So by "nuclear garbage," are you also referring to the coal-fired Israeli power plant ambiguously mentioned in TFA? Are you advocating stopping all electricity generation?
Is it actually smaller? It seems more likely that someone took the actual dimension of 1mm, converted it to 0.0393700787 inches, and rounded that to 0.039 inches for the press release. Someone else regurgitating that press release took 0.039 inches, converted it to 0.9906 mm, and rounded that to 0.99 mm.
I added Around the World in 80 Days to my cart one day and forgot about it. Later in the week, I went back and saw a notice that the price of an item in my cart had changed. When I looked, I found that the movie had gone froma modest ~800 USD to over 32,000USD. I let it sit there and a few days later, it changed again, this time to ~720USD. I bought it immediately before it could get worse again.
This is actually why I hate BCC. I honestly have no idea how many different mailing lists and groups I'm a member of at work, since lists can be nested. I have a long list of rules set up for many of these lists, since I frequently don't care what's being said on them, and just archive for later reference.
But every once in a while, someone will ask a question to the wrong list, and someone else will reply-all with that list on the BCC, and it breaks all my rules. So a message shows up in my inbox, and I have no idea why I'm getting it. My only option is to try to script out a tree traversal to search the addresses on the To: line to try to find my address, or traverse my membership tree until I find an address on the To: line.
Sorry, should have been more clear on that. Volume/distance is more intuitive for efficiency calculations. If you have an SUV that gets 12 mpg and a sedan that gets 32 mpg, and I give you the option of trading the SUV for one that gets 15 mpg or trading the sedan for one that gets 40 mpg, you'd probably be more inclined to trade the sedan. But they're both being driven, say, 15,000 miles a year, trading the sedan only saves you 83 gallons, whereas trading the SUV saves you 250 gallons.
On the other hand, if I ask you if you would rather trade 8.3 gal/100mi for 6.7 gal/100mi or trade 3.1 gal/100mi for 2.5 gal/100mi, you can immediately see that trading the SUV will save you 1.6 gallons of gas for every 100 miles you drive, as opposed to only saving.6 gallons.
235 mpg is equivalent to 1L/100km. Since much of the world uses liters per 100km (which is actually easier for the human brain to reason about), the idea of a 'one-liter car' has been kicked around for a while now as a sort of holy grail of fuel efficiency. Converting it to 235 mpg seems like the fuel efficiency equivalent of body temperature being roughly 37 degrees Celsius, but PRECISELY 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
I thought the point of the story was that legitimate businesses are now commonly using a technique that was originally used exclusively for nefarious purposes. So I would say... two or three sentences ago?
Honestly, is there a script that tacks "Could this be used for nefarious purposes?" on the end of every entry or something?
Yes. #1: I have less time to play games, because now I have a job. #2: I can afford to buy new games before I've sucked every last drop of entertainment value from the last one, because now I have a job.
Yeah, let's base the precedent of accepting the use of this technology on its current state, because if there's one thing we all know about technology, it's that it never advances or improves.
I played through Mass Effect 2 on normal, and felt like a badass by the end, because in Mass Effect 2, you play a badass. You go up against impossible odds and save the human race.
Some of my friends played through Mass Effect 2 on Insane difficulty, and felt like badasses by the end, because they had done something hard.
Neither of these things actually makes you a badass, though. One is just pretending in a story, and one is just developing proficiency at a game. The difference is, I don't have any illusions about how badass I actually am.
No way. Please please please no. I tend to run with between 20 and 30 open tabs on Opera, and any time I approach that on a process-per-tab browser, everything slows to a crawl.
"Utilize means 'make use of something, or find a practical use for something' and so is more specific than use. Utilize is more common in technical contexts: The device utilizes a special plug-in connection. It can also refer to using things in unusual or unintended ways, as a more formal equivalent of 'make use of': When the fan belt broke they had to utilize a leather belt. In business jargon and in other contexts, utilize is often found when the meaning intended is simply 'use,' a use that should be avoided: Successful applicants will be able to use [not utilize] their skills and experience in this field." [bold added]
According to your own provided source, to "utilise" something can also mean to use it for something other than its intended purpose. It doesn't absolutely always mean that. It doesn't even usually mean that. It just can mean that.
How would that be unfair to smart kids? God, that sounds fantastic. Being taught things you already know is probably the worst thing about school for smart kids.
