Not when it is running Photoshop, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Excel, and Word simultaneously it doesn't.
Here's a crazy thought.... Close some applications!
Have you considered the crazy possibility that I might have them open all at the same time because I need them open at the same time? If I close any one of them then I'm not working on my presentation, which is my most frequent task when I am packed into steerage class on the flying sardine cans. Being as most of my travel is for work - meaning I am likely going somewhere to do a presentation - the flight is a great place to finish putting said presentation together.
Why don't you get a better computer like a Mac. It has good battery life. 8 hours.
Not when it is running Photoshop, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Excel, and Word simultaneously it doesn't. Some of us need to do actual work with our laptops, and will get less than the optimal battery life expectancy from them as a result - even with 8gb ram. I pretty well always have at least 3 of those 5 running at any given time, and often all 5; it's what I need to do in order to put a presentation together.
It's called work, try it sometime and you might come to know what I'm talking about.
Perhaps you should see what you need for your laptop. I've not had a power issues in a couple of years thanks to having the right adapter.
Regional Jets don't have that kind of plug, either. Hell some of them don't even have room for full-size carry-on bags, you have to gate check just about anything larger than a briefcase. Any kind of electricity would be a convenience that the airlines don't care to provide.
I don't really need internet access on a flight, but when I'm on a 3 hour flight and I am running so many applications on my laptop that my battery is only good for 2 hours, I would really love to have an outlet to plug in and keep my battery charged. Unfortunately most of the planes I've been on in the past 7-10 years have been of the regional jet variety which generally don't have AC outlets for anyone.
As much as I generally am rather fond of the EmbraerJets, I am rather annoyed that they never give me anywhere to plug in my laptop, it would well offset my frustration over the inability to stand up in the aisle.
Really? Since when did we worry about that? It's not like anyone reads this site any ways. And whatever he said I would bet money it isn't as bad as what comes out in most conversations here on slashdot.
So a building, which is nominally meant to house people and objects, is being used to hang billboards. Space being at a premium in New York City, I find it rather amusing that you can make more money off of advertising using the side of your building than in leasing the floor space.
Because of the extensive cost of renovating the building with central air conditioning, the building currently has no tenants above the retail floors
That, and the building where it sits can hold more advertising than what you could accommodate if you tore it down and just put up traditional billboards.
Hey, how about you give the evidence to the police?
And you expect the police to do what with that, exactly? Even if you live in a city with technically competent (or even just non-Barney Fife) officers, the odds that they will have the time to care is practically nil. Most likely the majority of the systems involved in a DDoS are not from the country you live in, meaning the cops would need to contact INTERPOL to get anything moving - and they don't usually do that for much of anything short of capital murder.
In other words, sure, you can bring it to the police. But count on them doing anything about it while you're still alive.
Most of the systems involved in distributed attacks are not intentionally willing participants. They are generally part of a botnet, belonging to unknowing owners and controlled by uncaring masters. Shame them all you want but that won't make them go away.
Well, the last drive I returned to a manufacturer was one that I was running FreeBSD on and they didn't seem to care. Granted, the experience with the manufacturer (Seagate) was less-than-pleasant but that had nothing to do with my choice of OS which I don't think they ever asked.
You don't honestly believe this site will still be around in another 505 years, do you? Hell I'd be surprised if it was still around in 2015, considering how rapidly it is losing relevance.
The tricky part for guns, and even universal healthcare in some respects, are those pesky Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Many argue that the federal government does not have the power (because of the 10th Amendment) to enact universal healthcare -- even if the majority thought it would be beneficial.
The 10th amendment - amongst others, of course - is one that can be interpreted to differentiate between what the government can do for you versus what the government can force you to do. Universal health care is not about force, it is about availability. Just as the government can set basic standards for education, they cannot force anyone to go to school.
Of course the other option is to actually pass universal health care as a constitutional amendment. Many people would say that any new federal power is dictated by the constitution to follow that path (although of course whether or not universal health care would be a power for the government is something open to debate).
The discussion our government needs to have - but likely won't have because "it's too hard" - is of mental health and mental health care in this country. We still live in a country were people with mental health issues are chastised and treated as irregulars to be shamed. We have the ability to help these people but we don't do anything, and end up with this.
And of course this is all made a thousand times worse when these people lose their jobs - and lose their health care as well. This leaves them in a place where they are no longer able to get the help they need to become healthy and contributing members of society. Eventually, they end up doing this.
I am far more liberal than any president this country has elected since... well, possibly ever. I would favor leaving gun laws alone for decades if we instituted universal health care immediately. We are dealing with people that we can help, but we instead as a society opt not to.
