Or they could listen for R/C signals within restricted airspace. There's no reason a kid in the middle of nowhere Kansas should have to be licensed to fly a 'drone' in the back 40. There's no reason a kid should need a license to operate a toy plane in his own yard.
I wondered because yielding would imply NOT rolling through the sign in front of your car.
The idea is that yielding is enough since a bicyclist has a much better view than a car and at that speed they can stop in inches.
The idea is that being able to yield to stop makes the quieter more residential streets more attractive to a cyclist and gets them off of the main thoroughfare.
I don't do drugs, it's just not my thing. However, I have sufficient empathy and sense of proportion to see that the drug laws, as they stand, are unconscionable. That makes it my moral duty to at least have no part in their enforcement.
In the case where marijuana can help someone with a medical need, the drug laws are even worse. In that case, active impediment to law enforcement is easily justifiable.
Thump your chest and bark all you like, it won't change the facts.
Actually, it is. It's a side effect of the other problem. That our economy cannot accommodate what most of us would otherwise call a major victory. While sufficient automation that we can provide a comfortable life for everyone with little need to work should be a blessing, our economic system somehow snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and turns that into a dystopian nightmare.
The war on drugs has an effect far beyond the injustice to a few harmless pot smokers. Thinking about my friends and the drug laws, I concluded that I would feel morally compelled to impede the police in any way I could if they wanted to enforce the drug laws. More and more average people are coming to that same conclusion. It's one thing when organized crime sees the cops as the enemy, it's quite another when average citizens come to agree.
You're thinking about a generation too late. You're also thinking of -O values greater than 3 (though now, some compilers do unsafe re-ordering at nearly any O level).
I did not say it was a dead standard, I said it was dead standard. There is a huge difference. (now who feels like a sucker?:-)
Next, PCs had an 8 bit data bus but were 16 bit machines. Larger variables (including double) were handled just fine either in software emulation or the 8087 co-processor (later integrated into the CPU).
By contrast, it was only later on that C decided how many bits int and long were.
Go tell all those physicists out there. I'm sure they'll gratefully bow to your supreme knowledge.
Sorry, but theory must conform to the evidence as well, and evidence suggests quantized space-time (meaning there is an actual smallest possible distance between two points). When you grow up to be God, you can create one that doesn't work that way.
I suspect this to be part of the reason mathematicians prefer not to deal in the physical world.
They would be shocked to see the real figures there. For example, by maintaining spreadsheet and database functions, 3 employees were able to do the work of 100 at a savings of $320,000 this month....
Actually, Fortran has already been seriously damaged by some of that evolution. Once upon a time, Fortran was dead standard. If your Fortran program ran correctly on a PC it would run correctly on a mainframe, mini, or supercomputer. More importantly, it would produce the same result. It didn't matter which compiler you used.
Now, I see more and more programs that really need a particular compiler to compile at all, much less produce the correct result. Even avoiding -Ox where x>3 doesn't assure correctness anymore.
Or you've quantized it. Welcome to the crazy reality of quantum mechanics, where Heisenberg rules the day. The mathematical answer is irrational, but construct such a square and measure it and find that even a 'perfect' ruler truncates the result.
Planck's constant and the Planck length are related but not the same thing.
If you're going to argue against a statement, shouldn't you at least know the definitions of all of the words first?
What would be ridiculous about using the Planck length as a unit of measure? It would certainly make at least as much sense as a king's foot or an arbitrary division of an incorrect measurement of one planet's size. I would suggest it except that it's an awfully small unit compared to the practical measurements we typically make.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter. A bird is all it takes to take the engine out. The rest is just overkill.
Or they could listen for R/C signals within restricted airspace. There's no reason a kid in the middle of nowhere Kansas should have to be licensed to fly a 'drone' in the back 40. There's no reason a kid should need a license to operate a toy plane in his own yard.
My concern is that if he cuts out dense caloric food, he might get even skinnier than he already is, and that would, indeed, be unhealthy.
I wondered because yielding would imply NOT rolling through the sign in front of your car.
The idea is that yielding is enough since a bicyclist has a much better view than a car and at that speed they can stop in inches.