It's not the most modern example, but Perfect Dark has the snap-to-target auto-aim you mention (as did Goldeneye before it). PD was recently ported to Xbox Live Arcade, and the auto-aim behavior is preserved.
One nice touch is that the model of your character's arm actually moves to point where the cross-hair is, which acts as a handy visual cue as to when you've acquired the target.
So your argument is that because there are a lot of people in the world, some day you'll meet someone with the same tattoo, and then feel lame?
It couldn't be that someone would get a tattoo of something they really like, and then in the (much more unlikely than you're allowing) event they DO meet someone with the same tattoo, they'll know right off the bat they have something in common?
Maybe the OP should just get a GUID tattooed on them. Those are fairly unique, right?
The interesting thing about this case is that before this particular petition, the state had found that these petitions did not fall under the Public records Act. So, the people who signed this petition had reason to believe that their identities would not become general knowledge.
Source, please. I live in Seattle and have been following this for a while, and everything I've seen has indicated that the request for the names was basically SOP, and the attempts to block it were the unprecedented part.
You think that's bad, I lost my copy of the D&D Player's Handbook, and when I sent a letter to Wizards of the Coast, they wouldn't send me a free replacement copy!
The nerve of these companies, expecting us to take care of our shit after we pay for it!
So when the civilian video doesn't show the whole story, the police release their video that does. When the police video doesn't show the whole story, the civilians release their video that does.
Just because it's hard to get the whole story doesn't mean we shouldn't even be allowed to try. That's just an argument for more eyes, not fewer.
Step 1: Company X donates to Charity Y.
Step 2: Charity Y publicizes Company X's donation in some way.
Step 3: Customer Z chooses to do business with Company X due, in part, to hearing about their donation to Charity Y.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Villainy!
Someone needs to put a stop to this! If people choose to do business with companies because of their charitable contributions, well that's only going to encourage more charitable contributions!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but now everyone knows it was him. Whereas to this day, nobody knows that I was the one who--
Ahhh, actually, never mind. Forget I said anything.
And here is some detail on the non-nuclear, coal-fired Israeli power plant mentioned in TFA.
So I guess "Millions of Jellyfish Invade Nuclear Reactor." Not "Reactors."
So by "nuclear garbage," are you also referring to the coal-fired Israeli power plant ambiguously mentioned in TFA? Are you advocating stopping all electricity generation?
Is it actually smaller? It seems more likely that someone took the actual dimension of 1mm, converted it to 0.0393700787 inches, and rounded that to 0.039 inches for the press release. Someone else regurgitating that press release took 0.039 inches, converted it to 0.9906 mm, and rounded that to 0.99 mm.
I added Around the World in 80 Days to my cart one day and forgot about it. Later in the week, I went back and saw a notice that the price of an item in my cart had changed. When I looked, I found that the movie had gone froma modest ~800 USD to over 32,000USD. I let it sit there and a few days later, it changed again, this time to ~720USD. I bought it immediately before it could get worse again.
.NET Developer on "Why I won't take a job at Expensify" "Their CEO sounds like a real shwanz."
This is actually why I hate BCC. I honestly have no idea how many different mailing lists and groups I'm a member of at work, since lists can be nested. I have a long list of rules set up for many of these lists, since I frequently don't care what's being said on them, and just archive for later reference.
But every once in a while, someone will ask a question to the wrong list, and someone else will reply-all with that list on the BCC, and it breaks all my rules. So a message shows up in my inbox, and I have no idea why I'm getting it. My only option is to try to script out a tree traversal to search the addresses on the To: line to try to find my address, or traverse my membership tree until I find an address on the To: line.
Sorry, should have been more clear on that. Volume/distance is more intuitive for efficiency calculations. If you have an SUV that gets 12 mpg and a sedan that gets 32 mpg, and I give you the option of trading the SUV for one that gets 15 mpg or trading the sedan for one that gets 40 mpg, you'd probably be more inclined to trade the sedan. But they're both being driven, say, 15,000 miles a year, trading the sedan only saves you 83 gallons, whereas trading the SUV saves you 250 gallons.
.6 gallons.
