Interesting. I just tried that out, and I do use my left pinky -- for non-capital a. That's it for letters. My left thumb's sole purpose is to hit alt on occasion, or in really exotic three-or-more key combinations.
Left pinky gets shift and ctrl, and right pinky gets some punctuation and on rare occasions shift. I hit backspace with either my middle or ring finger. Right thumb is dedicated to spacebar, and winkey when I'm using Windows.
Pinkies get a bigger workout when I write code, since all that punctuation on the right, and the tab key on the left, needs hitting.
What are you talking about? The site cites its sources, and no, it's not based on "medical study" or "scientific research" -- because it's pulled directly from a primary source. It's in fact pulling raw data from the group in charge of crime and punishment. Either the violent toys and video games of today are bad but are being overshadowed by some massive unnamed good, or violent toys and video games have bad effects that are not crime-related, or they aren't really that bad on average.
Also, Esso's site really isn't that bad. They're an oil company so they are promoting oil technology solutions, but it's not like they're denying that climate change is an issue.
That's not actually what he said. He mentioned a list of people you'd rather were dead than alive. That is not the same as people you would like to personally transition from life to death.
I still don't agree with his assertion but I bet a lot of people have such a list. Just about everybody* who is not opposed to the death penalty must have such a list (not necessarily specific people), so that's about half the people in the US right there.
*I suppose you could make some economic argument that you'd rather they be alive but aren't willing to spend the money to keep them alive an everybody else safe, despite that right now executions cost more than life imprisonment. But I really don't think that's the typical argument.
It depends how you define DRM. The updates require a unique serial number. Used copies are unsupported. Installing from their store requires activation and signature validation from an internet-connected machine.
Even then, one game that is successful despite no DRM doesn't by itself invalidate the idea that DRM helps profitability. Who knows what Galciv2's sales would have looked like with bad DRM. Higher? Lower? We can speculate but we can't know.
The funny thing is, we can change the answer. The number one way you can manipulate the answer is by buying non-DRM games and neither buying nor pirating DRM games. One example not all that informative, but if we establish a consistent pattern of DRM --> profit inverse correlations, that says something.
"You [...] are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough."
I don't think you know what the word violently means.
You don't have a right to high property values, and they don't have a right to have flaming crosses on their lawns 24/7. That right is exactly as made up as the right to high property values. It turns out that the neighbourhood was set up with strings attached, and either you accepted those strings by moving in there (and thus have nobody to blame but yourself), or this came up after the fact and you didn't agree to it, in which case you probably do have some recourse to complain.
By the way, I'm DEFINITELY against the city on this issue. But you can take it too far. It seems that a lot of people maintain a childish notion of what legal property rights are and won't let go of it in the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence. Note that I'm sure a good argument could be made that property rights should be different, I'm just complaining about what is.
Patents are about how, not what. You can patent location based advertising if your method is different from other types of location based advertising, especially if it's much better.
That's hypocrisy. You're the one who brought up pederasty, AND the one who brought up comparing sex acts that are acceptable and unacceptable to different people. You cannot possibly shut somebody down for doing the same thing.
Raping babies and having sex with children are both, at their hearts, questions of whether meaningful consent can be given (you say "consensual sex with children" but that presupposes an answer). Blowjobs are not questions of consent, and therefore arguments against blowjobs are fundamentally different. The main ones I know of are basically:
1. Ewww, gross (this argument is also put forward for abstinence and holds the most sway among pre-pubescents). 2. God said no. 3. A complicated argument about historical oppressions and patriarchy etc. etc. that a subset of the more radical wings of feminism adhere to (certainly not all, or even most, feminists).
I'm willing to entertain the notion that there exist people who are against pedophilia for exactly the reasons that some people are against blowjobs, and in that I think they are equally absurd. However I'm not going to yield that pedophilia is comparable to blowjobs, because there's more to the issue. Can a typical 12 year old (say) meaningfully give consent, and meaningfully be uncoerced, by a person old enough to be an authority figure? There really isn't an equivalent in blowjob terms.
The issue is that slavery violated a fundamental moral right to freedom and human dignity. Copyright laws do not violate your rights, because you do not have the right to free (as in beer) copies of the latest Britney Spears music.
The arguments against copyright laws are of a different calibre.
I'm almost certain he's suggesting you splice out the array item chosen each time so that the remaining indices are enumerated as 1-X at all times. I'm pretty sure that would work.
I'm not convinced it is simpler, although I see a couple people on slashdot suggesting it is. Adding a random comparator to an existing sort function is dead simple and obvious (wrong, but simple and obvious), and I'd be surprised if it weren't a lot more than 1% of freshmen that come upon that one, particularly when the top search results actually suggest that broken algorithm, unless these freshmen had never encountered sort functions before.