No. Slashdot had credibility, but that was years ago.
Maybe Slashdot has less credibility with you, but it has steadily been gaining more credibility with everyone else
Wow, someone woke up on the pissy side of the bed this morning?
And how do you know that everyone else views it as being increasing in credibility?
to the point where news outlets regularly cite it today.
I don't know what news outlets you look at, but the ones I watch often scoop slashdot to the news. While slashdot is - and pretty well always has been - a news aggregator rather than a news site in it's own right, it fails to be even close to the first aggregator to pick up on most stories now.
I guess there are two kinds of lies, registrars and damn_registrars. That's an incredibly ridiculous thing to say.
Indeed, what you just said was incredibly ridiculous.
Credibility brings eyeballs and eyeballs drive impressions.
No, statements do not need to be credible to bring eyeballs. For example look at any of the conservative "news: sites that are often cited in discussions here. Slashdot is following much the same MO - you can bring plenty of eyeballs when you don't worry about credibility but instead focus on exciting your core audience. Just look at the quarterly "hall of fame" section here on slashdot - three of the top five (by comment count) are political and none of them portray non-conservatives in a positive light.
Not sure that I agree with the implied attribution to Slashdot. As the Hacker News discussion revealed, the usual pattern of donations to FreeBSD is a late surge, apart from the fact that it got coverage in other places.
It would be nice if Slashdot dropped the self references, as it erodes its credibility.
Slashdot has credibility?
No. Slashdot had credibility, but that was years ago. For the last 10 or more years it has been a place to find out what conservatives think about technology, and in the past 3-4 years it has added on the new goal of providing the most up-to-the-minute news on all things facebook.
Credibility was never profitable. That said, they didn't become profitable after they jettisoned their credibility, either, but they felt they had to try something.
I have been in this discussion before on slashdot, and I think there is one thing that helps to clear the differences in understanding that tends to go unsaid. (disclaimer - I am agnostic)
Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate. However that is the theory of the term. In application, many (not all) atheists demonstrate themselves to have just as much faith as theists, in that they believe there to be no deity. While they are believing there to be no god, they are still nonetheless believing in something. Conversely, someone who is agnostic states they do not know there to be - or not be - a deity.
Hence to many people, both those who are and those who are not, atheism is a religion. Atheism in its current incarnation most often involves the belief in there not being a deity.
What Elsevier journal are you paying to publish in? I have published in multiple Elsevier journals and have never been asked to pay a fee. I think this may be the policy of your particular journal?
Someone in our research group recently published in an Elsevier journal that charged at least for color figures, I'm not sure if there were page charges as well. Even just the charge for figures ended up at a couple thousand dollars.
Bush had nothing to do with it, other than, like Obama, making no effort to change it.
That depends on exactly how you choose to differentiate the actions of a candidate from the candidate's campaign staff and affiliated collaborators. Sure, Bush himself did not dictate that Cleveland Ohio (and other urban areas) would have too few voting machines for the population to ever be able to vote, but the decision to understock it was undoubtedly partisan and made with a definite goal in mind.
Odd... up here in Canada, employers are required to provide employees with 4 contiguous hours to go vote. So if the polling stations are open from 0800 to 2000, then you can either show up to work at 1200, or leave at 1600. (I suppose they could provide you with 1200 - 1600 as the four hours....)
In the US employers are required to allow the employee to take time off to vote, however:
They only have to allow it for full-time employees
The employer can give as little as an hour
The employer is not obligated to pay for that time off
Which of course means that part time employees will often have a hard time finding time to vote - especially if they live in highly populated areas with fewer voting machines per capita.
I cannot vouch for every journal in existence, though I am not aware of any that pay their reviewers. Some might even consider such a thing to be unethical. However, just to play it safe, I answered "quite often" rather than making an absolute statement.
Would be cool to know how much money you could expect to get for peer reviewing an article in a given journal/given field. If anybody knows, reply to this post please.
Quite often the pay is nothing. it is expected to be part of your service obligations.
On the other hand, journal editors do get paid. That is a big part of what publication fees cover now, is the pay of of the editors - especially since a lot of journals don't regularly print their issues any more or they have very few subscribers that pay for print editions.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when it is running Photoshop, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Excel, and Word simultaneously it doesn't.
Here's a crazy thought.... Close some applications!
