Very much like that. Knowledgeable-sounding witnesses put the crash at over 60mph - and the results are one passenger with serious injuries, driver presumably OK. How well would your average SUV or commuter car handle an impact like that? Obviously this doesn't address the issue that the guy was being a dick, but he's still a *live* dick.
Still, I remember how I drove my old sigma wagon back when I was 17, and I remember getting very untidy a few times when I first got my (still stock, only moderately powerful) Supra. I wouldn't want to see myself at 17 in a 200+ kW track-capable car with no experience whatsoever, especially an NA car, since the power is there the instant you put your foot down, no half-second of grace before the boost kicks in.
I'd be interested to know how long in advance they can detect button presses on more 'twitch' games. And also how accurate their prediction of time is. "You're going to jump sometime in the next 20 seconds" isn't very helpful when split-second timing is required.
But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Typical shallow understanding of genetics. If Newton's success- or any of his actions- improved the survival and/or prospects of his close relatives (who obviously share a lot of his genes), then he hasn't "failed" genetically. Aha! But if you read the very next sentence you'll see that I said:
Except in as much as his research and discoveries improved the survivability of others that shared his genetic material, which would be all of us to some extent, since he was human. So maybe not so much fail after all.:) Selective quoting for the lose.
Didn't your English teacher not forbid you not to avoid using no double negatives?:P
But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Except in as much as his research and discoveries improved the survivability of others that shared his genetic material, which would be all of us to some extent, since he was human. So maybe not so much fail after all.:)
I seem to recall similar statistics about the Toyota Supra, back when they still made them. Something like, you have 20% more chance to die if you're in an accident while riding in a Supra than in a vanilla commuter car... which sounds bad until they mention that the average accident in said Supra is at more than twice the speed than the equivalent accident in the put-put-mobile.
Um, no, you just fell for MS's propaganda. First of all, more than 80% of software is written for other purposes than shrink-wrapped sale. People who write this stuff have less need for restrictive licenses in any case. MS's propaganda? lol wut? And even if that 80% figure is accurate, software doesn't have to be written for shrink-wrapped sale for copyright to be important. Think of a company that contracts a firm to write its business software - generally the copyright is transferred as part of the contract, preventing the contracted firm from reselling the software for pure profit. It's not about restrictive licenses, it's about copyright at its most basic.
Second, it may be hard to live off free software right now, in a proprietary software world. I have no doubt whatsoever that it would work just as well or better in a free software world. In a different world, sure. Dunno about you but I need food, shelter and internets in this world. That's not to say that it's impossible to eventually change this world to that one, but that's besides the point.
Third, not that many people work in the software industry, and those who don't do not generally have big stakes in software property. You don't need to own shares in MS to have a stake. The simple fact that my paycheck comes from software sales and/or contracted software development means that I have a stake.
In the tivoization question, it is. No, it really isn't. RMS wants to force hardware vendors to build their hardware in a specific way. I merely believe that as the owner of the hardware you should have the right to do whatever yow want with it. For example, making the hardware only run digitally signed software is fine, as long as there is no legal impediment to cracking that digital signature and uploading your own software.
As in many cases, RMS's goals are actually to restrict what can be done. That isn't freedom.
Linux is free. You didn't pay for it, you don't own it. [...] Music and movies are intellectual content you PAY to own. You don't OWN the movies and music on DVDs and CDs that you buy, any more than you own Linux if you buy a box set. You pay to own the DVD or CD itself, as a physical object. In neither case does your purchase transfer copyright to you. You may disagree with the copyright system as it stands, but that doesn't change the facts.
The biggest trick the government ever pulled was convincing the citizen that he was free Go outside and yell "The government sucks!" three times, then post conspiracy theory crap everywhere. Did they suppress you? No?
Parent is a troll? Can I hear a +1, Mods On Crack? Anyone who works in the software industry, other than those who get to work on FOSS thanks to charity handouts, has a stake in proprietary software.
And no, agreeing with RMS and agreeing with the freedom to do whatever you want with your computer are NOT the same thing. RMS is a religious zealot, and zealots are BAD, regardless of their cause.
Of course, that begs the question: NO IT DOESN'T!
"Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.... [B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself... either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical." 0wnt by Aristotle.
"Understanding" without the actual experience to back it up isn't understanding, its recitation. The knowledge that A will lead you to B doesn't allow the opportunity to infer anything, it also doesn't allow for improvement. I think you're mistaking "without actual experience" for "without knowledge of the reasoning behind, and foundation of". I have never experienced a major car accident, for instance. I still understand that if one happens it's important to get paramedics to the scene, contact police and insurance, etc. I don't need to learn that by personal experience because I can learn from the experience of others.
The reasons behind "A -> B" is usually no harder to teach than the fact itself. Teaching the latter without the former is simply inadequate education.
"Coincidentally, later that year behavioral psychologist P.I. Geon et. al. published an article in the Journal of Psychological Experiments, in which he describes his observations of a behavioral psychologist exhibiting what appeared to be superstitious behavior. After performing a variety of repeated actions, the authors noted that the human altered their feeding schedules. They infer that the human tried to influence their actions by this varying of feeding times. They then extend this as a proposition regarding the nature of gambling addiction and the current obesity epidemic."
