Ok...so lets all get together and ban those nasty words, and then they will be replaced and other words will be used instead.
Example:
nigger -> negro -> black -> African-American
And some {black/African-American} people I know complain about being called {African-American/black}. It never ends.
The basic idea is that those who have should help those who have not. California gives limited free heath insurance to poor pregnant mothers and young children. Why? The idea is that the cost (people chip in on their taxes, more if you are richer) is less than than the benefit (better heath for pregnant women and young children). Extending this, if you have a product (AIDS medicine, solar cells, etc.) that, when priced at the optimum for maximal revenue, could only be afforded if the purchaser was not poor, then that product is denied to a large portion of the world's population. Thus, people want multiple tiered pricing (say, selling at cost to developing countries), so that those with less money can still raise their standard of living. This allows poor people to get the product while still allowing enough revenue to the company producing the product that they produce the product.
As an aside, this is at least part of what DVD region coding was supposed to accomplish. Sell it for what the market will bear, and have several mutually exclusive markets so they can be sold more cheaply and to more people in markets with less income.
All that said, I do not think that this argument can be turned into "the poor somehow deserve better than the non-poor". Rather, it is that everyone deserves it, and multi-tiered pricing is a ways to allow more people to have it than otherwise. I acknowledge that there are severe problems with this model, but in some cases it is less problematic than the single-priced model.
Unfortunately, things have gotten to a point where it will take a lot more than just voting to fix this two-party system. The two parties have such a stranglehold on the system that no matter who gets in power, the government gets worse.
The question "Have you ever logged into someone's email or social networking account without his or her knowledge?" does not imply "use [passwords] without permission or for a reason other than what they were given". My wife and I have both logged into the other's email account without knowledge, but we have given each other permission to do so.
Most experienced managers stress that you must establish "well-defined deliverables" for teleworkers, and then judge performance accordingly.
On the face of it, that approach seems simple enough. For task-oriented jobs, it's easy to measure performance in terms of output. For an IT support person, for example, you might track how many tickets he handled per day and whether problems were successfully solved.
The Dalai Lama and company are asking for what amounts to a return to the status they had before PRC sent troops into the region. Basically, it was a suzerainty (a semi-autonomous self-ruling tributary). This is different from full separation from China. But "Free Tibet" is a better sound bite.
The work, "The Green Chinese Lantern," uses a 400 milliwatt handheld green laser with micro-stencils to beam simple messages and images up to three stories high on surfaces such as billboards, buildings, and bridges. The Laser Stencil technology was developed in conjunction with Students for a Free Tibet.
Two people arrive at a 4-way stop at right angles to each other. Who has the right of way? Regulation: The person to your right.
Solution: Use a roundabout instead of a 4-way stop.
Okay, you have now replaced one regulation with another. One person is in the roundabout, one person on the entering street. Who has right of way? Regulation: the person in the roundabout. Never mind the fact that I remember very vividly a roundabout that everyone traveling through it thought was simply a four-way intersection with an island in the center, and so did not give way to those in the roundabout. Also note that bicycles generally fare far worse than cars in safety terms. As a side note, I assume that you do not mean traffic circles, which actually had higher accident rates than traditional intersections in the US.
When a light is flashing yellow for one direction and red for another direction, who must stop? Regulation: Vehicle approaching flashing red must stop and wait until traffic on flashing yellow passes.
Solution: Use a roundabout on slow roads, and a merge lane on fast roads.
Roundabouts still have the right-of-way question, as mentioned above. A merge lane implies a traffic circle or interchange, both of which are land intensive. Sorry, not a general solution. Besides, the question still stays: who has right of way in a merge? The person in the lane being merged into.
A vehicle (for example: cyclist) is travelling at 25 km/h. There are several cars stuck behind him. Should the cyclist pull over, or continue to impede traffic? Regulation: Slow vehicles must pull over to let faster vehicles pass. He must pull over.
