So then you are saying that you believe that these people who are kidnapped from their homelands do not have any right to due process? People have been detained in Guantanamo for years and repeatedly denied due process. Some of them have never had charges brought against them, while being detained indefinitely.
If you feel for some reason that is reasonable, then your beliefs are rather frightening I would say.
It would just come out of solution and end up at the top of the can. The total volume doesn't change because the gas was previously in solution and displacing water then as well.
For that matter, you can see the same thing happen by shaking a sealed plastic bottled of (your favorite carbonated beverage). The gas in that will also come out of solution and go to the top. You could do it by shaking, by sonication, or just by waiting a long time.
If you feel that the carbonation in Mountain Dew was an undesirable trait, then yes. Sonication is an effective technique for degassing liquids - so it could make your dew flat quicker than just about anything else.
I for one thought it was interesting that while Nintendo kept bringing out new home systems with approximately zero ability to play titles from earlier systems, they kept the ability to play old game boy games for years and years as they brought out new systems. If the GBA slot is gone, does that mean that now Nintendo no long feels it worthwhile to maintain the ability to play old titles?
Do you see a large amount of spam coming from actual hotmail accounts? I know I have in the past, but lately my own experience is most spam comes from (bogus-name)@(bogus-domain). I don't see much spam that is routed through hotmail servers, either.
Not that I want to defend hotmail or their overlord Microsoft, but by my experience they have a pretty negligible role in spam propagation.
Actually, looking through my mail logs I would say that yahoo mail is probably a bigger problem in the spam and phishing epidemic. I have five different phishing emails pretending to be either IRS or FBI, all with yahoo.com return addresses that yahoo support won't do anything about.
In that case, why can't I just let Windows XP or Vista manage the virtual memory size by itself? I don't see why I should need to establish a fixed size when Windows can manage it dynamically.
I have yet to see a version of Microsoft windows that does not end up with a hopelessly fragmented swap file over time. And if you let windows dynamically use space for swap, you're just asking for an even more hopelessly fragmented drive as it starts grabbing space anywhere it can find some to expand the swap file.
On my own windows installs I have brought some old-school unix (FreeBSD in particular) methodology to partitioning, and I make a partition just for swap (still 2x my total memory size). Of course in windows you still have to partition it, but I just don't write anything to it myself, and tell windows to only swap to that partition. Then my main partition doesn't end up as terribly fragmented.
It's the difference between arresting a criminal and prisoners of war. I'm sorry if the difference is too subtle for you.
No.
It is the difference between the belief that all human beings should be granted due process and the belief that some human beings are apparently inherently superior to others.
What is the purpose of giving us the time to charge to 90%? Is there something about the final 10% that takes longer to charge than the rest of the battery?
Or are they charging while running - and perhaps not able to get all the way to 100%? The article was lousy (to be generous) and doesn't say what it would take to reach 100%.
Well, what does the US do with those that it lacks the evidence to arrest, try, and convict?
Or on the same note, when was the last time there was a trial at Guantanamo - or when was the last time any charges were brought against anyone there?
You can disagree with my statement - and at least 3 cowardly moderator points were used to say that - but there is hardly an example more in line with lacking evidence than what the US government is doing down there in Cuba.
Was a little ambiguous when talking about card games. Though I'm not sure that playing war (the card game) would really be worthwhile online from a gambler's perspective...
Facebook, a userbase not exactly famous for its dedication to privacy, security and discretion.
When did it become acceptable to dare criticize facebook on slashdot? Considering how many front page articles were devoted to facebook games, I thought it was the new golden child around here.
Granted, here we are criticizing the users of facebook, and not facebook itself. Still I am surprised to not see a large outcry from those who sing the praises of the great facebook.
Wilf Blitzer, and even moreso his sidekick Jack Cafferty, are on the left.
That Wolf Blitzer. And he's an anchor, not a commentator. I'll give you Jack Cafferty as a liberal commentator, but Wolf Blitzer is not a commentator so he doesn't count in the list of "liberal commentators".
So that would make one
Lou Dobbs is a populist who straddles both sides of the fence
If he's a populist, then he must not be an evil liberal.