The global climate is a complex system. Adding (or removing) energy to the system has complex effects.
More to the GPs point, it changes WHAT can grow in certain areas, and the newly growable recently-arctic regions tend to have shitty, shitty soil. While the places with the best growth potential today go over their heat capactiy.
Let's try an analogy. We are at the airport. Someone calls in that there is a bomb threat and that if we don't respond immediately, the whole thing is gonna go up in flames. Now, is it not the responsible thing to investigate these claims, no matter how outlandish they may seem?
That doesn't really seem outlandish though, does it? This has happened before. We kind of expect people to try this again some day. If somebody called in and said that God was going to stop the plane...well, actually we'd probably assume that terrorists were coming in the name of their God, and still investigate it. If they suggested, however, that a space alien was trying to escape justice back to his generational mothership hiding behind the moon via the ship he has stashed in the elevator, and if he did he'd end up launching the doomsday device and destroy us all, they probably wouldn't close the elevators. Even though it's a more impactful claim. Even though it is, in principle, possible.
And on the nature of truth, and for the sake of good quotes, I give you Spock: "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The nature of religious claims is that their most general senses can never be eliminated, no matter whether they are true or not, so it's basically irrelevant. Specific claims can possibly be taken down (although literally anything can be overruled by a deceptive omnipotent force or forces). Also, Spock was quoting his ancestor, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who said it through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes.
That's only because you call it permission. You need a lot of things constantly to use this "something you paid for" -- the computer, shelter, possibly climate control depending on where you live, electricity. The difference here is that there's an obvious and cheap way to remove the restriction from the product. But it's usually not illegal to sell shitty products that could be made much better unless their flaws make them physically dangerous.
Note: I don't like it either, but I really doubt this is legally actionable. And there are plenty of games that require an Internet connection to use them already, it's just that the cost/benefit of MMO connections is generally accepted by people who want MMOs.
Because it's a dynamic equilibrium. There are fixed costs and there are variable costs, and the variable costs themselves tend to be non-linear.
Raising the price lowers the number of buyers. You want to maximize the total profit. When you change the costs, you change the marginal profit, and therefore you alter the equilibrium. This is nearly always altered to higher prices and fewer units.
A $10 increase in costs could lead to a 10 cent increase in price, or to a $100 increase in price, depending on the circumstances.
The amount they eat and exercise didn't magically change either (not unless they eat at restaurants with large portions every day and their only exercise was a foreshortened commute). It was the available food that changed.
However, within the US, there's the same available food throughout (for the most part). Yet the variation in weight is enormous by comparison. Which is because of the interplay of genetics and the food available here. You can't reductively separate the issues.
The "biggest loser" weight loss is incredibly unhealthy. Water loss is a huge component.
Furthermore, the "biggest loser" lifestyle is not realistic. They have no day job and have personal trainers -- their entire job is to lose weight.
ANYTHING that causes you to lose that much weight, that fast, is not healthy for you. Something that will let you lose weight is a permanent and sustainable lifestyle change.
Well, one is an attempt at truth. The other probably started as lies, but I hesitate to say that somebody saying something they believe is true, is lying. A closer analogue to lies would be a class where you study Shakespeare or works of literature.
More accurately in this case, one is correct, and one is incorrect.
But that presupposes you're right. And you are, but there's the rub: it's circular to make that claim.
What was actually agreed on, in society, is an element of religious neutrality (note: this depends on your country. The article is in the US. I'm not an American and don't know the precise wording or details there, but I'm pretty sure it exists to some degree). Believe it or not, there actually isn't a general agreement against teaching a religion if it's *wrong*. There is a perhaps-surprising amount of support in the average person for teaching religions *that person* believes are factually incorrect. But there is a fairly large agreement -- not a universal one, but a large one -- against having one be taught in a state-sanctioned manner.
Also, I think that thinking people are broadly correct and logically consistent about things that have nothing to do with religion, regardless of what they think of religion, is at least as crazy and indefensible as believing this world is evidence of a singular infinitely good omnipotent creator.
The main reasons for code reuse is for debuggability, guarding against fallibility, and for conservation of effort.
None of these apply to an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, eternal being. So either your argument makes no sense as it is, or we have to withdraw some qualities from the proposed deity so that it makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I just tried that out, and I do use my left pinky -- for non-capital a. That's it for letters. My left thumb's sole purpose is to hit alt on occasion, or in really exotic three-or-more key combinations.
Left pinky gets shift and ctrl, and right pinky gets some punctuation and on rare occasions shift. I hit backspace with either my middle or ring finger. Right thumb is dedicated to spacebar, and winkey when I'm using Windows.
Pinkies get a bigger workout when I write code, since all that punctuation on the right, and the tab key on the left, needs hitting.