Solution: Build periodic passing lanes on all major roads, allowing people to drive around slow moving vehicles without requiring them to get off the road.
And non-major roads don't get them? God, I hate people going slowly on small country roads where they don't need to. And roads that were once non-major but now carry much more traffic? How do you define major anyway? What about existing roads that do not have room to easily expand (say it is built into a mountain side)? And your use of the phrase "passing lane" instead of "second lane" indicates to me that you assume that the second lane would be used for passing. Why should it (unless there is something that says you should -- like the "slow traffic keep right" signs I see here)? Besides that each extra lane you add to a road is mighty expensive. Your solution does not really work.
These rules you describe, they all revolve around you assuming that I'm going to behave in a particular fashion, and you being encouraged to believe that you have the right to expect and demand that I do. Which means you're inevitably going to get into an accident when your preconceived notions fail to mesh with reality, which you've stopped paying attention to.
True (except the the last six words, but I'll not address them). But having traffic behave in a predictable fashion reduces the number of accidents far more. I do not know if you have ever traveled in a county with almost no enforced traffic laws. I have: Laos. They have one of the highest traffic fatality rates in the world, and most traffic does not go above 20 mph (35 kph), and 95% is below 30 mph (50 kph).
Good engineering accommodates the errors and omissions of users. Bad engineering relies on laws and conventions to overcome inherent systemic flaws. Laws and conventions are, therefore, indicative of bad engineering.
I agree with the first two statements, but the last does not follow from the first two.
I would not say that the convention of traveling on the right and passing on the left (or vice-versa as the country dictates) side for same moving traffic and the opposite for oncoming traffic i
Motorized wheelchairs are allowed on the roads, at least the residential streets around here, I don't see much difference.
Are they "allowed on roads" because the cops look the other way, or are they "allowed on roads" because they are legal? At least in California (USA) it is the former. People in wheelchairs are pedestrians, and are not allowed in the street except where pedestrians are allowed, but they are usually ignored since many sidewalks are often hard or impossible to navigate. Besides that, many street corners don't have ramps down to the crosswalk to cross the street unless they are new or upgraded.
A monopoly helps no-one except the company who is the monopoly
Not entirely true. The money flowing in can produce some pretty interesting stuff in the research department. As an example, look at Bell Labs when AT&T was THE phone company. Unix is the first thing that springs to mind as something that helped someone other than the monopoly. Of course, I am not saying that this compensates for the other downsides associated with monopolies, but just that the blanket statement above is not universally true.
Depends on what "weren't returning movies... fast enough" means. I assume it means what it would mean for me: If I were with Netflix, I would receive a disk, have it sit around for a week or two before I decided I wanted to watch something, then I would watch it and immediately drop it back into the mail. OTOH, if I rent movies, I do so when I decide I want to watch something and return it the next day. So with my viewing habits, Netflix would be too expensive since I did not return movies fast enough, but RedBox would be cheap.
(BTW, why the fuck is the comment box ~35 characters wide?)
When replying, click Options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
When replaying click options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
Don't post at work if you are talking about replying if your company name has "Replay" in it!
When replaying click options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
So, this means if I find an American Express card, all I have to do is look up the person named on the card and find out the birthdate of that person's mother? Scary!
I can't make a license that says, "you can copy this software provided you don't pick your nose" and then sue you for copyright infringement for picking your nose.
Correct. BUT, if I pick my nose and then COPY THE SOFTWARE, then you CAN sue me, since I only have permission to copy if I don't pick my nose, and without permission, copyright law says I can't copy.
Heh, you've just demonstrated my point for me!:) How many prospective vegetarians do you think even realize that lacto-ovo vegetarianism is an option?
In my experience, it is that people do not know veganism exists. I call myself a vegetarian. In places where there really isn't much vegetarianism (e.g. Fresno, CA), people interpret that most often as "I don't eat the flesh of mammals." In places that have more vegetarians (e.g. the SF Bay Area), people interpret that most often as "I don't eat animals." Only rarely do people assume veganism. Or more succinctly, most people realize standard vegetarianism is an option when considering vegetarianism/veganism.