Have you considered the crazy possibility that I might have them open all at the same time because I need them open at the same time? If I close any one of them then I'm not working on my presentation, which is my most frequent task when I am packed into steerage class on the flying sardine cans. Being as most of my travel is for work - meaning I am likely going somewhere to do a presentation - the flight is a great place to finish putting said presentation together.
Why don't you get a better computer like a Mac. It has good battery life. 8 hours.
Not when it is running Photoshop, Illustrator, Powerpoint, Excel, and Word simultaneously it doesn't. Some of us need to do actual work with our laptops, and will get less than the optimal battery life expectancy from them as a result - even with 8gb ram. I pretty well always have at least 3 of those 5 running at any given time, and often all 5; it's what I need to do in order to put a presentation together.
It's called work, try it sometime and you might come to know what I'm talking about.
Perhaps you should see what you need for your laptop. I've not had a power issues in a couple of years thanks to having the right adapter.
Regional Jets don't have that kind of plug, either. Hell some of them don't even have room for full-size carry-on bags, you have to gate check just about anything larger than a briefcase. Any kind of electricity would be a convenience that the airlines don't care to provide.
I don't really need internet access on a flight, but when I'm on a 3 hour flight and I am running so many applications on my laptop that my battery is only good for 2 hours, I would really love to have an outlet to plug in and keep my battery charged. Unfortunately most of the planes I've been on in the past 7-10 years have been of the regional jet variety which generally don't have AC outlets for anyone.
As much as I generally am rather fond of the EmbraerJets, I am rather annoyed that they never give me anywhere to plug in my laptop, it would well offset my frustration over the inability to stand up in the aisle.
Really? Since when did we worry about that? It's not like anyone reads this site any ways. And whatever he said I would bet money it isn't as bad as what comes out in most conversations here on slashdot.
So a building, which is nominally meant to house people and objects, is being used to hang billboards. Space being at a premium in New York City, I find it rather amusing that you can make more money off of advertising using the side of your building than in leasing the floor space.
The wikipedia page for this building suggests one significant difficulty in leasing the space:
Because of the extensive cost of renovating the building with central air conditioning, the building currently has no tenants above the retail floors
That, and the building where it sits can hold more advertising than what you could accommodate if you tore it down and just put up traditional billboards.
Hey, how about you give the evidence to the police?
And you expect the police to do what with that, exactly? Even if you live in a city with technically competent (or even just non-Barney Fife) officers, the odds that they will have the time to care is practically nil. Most likely the majority of the systems involved in a DDoS are not from the country you live in, meaning the cops would need to contact INTERPOL to get anything moving - and they don't usually do that for much of anything short of capital murder.
In other words, sure, you can bring it to the police. But count on them doing anything about it while you're still alive.
Most of the systems involved in distributed attacks are not intentionally willing participants. They are generally part of a botnet, belonging to unknowing owners and controlled by uncaring masters. Shame them all you want but that won't make them go away.
Well, the last drive I returned to a manufacturer was one that I was running FreeBSD on and they didn't seem to care. Granted, the experience with the manufacturer (Seagate) was less-than-pleasant but that had nothing to do with my choice of OS which I don't think they ever asked.
I now buy only Western Digital.
They are doing the non-English ones first to draw attention to it - and hopefully increase the perceived value of the English ones.
While their intentions are not good, they aren't stupid, either.
I would have thought the slashdot editors would know that.
On this date in the year 2517, slashdotters
You don't honestly believe this site will still be around in another 505 years, do you? Hell I'd be surprised if it was still around in 2015, considering how rapidly it is losing relevance.
It should have been sent to Las Vegas instead
The tricky part for guns, and even universal healthcare in some respects, are those pesky Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Many argue that the federal government does not have the power (because of the 10th Amendment) to enact universal healthcare -- even if the majority thought it would be beneficial.
The 10th amendment - amongst others, of course - is one that can be interpreted to differentiate between what the government can do for you versus what the government can force you to do. Universal health care is not about force, it is about availability. Just as the government can set basic standards for education, they cannot force anyone to go to school.
Of course the other option is to actually pass universal health care as a constitutional amendment. Many people would say that any new federal power is dictated by the constitution to follow that path (although of course whether or not universal health care would be a power for the government is something open to debate).
... and maybe more star while we're at it. Really, the previous death stars haven't caused enough of either.
The discussion our government needs to have - but likely won't have because "it's too hard" - is of mental health and mental health care in this country. We still live in a country were people with mental health issues are chastised and treated as irregulars to be shamed. We have the ability to help these people but we don't do anything, and end up with this.
... well, possibly ever. I would favor leaving gun laws alone for decades if we instituted universal health care immediately. We are dealing with people that we can help, but we instead as a society opt not to.