What are you talking about? The site cites its sources, and no, it's not based on "medical study" or "scientific research" -- because it's pulled directly from a primary source. It's in fact pulling raw data from the group in charge of crime and punishment. Either the violent toys and video games of today are bad but are being overshadowed by some massive unnamed good, or violent toys and video games have bad effects that are not crime-related, or they aren't really that bad on average.
Also, Esso's site really isn't that bad. They're an oil company so they are promoting oil technology solutions, but it's not like they're denying that climate change is an issue.
That's not actually what he said. He mentioned a list of people you'd rather were dead than alive. That is not the same as people you would like to personally transition from life to death.
I still don't agree with his assertion but I bet a lot of people have such a list. Just about everybody* who is not opposed to the death penalty must have such a list (not necessarily specific people), so that's about half the people in the US right there.
*I suppose you could make some economic argument that you'd rather they be alive but aren't willing to spend the money to keep them alive an everybody else safe, despite that right now executions cost more than life imprisonment. But I really don't think that's the typical argument.
It depends how you define DRM. The updates require a unique serial number. Used copies are unsupported. Installing from their store requires activation and signature validation from an internet-connected machine.
Even then, one game that is successful despite no DRM doesn't by itself invalidate the idea that DRM helps profitability. Who knows what Galciv2's sales would have looked like with bad DRM. Higher? Lower? We can speculate but we can't know.
The funny thing is, we can change the answer. The number one way you can manipulate the answer is by buying non-DRM games and neither buying nor pirating DRM games. One example not all that informative, but if we establish a consistent pattern of DRM --> profit inverse correlations, that says something.
No, you're wrong.
See how easy that is?
Sure you can:
http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/enable-and-disable-aero-snap-docking-windows-7/
I heartily disagree with you on this point, mind you -- love the feature.
You don't?
Be honest. Almost everybody does. Even environmentalists.
"You [...] are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough."
I don't think you know what the word violently means.
You don't have a right to high property values, and they don't have a right to have flaming crosses on their lawns 24/7. That right is exactly as made up as the right to high property values. It turns out that the neighbourhood was set up with strings attached, and either you accepted those strings by moving in there (and thus have nobody to blame but yourself), or this came up after the fact and you didn't agree to it, in which case you probably do have some recourse to complain.
And actually, with broken windows, that actually is known to increase crime in the area. I *do* have the right to security of person.
By the way, I'm DEFINITELY against the city on this issue. But you can take it too far. It seems that a lot of people maintain a childish notion of what legal property rights are and won't let go of it in the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence. Note that I'm sure a good argument could be made that property rights should be different, I'm just complaining about what is.
Patents are about how, not what. You can patent location based advertising if your method is different from other types of location based advertising, especially if it's much better.
And sometimes they shouldn't.
This was an accident that is ultimately harmless, particularly in the long term, and will more than likely be resolved within a day or so.
A lawsuit is ridiculous at this point. Maybe if they let it go on for weeks, or if it actually destroys their peripherals.
That's hypocrisy. You're the one who brought up pederasty, AND the one who brought up comparing sex acts that are acceptable and unacceptable to different people. You cannot possibly shut somebody down for doing the same thing.
Raping babies and having sex with children are both, at their hearts, questions of whether meaningful consent can be given (you say "consensual sex with children" but that presupposes an answer). Blowjobs are not questions of consent, and therefore arguments against blowjobs are fundamentally different. The main ones I know of are basically:
1. Ewww, gross (this argument is also put forward for abstinence and holds the most sway among pre-pubescents).
2. God said no.
3. A complicated argument about historical oppressions and patriarchy etc. etc. that a subset of the more radical wings of feminism adhere to (certainly not all, or even most, feminists).
I'm willing to entertain the notion that there exist people who are against pedophilia for exactly the reasons that some people are against blowjobs, and in that I think they are equally absurd. However I'm not going to yield that pedophilia is comparable to blowjobs, because there's more to the issue. Can a typical 12 year old (say) meaningfully give consent, and meaningfully be uncoerced, by a person old enough to be an authority figure? There really isn't an equivalent in blowjob terms.
The issue is that slavery violated a fundamental moral right to freedom and human dignity. Copyright laws do not violate your rights, because you do not have the right to free (as in beer) copies of the latest Britney Spears music.
The arguments against copyright laws are of a different calibre.
I'm almost certain he's suggesting you splice out the array item chosen each time so that the remaining indices are enumerated as 1-X at all times. I'm pretty sure that would work.
I'm not convinced it is simpler, although I see a couple people on slashdot suggesting it is. Adding a random comparator to an existing sort function is dead simple and obvious (wrong, but simple and obvious), and I'd be surprised if it weren't a lot more than 1% of freshmen that come upon that one, particularly when the top search results actually suggest that broken algorithm, unless these freshmen had never encountered sort functions before.