Campbell Brown seems to play it down the middle; I haven't detected a significant bias in her reporting over the years.
So then you admit she is neither a commentator nor an evil, evil liberal.
Larry King doesn't count
Larry King is also a reporter, still not a commentator. For that matter have you looked at his interview list? He's had numerous interviews in the past year that would never go to evil, evil, evil liberals.
Anderson Cooper is on the left.
Repeat after me:
Anderson Cooper is not a commentator. You can call him one, but that does not make him one. Anderson Cooper is a reporter. You were ranting about evil, evil, evil, evil liberal commentators. Cooper is not a commentator and therefore does not belong on your list.
there's Gupta, who is not a conservative, even if he agrees with conservatives on some issues
I have seen him agree with conservatives more than liberals. And being as he is called in for commentary on health-related issues, he needs to be examined in the light of the commentary he gives on the same. Which is conservative far more often than not. Remember when he came out with a bag of half-truths in response to Sicko?
Tom Foreman, who seems to me to be on the left, but I don't watch him enough to know
Tom Foreman is an anchor. Still not a commentator.
There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left
I'm not familiar with him, but I see in his background that he is a Christian reporter from Texas. I'll leave that one as a wash.
So really, you came up with one actual liberal commentator on CNN that we could verify. And how recently was he hired? And we're talking about someone who doesn't even have his own show outright.
In contrast, CNN made a huge deal out of hiring Glenn Beck. He has his own show every night. He often gets short spots in the morning news on both CNN and headline news to give conservative spin to the morning news while sitting in his studio to remind us he also does conservative radio.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them.
Did you read the title of the thread? It says Not sure I would want his methods. I never attacked said methods. You spun my statement into an attack on your methods. I was criticizing your extremely partisan journal entries.
For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals
That is only true if you include the anchors and reporters, who are there to present the news, as opposed to the commentators like Beck and Gupta, who are there to provide commentary on the news. How many liberal commentators has CNN given their own shows to?
You directly implied that what I presented should be ignored because of your (false) perception of my biases.
You are stretching my statement to meet your own assumptions of me. I merely said I wasn't interested in your methods. I came to the conclusion that I am not interested in your methods by reading the journal entries that you have made here on slashdot. At no point did I advocate ignoring you. You inserted that yourself to try to skewer me, it appears.
like how unemployment has been, on average, lower in a Bush Presidency than Clinton's
The unemployment numbers are only better under Bush if you don't count the number of unemployed under Bush that have given up on looking for work - who are not counted as "unemployed" under the Bush numbers. And those people can still be collecting unemployment - they just don't count as part of the "labor pool".
despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources
Except that I didn't actually say that. Did you read my comment or are you just retaliating based on what you feel from reading it?
My main sources of news are CNN.com
You aren't actually trying to claim that CNN is a liberal, or even a non-conservative news source, are you? Anyone who has been paying attention to CNN can tell that they have made a hard swing to the right over the past few years. Take a look at how often they turn to Glenn Beck for commentary, or how often they stack the deck for Dr. Gupta to favor the for-profit health care system, even when they have to use incomplete data to do it. And those are just two obvious, recurring conservative elements in CNN. Soon CNN will stand for "Conservative News Network".
and PBS NewsHour
I haven't seen you cite PBS NewsHour in your journal entries anytime in the past month. Maybe you watch it or read it online, but I haven't seen you employ their data in your postings here.
anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and evil
I never called you stupid or evil. I pointed out that you are partisan and biased. Those are two very distinct sets of allegations. I disagree with over 90% of what you say in your journal, but not once did I call you stupid or evil, you added that yourself.
should be ignored
If I was ignoring you, then how would I know that you have written over a dozen highly conservative journal entries in just the past month?
It tends to actually matter who you attack, at what scale, with what goal, and with what strategy.
Strategy? I wish someone would remind out current commander in chief of that concept. I have to wonder at what point he realized that "shock and awe" was not really a valid long-term strategy.
Knowing how your enemy processes his data, finding flaws in his analysis
Well, based on the same journal entries that I pointed out earlier, it would seem reasonable to expect that he just takes feeds straight from conservative news sources and then "analyzes" by posting it here on slashdot as well as on his own website.