And of course this is all made a thousand times worse when these people lose their jobs - and lose their health care as well. This leaves them in a place where they are no longer able to get the help they need to become healthy and contributing members of society. Eventually, they end up doing this.
I am far more liberal than any president this country has elected since
No. Slashdot had credibility, but that was years ago.
Maybe Slashdot has less credibility with you, but it has steadily been gaining more credibility with everyone else
Wow, someone woke up on the pissy side of the bed this morning?
And how do you know that everyone else views it as being increasing in credibility?
to the point where news outlets regularly cite it today.
I don't know what news outlets you look at, but the ones I watch often scoop slashdot to the news. While slashdot is - and pretty well always has been - a news aggregator rather than a news site in it's own right, it fails to be even close to the first aggregator to pick up on most stories now.
I guess there are two kinds of lies, registrars and damn_registrars. That's an incredibly ridiculous thing to say.
Indeed, what you just said was incredibly ridiculous.
Credibility brings eyeballs and eyeballs drive impressions.
No, statements do not need to be credible to bring eyeballs. For example look at any of the conservative "news: sites that are often cited in discussions here. Slashdot is following much the same MO - you can bring plenty of eyeballs when you don't worry about credibility but instead focus on exciting your core audience. Just look at the quarterly "hall of fame" section here on slashdot - three of the top five (by comment count) are political and none of them portray non-conservatives in a positive light.
Not sure that I agree with the implied attribution to Slashdot. As the Hacker News discussion revealed, the usual pattern of donations to FreeBSD is a late surge, apart from the fact that it got coverage in other places.
It would be nice if Slashdot dropped the self references, as it erodes its credibility.
Slashdot has credibility?
No. Slashdot had credibility, but that was years ago. For the last 10 or more years it has been a place to find out what conservatives think about technology, and in the past 3-4 years it has added on the new goal of providing the most up-to-the-minute news on all things facebook.
Credibility was never profitable. That said, they didn't become profitable after they jettisoned their credibility, either, but they felt they had to try something.
More people are likely followers of the church of ron paul in the US than are Jedi.
I have been in this discussion before on slashdot, and I think there is one thing that helps to clear the differences in understanding that tends to go unsaid. (disclaimer - I am agnostic)
Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate. However that is the theory of the term. In application, many (not all) atheists demonstrate themselves to have just as much faith as theists, in that they believe there to be no deity. While they are believing there to be no god, they are still nonetheless believing in something. Conversely, someone who is agnostic states they do not know there to be - or not be - a deity.
Hence to many people, both those who are and those who are not, atheism is a religion. Atheism in its current incarnation most often involves the belief in there not being a deity.
What Elsevier journal are you paying to publish in? I have published in multiple Elsevier journals and have never been asked to pay a fee. I think this may be the policy of your particular journal?
Someone in our research group recently published in an Elsevier journal that charged at least for color figures, I'm not sure if there were page charges as well. Even just the charge for figures ended up at a couple thousand dollars.
Bush had nothing to do with it, other than, like Obama, making no effort to change it.
That depends on exactly how you choose to differentiate the actions of a candidate from the candidate's campaign staff and affiliated collaborators. Sure, Bush himself did not dictate that Cleveland Ohio (and other urban areas) would have too few voting machines for the population to ever be able to vote, but the decision to understock it was undoubtedly partisan and made with a definite goal in mind.
Odd... up here in Canada, employers are required to provide employees with 4 contiguous hours to go vote. So if the polling stations are open from 0800 to 2000, then you can either show up to work at 1200, or leave at 1600. (I suppose they could provide you with 1200 - 1600 as the four hours....)
In the US employers are required to allow the employee to take time off to vote, however:
Which of course means that part time employees will often have a hard time finding time to vote - especially if they live in highly populated areas with fewer voting machines per capita.
Quite often the pay is nothing.
Quite often? I've never been paid once ever.
I cannot vouch for every journal in existence, though I am not aware of any that pay their reviewers. Some might even consider such a thing to be unethical. However, just to play it safe, I answered "quite often" rather than making an absolute statement.
Would be cool to know how much money you could expect to get for peer reviewing an article in a given journal/given field. If anybody knows, reply to this post please.
Quite often the pay is nothing. it is expected to be part of your service obligations.
On the other hand, journal editors do get paid. That is a big part of what publication fees cover now, is the pay of of the editors - especially since a lot of journals don't regularly print their issues any more or they have very few subscribers that pay for print editions.