On the other hand, if I ask you if you would rather trade 8.3 gal/100mi for 6.7 gal/100mi or trade 3.1 gal/100mi for 2.5 gal/100mi, you can immediately see that trading the SUV will save you 1.6 gallons of gas for every 100 miles you drive, as opposed to only saving
235 mpg is equivalent to 1L/100km. Since much of the world uses liters per 100km (which is actually easier for the human brain to reason about), the idea of a 'one-liter car' has been kicked around for a while now as a sort of holy grail of fuel efficiency. Converting it to 235 mpg seems like the fuel efficiency equivalent of body temperature being roughly 37 degrees Celsius, but PRECISELY 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
I thought the point of the story was that legitimate businesses are now commonly using a technique that was originally used exclusively for nefarious purposes. So I would say... two or three sentences ago?
Honestly, is there a script that tacks "Could this be used for nefarious purposes?" on the end of every entry or something?
Yes. #1: I have less time to play games, because now I have a job. #2: I can afford to buy new games before I've sucked every last drop of entertainment value from the last one, because now I have a job.
Yeah, let's base the precedent of accepting the use of this technology on its current state, because if there's one thing we all know about technology, it's that it never advances or improves.
I played through Mass Effect 2 on normal, and felt like a badass by the end, because in Mass Effect 2, you play a badass. You go up against impossible odds and save the human race.
Some of my friends played through Mass Effect 2 on Insane difficulty, and felt like badasses by the end, because they had done something hard.
Neither of these things actually makes you a badass, though. One is just pretending in a story, and one is just developing proficiency at a game. The difference is, I don't have any illusions about how badass I actually am.
No way. Please please please no. I tend to run with between 20 and 30 open tabs on Opera, and any time I approach that on a process-per-tab browser, everything slows to a crawl.
I would lean more toward, "If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was live in another country."
"Utilize means 'make use of something, or find a practical use for something' and so is more specific than use. Utilize is more common in technical contexts: The device utilizes a special plug-in connection. It can also refer to using things in unusual or unintended ways, as a more formal equivalent of 'make use of': When the fan belt broke they had to utilize a leather belt. In business jargon and in other contexts, utilize is often found when the meaning intended is simply 'use,' a use that should be avoided: Successful applicants will be able to use [not utilize] their skills and experience in this field." [bold added]
According to your own provided source, to "utilise" something can also mean to use it for something other than its intended purpose. It doesn't absolutely always mean that. It doesn't even usually mean that. It just can mean that.
You may not write laws, but you're expected to follow them, so you should absolutely have an opinion.
How would that be unfair to smart kids? God, that sounds fantastic. Being taught things you already know is probably the worst thing about school for smart kids.
It's not the most modern example, but Perfect Dark has the snap-to-target auto-aim you mention (as did Goldeneye before it). PD was recently ported to Xbox Live Arcade, and the auto-aim behavior is preserved.
One nice touch is that the model of your character's arm actually moves to point where the cross-hair is, which acts as a handy visual cue as to when you've acquired the target.
So your argument is that because there are a lot of people in the world, some day you'll meet someone with the same tattoo, and then feel lame?
It couldn't be that someone would get a tattoo of something they really like, and then in the (much more unlikely than you're allowing) event they DO meet someone with the same tattoo, they'll know right off the bat they have something in common?
Maybe the OP should just get a GUID tattooed on them. Those are fairly unique, right?
Source, please. I live in Seattle and have been following this for a while, and everything I've seen has indicated that the request for the names was basically SOP, and the attempts to block it were the unprecedented part.
But do I still have to sing like a goddamn robot?
There has never been a good singing game.
You think that's bad, I lost my copy of the D&D Player's Handbook, and when I sent a letter to Wizards of the Coast, they wouldn't send me a free replacement copy!
The nerve of these companies, expecting us to take care of our shit after we pay for it!
So when the civilian video doesn't show the whole story, the police release their video that does. When the police video doesn't show the whole story, the civilians release their video that does.
Just because it's hard to get the whole story doesn't mean we shouldn't even be allowed to try. That's just an argument for more eyes, not fewer.
Step 1: Company X donates to Charity Y.
Step 2: Charity Y publicizes Company X's donation in some way.
Step 3: Customer Z chooses to do business with Company X due, in part, to hearing about their donation to Charity Y.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Villainy!
Someone needs to put a stop to this! If people choose to do business with companies because of their charitable contributions, well that's only going to encourage more charitable contributions!