Do you have a refrigerator in your house?
You know that it generates net heat, right?
Making it hotter made some places colder.
The global climate is a complex system. Adding (or removing) energy to the system has complex effects.
More to the GPs point, it changes WHAT can grow in certain areas, and the newly growable recently-arctic regions tend to have shitty, shitty soil. While the places with the best growth potential today go over their heat capactiy.
Let's try an analogy. We are at the airport. Someone calls in that there is a bomb threat and that if we don't respond immediately, the whole thing is gonna go up in flames. Now, is it not the responsible thing to investigate these claims, no matter how outlandish they may seem?
That doesn't really seem outlandish though, does it? This has happened before. We kind of expect people to try this again some day. If somebody called in and said that God was going to stop the plane...well, actually we'd probably assume that terrorists were coming in the name of their God, and still investigate it. If they suggested, however, that a space alien was trying to escape justice back to his generational mothership hiding behind the moon via the ship he has stashed in the elevator, and if he did he'd end up launching the doomsday device and destroy us all, they probably wouldn't close the elevators. Even though it's a more impactful claim. Even though it is, in principle, possible.
And on the nature of truth, and for the sake of good quotes, I give you Spock: "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The nature of religious claims is that their most general senses can never be eliminated, no matter whether they are true or not, so it's basically irrelevant. Specific claims can possibly be taken down (although literally anything can be overruled by a deceptive omnipotent force or forces). Also, Spock was quoting his ancestor, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who said it through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes.
Nuclear was made safe and there were many nuclear powered nations developing their own reactor designs that have never made a single nuclear weapon.
That's only because you call it permission. You need a lot of things constantly to use this "something you paid for" -- the computer, shelter, possibly climate control depending on where you live, electricity. The difference here is that there's an obvious and cheap way to remove the restriction from the product. But it's usually not illegal to sell shitty products that could be made much better unless their flaws make them physically dangerous.
Note: I don't like it either, but I really doubt this is legally actionable. And there are plenty of games that require an Internet connection to use them already, it's just that the cost/benefit of MMO connections is generally accepted by people who want MMOs.
Nope, it's for Vista and XP too (from TFA).
Well, you'll be pleased to note that Windows is perfectly capable of twitter.
Because it's a dynamic equilibrium. There are fixed costs and there are variable costs, and the variable costs themselves tend to be non-linear.
Raising the price lowers the number of buyers. You want to maximize the total profit. When you change the costs, you change the marginal profit, and therefore you alter the equilibrium. This is nearly always altered to higher prices and fewer units.
A $10 increase in costs could lead to a 10 cent increase in price, or to a $100 increase in price, depending on the circumstances.
The amount they eat and exercise didn't magically change either (not unless they eat at restaurants with large portions every day and their only exercise was a foreshortened commute). It was the available food that changed.
However, within the US, there's the same available food throughout (for the most part). Yet the variation in weight is enormous by comparison. Which is because of the interplay of genetics and the food available here. You can't reductively separate the issues.
The "biggest loser" weight loss is incredibly unhealthy. Water loss is a huge component.
Furthermore, the "biggest loser" lifestyle is not realistic. They have no day job and have personal trainers -- their entire job is to lose weight.
ANYTHING that causes you to lose that much weight, that fast, is not healthy for you. Something that will let you lose weight is a permanent and sustainable lifestyle change.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of people have "isolated instances of personally-valued issues".
I bet most of the remaining would be well-served by wordpad, which comes free with Windows.
Well, one is an attempt at truth. The other probably started as lies, but I hesitate to say that somebody saying something they believe is true, is lying. A closer analogue to lies would be a class where you study Shakespeare or works of literature.
More accurately in this case, one is correct, and one is incorrect.
But that presupposes you're right. And you are, but there's the rub: it's circular to make that claim.
What was actually agreed on, in society, is an element of religious neutrality (note: this depends on your country. The article is in the US. I'm not an American and don't know the precise wording or details there, but I'm pretty sure it exists to some degree). Believe it or not, there actually isn't a general agreement against teaching a religion if it's *wrong*. There is a perhaps-surprising amount of support in the average person for teaching religions *that person* believes are factually incorrect. But there is a fairly large agreement -- not a universal one, but a large one -- against having one be taught in a state-sanctioned manner.
Also, I think that thinking people are broadly correct and logically consistent about things that have nothing to do with religion, regardless of what they think of religion, is at least as crazy and indefensible as believing this world is evidence of a singular infinitely good omnipotent creator.
The main reasons for code reuse is for debuggability, guarding against fallibility, and for conservation of effort.
None of these apply to an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, eternal being. So either your argument makes no sense as it is, or we have to withdraw some qualities from the proposed deity so that it makes sense.