I would say there isn't really any "raw data analysis" involved. At least if there is, he isn't posting it here.
Although of course reality does have a known liberal bias. So he may choose to simply ignore reality on that basis.
User installs Windows, only to find no browser installed by default. "That's okay," says the user, "I'll just download one... from the Internet... without a browser..."
Back in the bad old days, web browsers were distributed on floppy diskette. Or you just downloaded them when you connected to your ISP (or you dialed up your favorite BBS and got it there).
Then Netscape became a little bigger and was mailed out on CDs.
Though really, distributing a browser on CD-R or USB flash drive is pretty trivial. Most people who buy computers know other people who have computers as well (why else would you want to use the internet?) and could easily get a copy of Cool-New-Browser(TM) from someone they know.
But multicelled animals provide multiple copies of their DNA. Multiple samples can be sequenced and error-correction computations performed to arrive at an error-free transcription.
Now I for one certainly wouldn't oppose doing a (insert extinct animal species here) genome project for as many extinct animals as possible. However, as someone with genomics experience, I can say it is a very long and involved process just to sequence a genome.
And then on top of that, your proposal would then involve progressing on to building new chromosomes from the sequenced data - because just rebuilding broken chromosomes could introduce potentially crippling error rates.
So unfortunately, I don't think we're there yet. Once our techniques progress for synthetic chromosomes, then we may be able to use them as scaffolding for bringing back extinct organisms.
Slashdot Mirror
So then you are saying that you believe that these people who are kidnapped from their homelands do not have any right to due process? People have been detained in Guantanamo for years and repeatedly denied due process. Some of them have never had charges brought against them, while being detained indefinitely.
If you feel for some reason that is reasonable, then your beliefs are rather frightening I would say.
Where would it go in a sealed can?
It would just come out of solution and end up at the top of the can. The total volume doesn't change because the gas was previously in solution and displacing water then as well.
For that matter, you can see the same thing happen by shaking a sealed plastic bottled of (your favorite carbonated beverage). The gas in that will also come out of solution and go to the top. You could do it by shaking, by sonication, or just by waiting a long time.
.. work on Mountain Dew?
If you feel that the carbonation in Mountain Dew was an undesirable trait, then yes. Sonication is an effective technique for degassing liquids - so it could make your dew flat quicker than just about anything else.
I for one thought it was interesting that while Nintendo kept bringing out new home systems with approximately zero ability to play titles from earlier systems, they kept the ability to play old game boy games for years and years as they brought out new systems. If the GBA slot is gone, does that mean that now Nintendo no long feels it worthwhile to maintain the ability to play old titles?
spam emanating from hotmail accounts.
Do you see a large amount of spam coming from actual hotmail accounts? I know I have in the past, but lately my own experience is most spam comes from (bogus-name)@(bogus-domain). I don't see much spam that is routed through hotmail servers, either.
Not that I want to defend hotmail or their overlord Microsoft, but by my experience they have a pretty negligible role in spam propagation.
Actually, looking through my mail logs I would say that yahoo mail is probably a bigger problem in the spam and phishing epidemic. I have five different phishing emails pretending to be either IRS or FBI, all with yahoo.com return addresses that yahoo support won't do anything about.
In that case, why can't I just let Windows XP or Vista manage the virtual memory size by itself? I don't see why I should need to establish a fixed size when Windows can manage it dynamically.
I have yet to see a version of Microsoft windows that does not end up with a hopelessly fragmented swap file over time. And if you let windows dynamically use space for swap, you're just asking for an even more hopelessly fragmented drive as it starts grabbing space anywhere it can find some to expand the swap file.
On my own windows installs I have brought some old-school unix (FreeBSD in particular) methodology to partitioning, and I make a partition just for swap (still 2x my total memory size). Of course in windows you still have to partition it, but I just don't write anything to it myself, and tell windows to only swap to that partition. Then my main partition doesn't end up as terribly fragmented.
It's the difference between arresting a criminal and prisoners of war. I'm sorry if the difference is too subtle for you.
No.