Which is, to repeat myself once more, the reason anyone considering such a massive lifestyle change should educate themselves on all the options, and any pitfalls involved with the dietary regimen they choose.
My point before is that it is not as "massive" a lifestyle change as many seem to think, nor as difficult. Whether or not you change your diet, you should educate yourself on diet and its pitfalls. This is no different for meat eaters than non-meat eaters. I would say that with no more education than "eat a varied diet that hits all food groups, and generally avoid empty calories", a normal person can be healthy as either a vegetarian or an omnivore.
No, it doesn't. There are a couple of changes, like ~/.bashrc is not read, but mostly it stays as-is. Basically, if you invoke bash as sh, AND stay inside the sh syntax/commands, then bash works like sh.
-sh-3.00$/bin/sh
sh-3.00$ help bind
bind: bind [-lpvsPVS] [-m keymap] [-f filename] [-q name] [-u name] [-r keyseq]
[-x keyseq:shell-command] [keyseq:readline-function or readline-command]
Bind a key sequence to a Readline function or a macro, or set
a Readline variable. The non-option argument syntax is equivalent
to that found in ~/.inputrc, but must be passed as a single argument:
bind '"\C-x\C-r": re-read-init-file'.
[...]
sh-3.00$ echo $PS1
\s-\v\$
sh-3.00$ export PS1='myprompt '
myprompt export PS1='\s-\v\$ '
sh-3.00$ exit
exit
-sh-3.00$
Here, bind and PS1 (help maybe?) are both in bash but not sh.
Re:Nice review, but I don't understand something.
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
I was thinking it maybe was somehow based on the chapter title, so I looked up the book, but the chapter title was "Chapter 11: Working with Dates and Times". Maybe AC above got it right with Chapter 11 meaning bankruptcy. Or something got edited out of the review?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok...so lets all get together and ban those nasty words, and then they will be replaced and other words will be used instead.
Example:
nigger -> negro -> black -> African-American
And some {black/African-American} people I know complain about being called {African-American/black}. It never ends.
The basic idea is that those who have should help those who have not. California gives limited free heath insurance to poor pregnant mothers and young children. Why? The idea is that the cost (people chip in on their taxes, more if you are richer) is less than than the benefit (better heath for pregnant women and young children). Extending this, if you have a product (AIDS medicine, solar cells, etc.) that, when priced at the optimum for maximal revenue, could only be afforded if the purchaser was not poor, then that product is denied to a large portion of the world's population. Thus, people want multiple tiered pricing (say, selling at cost to developing countries), so that those with less money can still raise their standard of living. This allows poor people to get the product while still allowing enough revenue to the company producing the product that they produce the product.
As an aside, this is at least part of what DVD region coding was supposed to accomplish. Sell it for what the market will bear, and have several mutually exclusive markets so they can be sold more cheaply and to more people in markets with less income.
All that said, I do not think that this argument can be turned into "the poor somehow deserve better than the non-poor". Rather, it is that everyone deserves it, and multi-tiered pricing is a ways to allow more people to have it than otherwise. I acknowledge that there are severe problems with this model, but in some cases it is less problematic than the single-priced model.
Parent modded funny, but it is insightful.
Unfortunately, things have gotten to a point where it will take a lot more than just voting to fix this two-party system. The two parties have such a stranglehold on the system that no matter who gets in power, the government gets worse.
The question "Have you ever logged into someone's email or social networking account without his or her knowledge?" does not imply "use [passwords] without permission or for a reason other than what they were given". My wife and I have both logged into the other's email account without knowledge, but we have given each other permission to do so.
From TFA:
2. How will you define and measure performance?
Most experienced managers stress that you must establish "well-defined deliverables" for teleworkers, and then judge performance accordingly.