Have you noticed how tame the bank lobby shootout scene looks today, compared with the first time you saw it? If it does - and it doesn't - it's because I've watched it a million times, not because I watched the sequels. The bank lobby scene was awesome, continual new camera angles + slow mo with debris everywhere + silly gymnastics that work because they're in a game world (think rocket jumps:P ) = win. The sequels forgot that The One no longer had to play by the rules, and instead decided that his powers were limited to flying and stopping bullets, and that CGI kung fu was cooler than wire work and clever photography. If I wanted to see a film about a rubber guy bouncing around plasticine scenery I'd watch Gumby: The Movie.
Followed closely by:
Slip a finger down inside Make a little room for a man to hide Sun-ripened bulges in the shade What part of that is NOT about getting some action?;)
Depends whether there're a lot of new fares being dialed in or it's quiet time. Take a cab at 3pm on a Sunday, and you're set for a tour of brother-owned carpet shops and jewelery stores... take one at 10pm on a Friday night, and you'll be setting trip records.
dude, 3 miles down a main thoroughfare? Why not just walk it? Beer scooters for the win! Hell, it was a 10km walk from the nightlife district to my old place and I walked that no small number of times. Amazing how fast (subjectively) you cover ground while legless...;)
You make an excellent point. I don't find Penny Arcade to be consistently funny (some are, often it seems to be more of a making-a-comment webcomic than a making-you-laugh one). On the other hand, the title to 'most over-rated bullshit on the Internet' has some VERY strong contenders. I'd say that, in perspective, Penny Arcade is only MOSTLY overrated.
OK. Two people each want to make their car weigh 50kg less. Person A cuts his* car into 50cm slices, cuts the first 1cm off each slice, then welds them back together. That's the normal method; linear interpolation. Person B takes out the rear seats, sound insulation, and spare tyre. That's the new method; throw out the stuff you don't need while keeping the important stuff like driver's seat and pedals.
What? Since when is going fast a time machine?* It just means you got some where quicker, and could start being an asshole to someone at your destination earlier. Why do you assume that anyone who overtakes you is an asshole? I'd guess you just feel sad that you got overtaken because you see commuting as some kind of retarded race. Hell, if I drive fast, I'm doing it because going fast is fun, not to save some minuscule amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
protoss paladins from space
vs
SG-1 after they ran out of funding and had to hire orcs. GOGO!
Very much like that. Knowledgeable-sounding witnesses put the crash at over 60mph - and the results are one passenger with serious injuries, driver presumably OK. How well would your average SUV or commuter car handle an impact like that? Obviously this doesn't address the issue that the guy was being a dick, but he's still a *live* dick.
Still, I remember how I drove my old sigma wagon back when I was 17, and I remember getting very untidy a few times when I first got my (still stock, only moderately powerful) Supra. I wouldn't want to see myself at 17 in a 200+ kW track-capable car with no experience whatsoever, especially an NA car, since the power is there the instant you put your foot down, no half-second of grace before the boost kicks in.
Didn't your English teacher not forbid you not to avoid using no double negatives? :P
:)
But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Except in as much as his research and discoveries improved the survivability of others that shared his genetic material, which would be all of us to some extent, since he was human. So maybe not so much fail after all.
I seem to recall similar statistics about the Toyota Supra, back when they still made them. Something like, you have 20% more chance to die if you're in an accident while riding in a Supra than in a vanilla commuter car... which sounds bad until they mention that the average accident in said Supra is at more than twice the speed than the equivalent accident in the put-put-mobile.
As in many cases, RMS's goals are actually to restrict what can be done. That isn't freedom.
Oooh boy, here I come +2,Troll.
Parent is a troll? Can I hear a +1, Mods On Crack? Anyone who works in the software industry, other than those who get to work on FOSS thanks to charity handouts, has a stake in proprietary software.
And no, agreeing with RMS and agreeing with the freedom to do whatever you want with your computer are NOT the same thing. RMS is a religious zealot, and zealots are BAD, regardless of their cause.
...wherein we learn that 'very very very attractive people can't not die in freak gasoline fight accidents'. :P
The reasons behind "A -> B" is usually no harder to teach than the fact itself. Teaching the latter without the former is simply inadequate education.
"Coincidentally, later that year behavioral psychologist P.I. Geon et. al. published an article in the Journal of Psychological Experiments, in which he describes his observations of a behavioral psychologist exhibiting what appeared to be superstitious behavior. After performing a variety of repeated actions, the authors noted that the human altered their feeding schedules. They infer that the human tried to influence their actions by this varying of feeding times. They then extend this as a proposition regarding the nature of gambling addiction and the current obesity epidemic."
Make a little room for a man to hide
Sun-ripened bulges in the shade What part of that is NOT about getting some action?
Depends whether there're a lot of new fares being dialed in or it's quiet time. Take a cab at 3pm on a Sunday, and you're set for a tour of brother-owned carpet shops and jewelery stores... take one at 10pm on a Friday night, and you'll be setting trip records.
You make an excellent point. I don't find Penny Arcade to be consistently funny (some are, often it seems to be more of a making-a-comment webcomic than a making-you-laugh one). On the other hand, the title to 'most over-rated bullshit on the Internet' has some VERY strong contenders. I'd say that, in perspective, Penny Arcade is only MOSTLY overrated.
OK. Two people each want to make their car weigh 50kg less. Person A cuts his* car into 50cm slices, cuts the first 1cm off each slice, then welds them back together. That's the normal method; linear interpolation. Person B takes out the rear seats, sound insulation, and spare tyre. That's the new method; throw out the stuff you don't need while keeping the important stuff like driver's seat and pedals.
S.C.C.A.R.I.? I'll say it sounds scary! >.>