It is the difference between the belief that all human beings should be granted due process and the belief that some human beings are apparently inherently superior to others.
What is the purpose of giving us the time to charge to 90%? Is there something about the final 10% that takes longer to charge than the rest of the battery?
Or are they charging while running - and perhaps not able to get all the way to 100%? The article was lousy (to be generous) and doesn't say what it would take to reach 100%.
not non sequitors
Well, what does the US do with those that it lacks the evidence to arrest, try, and convict?
Or on the same note, when was the last time there was a trial at Guantanamo - or when was the last time any charges were brought against anyone there?
You can disagree with my statement - and at least 3 cowardly moderator points were used to say that - but there is hardly an example more in line with lacking evidence than what the US government is doing down there in Cuba.
I guess it is better, for those who know what that is (which obviously does not include me).
Although I suppose that might not be bad, either. Some people (myself included) will click on it because they have no idea what it is.
Play WAR? [warct.com]
Was a little ambiguous when talking about card games. Though I'm not sure that playing war (the card game) would really be worthwhile online from a gambler's perspective...
At first glance I thought he was holding a garden hose with the water turned on.
Theres a world of difference between knowing who did something, and having enough proof to be able to arrest them, charge them and convict them.
And in between is Guantanamo Bay.
Oh wait, were we talking about Russia?
Facebook, a userbase not exactly famous for its dedication to privacy, security and discretion.
When did it become acceptable to dare criticize facebook on slashdot? Considering how many front page articles were devoted to facebook games, I thought it was the new golden child around here.
Granted, here we are criticizing the users of facebook, and not facebook itself. Still I am surprised to not see a large outcry from those who sing the praises of the great facebook.
Wilf Blitzer, and even moreso his sidekick Jack Cafferty, are on the left.
That Wolf Blitzer. And he's an anchor, not a commentator. I'll give you Jack Cafferty as a liberal commentator, but Wolf Blitzer is not a commentator so he doesn't count in the list of "liberal commentators".
So that would make one
Lou Dobbs is a populist who straddles both sides of the fence
If he's a populist, then he must not be an evil liberal.
Campbell Brown seems to play it down the middle; I haven't detected a significant bias in her reporting over the years.
So then you admit she is neither a commentator nor an evil, evil liberal.
Larry King doesn't count
Larry King is also a reporter, still not a commentator. For that matter have you looked at his interview list? He's had numerous interviews in the past year that would never go to evil, evil, evil liberals.
Anderson Cooper is on the left.
Repeat after me:
Anderson Cooper is not a commentator. You can call him one, but that does not make him one. Anderson Cooper is a reporter. You were ranting about evil, evil, evil, evil liberal commentators. Cooper is not a commentator and therefore does not belong on your list.
there's Gupta, who is not a conservative, even if he agrees with conservatives on some issues
I have seen him agree with conservatives more than liberals. And being as he is called in for commentary on health-related issues, he needs to be examined in the light of the commentary he gives on the same. Which is conservative far more often than not. Remember when he came out with a bag of half-truths in response to Sicko?
Tom Foreman, who seems to me to be on the left, but I don't watch him enough to know
Tom Foreman is an anchor. Still not a commentator.
There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left
I'm not familiar with him, but I see in his background that he is a Christian reporter from Texas. I'll leave that one as a wash.
Fareed Zakaria, definitely on the left.
He is a commentator, though he is regarded as a centrist.
So really, you came up with one actual liberal commentator on CNN that we could verify. And how recently was he hired? And we're talking about someone who doesn't even have his own show outright.
In contrast, CNN made a huge deal out of hiring Glenn Beck. He has his own show every night. He often gets short spots in the morning news on both CNN and headline news to give conservative spin to the morning news while sitting in his studio to remind us he also does conservative radio.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them.
Did you read the title of the thread? It says Not sure I would want his methods. I never attacked said methods. You spun my statement into an attack on your methods. I was criticizing your extremely partisan journal entries.
For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals
That is only true if you include the anchors and reporters, who are there to present the news, as opposed to the commentators like Beck and Gupta, who are there to provide commentary on the news. How many liberal commentators has CNN given their own shows to?