On the face of it, that approach seems simple enough. For task-oriented jobs, it's easy to measure performance in terms of output. For an IT support person, for example, you might track how many tickets he handled per day and whether problems were successfully solved.
God, that's scary.
Depends who "we" are. If it is the rest of the US, then that was settled during the civil war: try to secede from the union and you will be invaded.
The Dalai Lama and company are asking for what amounts to a return to the status they had before PRC sent troops into the region. Basically, it was a suzerainty (a semi-autonomous self-ruling tributary). This is different from full separation from China. But "Free Tibet" is a better sound bite.
From TFA:
The work, "The Green Chinese Lantern," uses a 400 milliwatt handheld green laser with micro-stencils to beam simple messages and images up to three stories high on surfaces such as billboards, buildings, and bridges. The Laser Stencil technology was developed in conjunction with Students for a Free Tibet.
[...] For more information and high-resolution photos of the work, please visit http://graffitiresearchlab.com/?p=161
Maybe PacketShaper thinks that clonehappy is a sock puppet for New Here.
Right. Since speed limits and red light cameras cause accidents, all traffic laws cause accidents. </sarcasm>
Also, one can argue whether these are biased, but I won't.
Okay, you have now replaced one regulation with another. One person is in the roundabout, one person on the entering street. Who has right of way? Regulation: the person in the roundabout. Never mind the fact that I remember very vividly a roundabout that everyone traveling through it thought was simply a four-way intersection with an island in the center, and so did not give way to those in the roundabout. Also note that bicycles generally fare far worse than cars in safety terms. As a side note, I assume that you do not mean traffic circles, which actually had higher accident rates than traditional intersections in the US.
Roundabouts still have the right-of-way question, as mentioned above. A merge lane implies a traffic circle or interchange, both of which are land intensive. Sorry, not a general solution. Besides, the question still stays: who has right of way in a merge? The person in the lane being merged into.
And non-major roads don't get them? God, I hate people going slowly on small country roads where they don't need to. And roads that were once non-major but now carry much more traffic? How do you define major anyway? What about existing roads that do not have room to easily expand (say it is built into a mountain side)? And your use of the phrase "passing lane" instead of "second lane" indicates to me that you assume that the second lane would be used for passing. Why should it (unless there is something that says you should -- like the "slow traffic keep right" signs I see here)? Besides that each extra lane you add to a road is mighty expensive. Your solution does not really work.
True (except the the last six words, but I'll not address them). But having traffic behave in a predictable fashion reduces the number of accidents far more. I do not know if you have ever traveled in a county with almost no enforced traffic laws. I have: Laos. They have one of the highest traffic fatality rates in the world, and most traffic does not go above 20 mph (35 kph), and 95% is below 30 mph (50 kph).
I agree with the first two statements, but the last does not follow from the first two.
I would not say that the convention of traveling on the right and passing on the left (or vice-versa as the country dictates) side for same moving traffic and the opposite for oncoming traffic i
Motorized wheelchairs are allowed on the roads, at least the residential streets around here, I don't see much difference.
Are they "allowed on roads" because the cops look the other way, or are they "allowed on roads" because they are legal? At least in California (USA) it is the former. People in wheelchairs are pedestrians, and are not allowed in the street except where pedestrians are allowed, but they are usually ignored since many sidewalks are often hard or impossible to navigate. Besides that, many street corners don't have ramps down to the crosswalk to cross the street unless they are new or upgraded.
Konami Code for those who don't know.
...unless of course you're not one of the 144k chosen (electons all rays cause explosions.)
144k comes from Revelations, for those that don't know. It is interpreted literally by Jehovah's Witnesses.
A monopoly helps no-one except the company who is the monopoly
Not entirely true. The money flowing in can produce some pretty interesting stuff in the research department. As an example, look at Bell Labs when AT&T was THE phone company. Unix is the first thing that springs to mind as something that helped someone other than the monopoly. Of course, I am not saying that this compensates for the other downsides associated with monopolies, but just that the blanket statement above is not universally true.
