorrectly that I am an atheist? If yes, add it to the EFF pile.
With more than 86% of the total number of moslems living in MOSLEM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES the likelihood that a moslem being killed by their fellow moslems is - of course - much higher than the likelihood of moslems
Incorrect. If there is any targeted killing of non-muslims by islamic terrorists, and they are any good at targeting and killing - this is not "of course" at all.
Even according to your "whole truth", there are only 6.14 times as many muslims living in countries with non-trivial muslim than those with very low muslim population (lower than 1.6%). Yet it is 8 times likely that a violently killed person in islamic terrorism was a muslim. 8 is greater than 6.14.
The "half-truth" indicates that either there is no targeting or it is poor. 8 being greater than 6.14 proves that there is a slight targeting of muslims rather than non-muslims. Which is a non-trivial hypothesis given the bad-mouthing islamists have received as far as their attitude to others goes.
If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish
Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists. They don't have to congregate in communes to "practice" their "persuation". Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons. Just like you are "associated with" any /. poster with user name starting with n. Or moron posters with user IDs divisible by 12 make you look like a moron.
Anyhow, the car had helmets that affixed to the rear of the seats and five point restraints, etc
While I probably haven't understood the design completely, but this appears dangerous. Some structural bend in the car which directly doesn't impact the driver fatally can now uproot his head because of this helmet?
But you do "make a line shorter" by drawing a longer line.
Religion has had the first mover advantage. Law has had to ask for permission of religion for its very existence. Bending over is nothing in comparison.
So what did you expect ? People giving up religion in droves because someone came up with the idea of FSM? Do you think Henderson expected that either?
This story shows the best case that could have happened with FSM - by raising FSM to the level of the Christian God in a certain way by DMV, Christian God has been brought down to the level of FSM which is obviously ridiculous. In a small way of course. Other "recognized" Gods too.
People who have been sufficiently brainwashed might be incurable. The next generation needs some signals of the sensible point of view, at the very least. Just so that some of them might avoid , if other circumstances are also right, making the same mistake as the past zillion generations.
This is one of those signals. You give out a louder or clearer one if you can or care enough. But so far you have only managed to deride better efforts than you're own.
If they make the disingenuous argument that they are doing it due to a sincerely held religious belief and they have no such belief, I can't support it.
Who cares if you support it? The topic of discussion is if the government should care enough to enforce "fraud" laws where no one is possibly affected. Driving on left side of road in the US is dangerous for practical reasons, colander is not. Does that have to be spelled out for you?
Placebos by definition have no effect. The "placebo effect" doesn't mean placebos themselves have an actual chemical effect
This is wrong as others have indicated too. Placebo "medicine" works better than no medicine in multiple cases, so placebo surely has an effect.
an actual chemical effect
This is idiotic. Chemical effect is not the be-all-and-end-all of medical treatment. Many "proper medical treatments" have no chemical effect - they have physical / electrical / other effect by which they are better than placebos. E.g. fibre supplements, applied heat/ice pack, traction for physiotherapy, electrical shocks of various voltages used for nerves etc.
1. One good feature is - switching to the last used tab. I bind it to ctrl-tab. Most terminal emulators support going to next, previous, nth tab, but last used tab is somewhat rare.
2. If a non-current tab has any activity, its tab icon gets a notification. This feature seems to be missing in much later terminal emulators - e.g. recent releases of gnome-terminal, lxterminal, xfce-terminal. Lilyterm has this feature, though.
Probably the updated hosts file is supposed to be used at the router?
Rules that run counter to the prevailing culture need more enforcement. The degree to which they oppose the culture dictates how much force is required to enforce them.
Given this, some rules become counter productive due to this enforcement cost, e.g. this case. In extreme cases, it is simply not possible to apply the necessary amount of force constitutionally.
It is the land of the free, or something like that. Why don't the "workers" compete with their erstwhile masters and tell the new price to the market?
They can't? The voters/customers/patrons have genuflected in front of the corporate/political engine? Too bad.
OK then. Inefficient people can hardly complain about being replaced.
So Americans are not getting higher value for their higher cost of living?
If so Americans are inefficient. If not, the higher value should enable them to compete better with cheaper labour.
Shareholders not demanding value for money ?
That make complete sense. So there should be a management overhead on the user when the amount of data increases. E.g no folder structure, just flat files, and no file over 50 GB. Some of Google's image storage services have a limit of 2000 images per "album", and unlimited number of folders until a very high storage limit (1TB?, not sure).
Bandwidth limit is already present, say 20Mbps. So unlimited at 20 Mbps is not unlimited in the sense that known size of universe doesn't have resources to make it available. It is just limited to 20 mega bits times the number of seconds in a month minus protocol overhead.
So *some* limit must exist is not an argument you can make here. It already exists due to other parts of the agreement.
These kinds of barriers would be used by construction crews, emergency responders, and perhaps even as a function
And vandals, black hats, hackers, script kiddies, drunkards, people out to have fun.
No, because rear-endings are caused by insufficient following distance.
And the human driver behind has exactly that - insufficient following distance.
They're going to see that stuff before it even enters the roadway, so they don't have to hit it to begin with. In situations where the sides of the roadway are obscured, the vehicles will simply reduce their speed â" the same thing a human driver should be doing.
In most cities that means driving under average speed of 10 mph at all times not just traffic peaks. Autonomous cars might make a nice ride for tourists, but anyone who has work to do will choose a human driven car then.
Remember - Top speed of dog - 50 mph especially if kicked. Angle of approach - unknown. Origin - possibly boot of the car in front with insufficient following distance. Because it cut between the autonomous car and the earlier car in front because autonomous car was driving too slow, keeping too much following distance and holding up traffic.
A self-driving car won't get pissed off when it gets held up by some cyclist who won't pull over to permit passing, as the law demands.
The occupant/owner/rider will. If he has anything important to do with his own life, he will sell this autonomous car at a low price and buy a car he can drive humanly.
Why would you prefer to click on a random place to sort on font color?
You're right. I even think the number of Amazon employees includes the warehouse personnel, supply chain management staff, and some guys who convince (sales guys, actually) vendors to sell on Amazon. Some of these kinds of people may not be getting company laptops, and even if they do their primary work may not be "defined" by the OS on that laptop.
OK, so you don't recognize a yes/no question when you see one. Try answering this again (hint: this can only be answered in yes or no, if you feel other words coming forth, you have not understood the question which is not surprising so read it again.)
"In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?"
It was nearly directly from your post, but considering your intelligence, this should be slightly clearer :
Ok, great. In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?
If the ability to audit software is advantageous ...
So you're saying that in the context where you used the word "advantage", advantage can be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage, if the ability to audit software is advantageous. Basic cognitive function indeed.