You directly implied that what I presented should be ignored because of your (false) perception of my biases.
You are stretching my statement to meet your own assumptions of me. I merely said I wasn't interested in your methods. I came to the conclusion that I am not interested in your methods by reading the journal entries that you have made here on slashdot. At no point did I advocate ignoring you. You inserted that yourself to try to skewer me, it appears.
doing so voids all kinds of warranties
I am not very familiar with the MSI Wind myself, but it sounds to me like these guy have may just broken some wind?
like how unemployment has been, on average, lower in a Bush Presidency than Clinton's
The unemployment numbers are only better under Bush if you don't count the number of unemployed under Bush that have given up on looking for work - who are not counted as "unemployed" under the Bush numbers. And those people can still be collecting unemployment - they just don't count as part of the "labor pool".
Who else checked their names on their drivers licenses after reading, just out of curiosity?
FWIW, every word on my NY license is in capitals - does that mean the entire state is enslaved (including the DMV itself)?
despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources
Except that I didn't actually say that. Did you read my comment or are you just retaliating based on what you feel from reading it?
My main sources of news are CNN.com
You aren't actually trying to claim that CNN is a liberal, or even a non-conservative news source, are you? Anyone who has been paying attention to CNN can tell that they have made a hard swing to the right over the past few years. Take a look at how often they turn to Glenn Beck for commentary, or how often they stack the deck for Dr. Gupta to favor the for-profit health care system, even when they have to use incomplete data to do it. And those are just two obvious, recurring conservative elements in CNN. Soon CNN will stand for "Conservative News Network".
and PBS NewsHour
I haven't seen you cite PBS NewsHour in your journal entries anytime in the past month. Maybe you watch it or read it online, but I haven't seen you employ their data in your postings here.
anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and evil
I never called you stupid or evil. I pointed out that you are partisan and biased. Those are two very distinct sets of allegations. I disagree with over 90% of what you say in your journal, but not once did I call you stupid or evil, you added that yourself.
should be ignored
If I was ignoring you, then how would I know that you have written over a dozen highly conservative journal entries in just the past month?
It tends to actually matter who you attack, at what scale, with what goal, and with what strategy.
Strategy? I wish someone would remind out current commander in chief of that concept. I have to wonder at what point he realized that "shock and awe" was not really a valid long-term strategy.
Knowing how your enemy processes his data, finding flaws in his analysis
Well, based on the same journal entries that I pointed out earlier, it would seem reasonable to expect that he just takes feeds straight from conservative news sources and then "analyzes" by posting it here on slashdot as well as on his own website.
I would say there isn't really any "raw data analysis" involved. At least if there is, he isn't posting it here.
Although of course reality does have a known liberal bias. So he may choose to simply ignore reality on that basis.
Pudge presented at OSCON in July his own approach
Considering all of the hardcore conservative journal entries that Pudge has made in just the past few weeks, I'm not sure I want to know how he comes up with his conclusions.
User installs Windows, only to find no browser installed by default. "That's okay," says the user, "I'll just download one... from the Internet... without a browser..."
Back in the bad old days, web browsers were distributed on floppy diskette. Or you just downloaded them when you connected to your ISP (or you dialed up your favorite BBS and got it there).
Then Netscape became a little bigger and was mailed out on CDs.
Though really, distributing a browser on CD-R or USB flash drive is pretty trivial. Most people who buy computers know other people who have computers as well (why else would you want to use the internet?) and could easily get a copy of Cool-New-Browser(TM) from someone they know.
But multicelled animals provide multiple copies of their DNA. Multiple samples can be sequenced and error-correction computations performed to arrive at an error-free transcription.
Now I for one certainly wouldn't oppose doing a (insert extinct animal species here) genome project for as many extinct animals as possible. However, as someone with genomics experience, I can say it is a very long and involved process just to sequence a genome.
And then on top of that, your proposal would then involve progressing on to building new chromosomes from the sequenced data - because just rebuilding broken chromosomes could introduce potentially crippling error rates.
So unfortunately, I don't think we're there yet. Once our techniques progress for synthetic chromosomes, then we may be able to use them as scaffolding for bringing back extinct organisms.