The rest of the post is exactly on target.
Depends on what "weren't returning movies ... fast enough" means. I assume it means what it would mean for me: If I were with Netflix, I would receive a disk, have it sit around for a week or two before I decided I wanted to watch something, then I would watch it and immediately drop it back into the mail. OTOH, if I rent movies, I do so when I decide I want to watch something and return it the next day. So with my viewing habits, Netflix would be too expensive since I did not return movies fast enough, but RedBox would be cheap.
What Will Linux Be Capable Of, 3 Years Down the Road?
And what do you see for Linux in 4 years?
I also will go out on a limb and say it will enable Slashdot editors to make titles consistent with summaries!
(BTW, why the fuck is the comment box ~35 characters wide?)
When replying, click Options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
(repoat of my earlier comment.)
When replaying click options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
Don't post at work if you are talking about replying if your company name has "Replay" in it!
When replaying click options, under Comment Box Size, set Rows and Columns to what you want, click save, and the next time you make a comment, it is a better size!
Though why it doesn't resize the box currently open, I have no idea. Seems dumb to me.
So, this means if I find an American Express card, all I have to do is look up the person named on the card and find out the birthdate of that person's mother? Scary!
I can't make a license that says, "you can copy this software provided you don't pick your nose" and then sue you for copyright infringement for picking your nose.
Correct. BUT, if I pick my nose and then COPY THE SOFTWARE, then you CAN sue me, since I only have permission to copy if I don't pick my nose, and without permission, copyright law says I can't copy.
Heh, you've just demonstrated my point for me! :) How many prospective vegetarians do you think even realize that lacto-ovo vegetarianism is an option?
In my experience, it is that people do not know veganism exists. I call myself a vegetarian. In places where there really isn't much vegetarianism (e.g. Fresno, CA), people interpret that most often as "I don't eat the flesh of mammals." In places that have more vegetarians (e.g. the SF Bay Area), people interpret that most often as "I don't eat animals." Only rarely do people assume veganism. Or more succinctly, most people realize standard vegetarianism is an option when considering vegetarianism/veganism.
Which is, to repeat myself once more, the reason anyone considering such a massive lifestyle change should educate themselves on all the options, and any pitfalls involved with the dietary regimen they choose.
My point before is that it is not as "massive" a lifestyle change as many seem to think, nor as difficult. Whether or not you change your diet, you should educate yourself on diet and its pitfalls. This is no different for meat eaters than non-meat eaters. I would say that with no more education than "eat a varied diet that hits all food groups, and generally avoid empty calories", a normal person can be healthy as either a vegetarian or an omnivore.
No, it doesn't. There are a couple of changes, like ~/.bashrc is not read, but mostly it stays as-is. Basically, if you invoke bash as sh, AND stay inside the sh syntax/commands, then bash works like sh.
-sh-3.00$ /bin/sh
sh-3.00$ help bind
bind: bind [-lpvsPVS] [-m keymap] [-f filename] [-q name] [-u name] [-r keyseq]
[-x keyseq:shell-command] [keyseq:readline-function or readline-command]
Bind a key sequence to a Readline function or a macro, or set
a Readline variable. The non-option argument syntax is equivalent
to that found in ~/.inputrc, but must be passed as a single argument:
bind '"\C-x\C-r": re-read-init-file'.
[...]
sh-3.00$ echo $PS1
\s-\v\$
sh-3.00$ export PS1='myprompt '
myprompt export PS1='\s-\v\$ '
sh-3.00$ exit
exit
-sh-3.00$
Here, bind and PS1 (help maybe?) are both in bash but not sh.
I was thinking it maybe was somehow based on the chapter title, so I looked up the book, but the chapter title was "Chapter 11: Working with Dates and Times". Maybe AC above got it right with Chapter 11 meaning bankruptcy. Or something got edited out of the review?