The idea is that being able to yield to stop makes the quieter more residential streets more attractive to a cyclist and gets them off of the main thoroughfare.
Somebody didn't RTFA>
I guess that's why he's the one his coworkers ask to move the heavy filing cabinets and such. All that fat makes him strong.
You're giving someone who is underweight advice on how to lose weight?
I have NEVER seen an animal ordering in Starbucks.
So what deep shame drives you to need others to be ashamed to pump you up?
I don't do drugs, it's just not my thing. However, I have sufficient empathy and sense of proportion to see that the drug laws, as they stand, are unconscionable. That makes it my moral duty to at least have no part in their enforcement.
In the case where marijuana can help someone with a medical need, the drug laws are even worse. In that case, active impediment to law enforcement is easily justifiable.
Thump your chest and bark all you like, it won't change the facts.
Actually, it is. It's a side effect of the other problem. That our economy cannot accommodate what most of us would otherwise call a major victory. While sufficient automation that we can provide a comfortable life for everyone with little need to work should be a blessing, our economic system somehow snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and turns that into a dystopian nightmare.
The war on drugs has an effect far beyond the injustice to a few harmless pot smokers. Thinking about my friends and the drug laws, I concluded that I would feel morally compelled to impede the police in any way I could if they wanted to enforce the drug laws. More and more average people are coming to that same conclusion. It's one thing when organized crime sees the cops as the enemy, it's quite another when average citizens come to agree.
Evidence suggests he did, he just tried to retcon the real world with that claim.
Besides, it no longer matters what he wants, the story is now part of culture.
Yo're just going to have to look that one up. This is not the forum to teach you cosmology and quantum physics.
You're thinking about a generation too late. You're also thinking of -O values greater than 3 (though now, some compilers do unsafe re-ordering at nearly any O level).
It USED TO BE true. It isn't now.
I did not say it was a dead standard, I said it was dead standard. There is a huge difference. (now who feels like a sucker? :-)
Next, PCs had an 8 bit data bus but were 16 bit machines. Larger variables (including double) were handled just fine either in software emulation or the 8087 co-processor (later integrated into the CPU).
By contrast, it was only later on that C decided how many bits int and long were.
Go tell all those physicists out there. I'm sure they'll gratefully bow to your supreme knowledge.
Sorry, but theory must conform to the evidence as well, and evidence suggests quantized space-time (meaning there is an actual smallest possible distance between two points). When you grow up to be God, you can create one that doesn't work that way.
I suspect this to be part of the reason mathematicians prefer not to deal in the physical world.
They would be shocked to see the real figures there. For example, by maintaining spreadsheet and database functions, 3 employees were able to do the work of 100 at a savings of $320,000 this month....
Actually, Fortran has already been seriously damaged by some of that evolution. Once upon a time, Fortran was dead standard. If your Fortran program ran correctly on a PC it would run correctly on a mainframe, mini, or supercomputer. More importantly, it would produce the same result. It didn't matter which compiler you used.
Now, I see more and more programs that really need a particular compiler to compile at all, much less produce the correct result. Even avoiding -Ox where x>3 doesn't assure correctness anymore.
I don't get a choice, that's just how reality is constructed. It didn't ask me if I wanted space-time quantized or not.
Or you've quantized it. Welcome to the crazy reality of quantum mechanics, where Heisenberg rules the day. The mathematical answer is irrational, but construct such a square and measure it and find that even a 'perfect' ruler truncates the result.
Planck's constant and the Planck length are related but not the same thing.
If you're going to argue against a statement, shouldn't you at least know the definitions of all of the words first?
The Planck LENGTH is a unit. I believe you are confused. Planck LENGTH != Planck's constant.
What would be ridiculous about using the Planck length as a unit of measure? It would certainly make at least as much sense as a king's foot or an arbitrary division of an incorrect measurement of one planet's size. I would suggest it except that it's an awfully small unit compared to the practical measurements we typically make.
So you would prefer that government had done nothing so we could 'win' by having an IBM monopoly instead? That seems a bit silly.
What the hell do you think he meant by "right of way"?