That was the point of the parent's post. If you "fix" a slow watch by never winding it, it won't run at all, and thusly, be correct twice a day. You must wind a watch (that requires winding of course) for it to run.
It may have been simpler here to just use the stereotypical "whoosh".
People shouldn't be taught the test answers, they should be taught the basics in the subject and how to learn.
This is exceedingly true in all manners of life.
I have implored management at my company more than once to hire people with less knowledge on the given subject and more ability to learn. Someone with knowledge and no intelligence is worthless at troubleshooting a problem. It's astounding to me how few people grasp this concept. Having knowledge is near worthless, knowing how to apply knowledge is the key.
Quite true. In fact, if gold were more reasonably priced, I could get that "grill" I've always wanted. Couple that with super cheap Uranus diamonds, and I could be quite thoroughly "blinged" out.
Note: Quotation marks added for increased emphasis, due to my terminally Caucasian status.
I almost never buy these warranties, with a singular exception:
Big screen DLP televisions.
The ability to have a bulb replaced for free pays for the cost (150 dollar bulb, 90 dollar 5 year service plan). They will replace two bulbs. If I lose one, it's worth it. If one hasn't failed in 4.5 years, I'll just kill it. Woo, profit.
The interesting thing in all of this, is the terrorist is a Russian, but he's not working FOR Russia. Half of the game is trying to get information to show Russia what happened and why.
More interesting to me is the fact that the US military (well, at least certain people in it) aren't exactly cast in a good light either, yet no one is railing against it here.
Americans are slaughtered in any number of American made games. Big deal, it's a game.
That said, it's their government, they can ban what they like. How very American of us to get outraged at what another country does to it's own citizens. Perhaps a more enlightened approach would be to let them do as they please on their own land, eh?
...or, am I to assume that you harbor the belief that the Chinese government does not take part in similar activities?
I suppose that is an unbased assumption on my part; the Chinese government is known for their international tolerance and lack of self-serving ideals after all.
This is quite true. Look at the propaganda they feed their own citizens. There's absolutely no telling what kinds of mischief our awesome CIA is up to over there.
Of course, the actions of the CIA are in stark contrast to the actions of Chinese Intelligence here; primarily concerned with kittens and hugging.
If I were running a government, I'd consider this an act of war, and would appeal the UN for sanctions.
You're right, China sanctioning the US would have excellent results for their economy, they should get right no that.
Also, what does a company providing that technology have to do with whether or not the government approves it? If the government blocked companies from selling it, that would be censorship.
Actually, no, it would not. That would be regulation.
The definition of censorship:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
I think the statement that 600 million to 1 billion people know how to use Word might be optimistic.
600 million to 1 billion people use Word, around 45 people worldwide actually have any clue how to use it. Around 11 people understand how to use it with the "ribbon interface".
Are there any examples of a living being which does not spend the majority of it's life parroting or applying the behaviour of others?
I'd contend that watching and mimicing others is the most effective method of learning. In fact, it's the ability to take and apply this learned knowledge to other situations that seperates the truly intelligent from the "average" in the world.
Then the original poster is a chimp and so are you. If you aren't aware that adding ~e may change the meaning of a word, I should come round and rap your ears.
Then the original poster is a chimp and so are you. If you aren't aware that adding ~e may change the meaning of a word, I should come round and rape your ears.
You're right, just one 'e' and the whole thing changes.
1. With this I can disagree. If the police officer doesn't know this person from adam/eve then how is the officer to know that the child is the parents? You would say they should find out if that is the case. But to that extent we have heard the stories of mothers/fathers passing their children off for sexual acts to get money etc. How does the officer not know that is the case or even so how does the officer know this person isn't trying to sell these pictures or trade them? Can the officer investigate further? Sure but they now have reason and the ability to search further. The point is the officer had a reason to arrest her for a violation of the law.
Furthermore, is it the officers job to interpret the laws and what they are intended for? IMO the law has to be black and white with very little gray area. If everything is left to the interpretation of officers then we wouldn't need the checks and balances of the law. Our officers are not Judges. They can't interpret the law for what it meant to be. This is the job of judges and lawyers so then it can be reviewed for changing.
I've always followed the belief that an officer should at least do some blatant checks before putting me in the back of a police car. If I were taken to jail for having photos of my niece taking a bath (she's 4 months old) and sat in a cell for it, and was forced to spend any amount of money proving I had not broken any laws, there would be reparations paid to me for that.
It's entirely possible I'm out of line in that belief, but this certainly seems like an instance where further information was required before jumping straight to "arrest mode".
I will say I agree with you that the law should be black and white, but by their very nature, laws must be somewhat vague, or there would be ten times the amount we have now to cover every circumstance. Some level of interpretation must exist on all levels of law enfocement, from a new deputy to the supreme court. I can guarantee that asking 10 cops what they would do to stay in accordance with a vague law, would get a good variance in answers.
1. Police do not, and should not, blindly follow the letter of the law to a fault. If something is obviously outside the intents of the law (e.g. 99% of people I know have naked baby pictures of 6-12 month olds), the police should know better than to act on something like that. If they're not intelligent enough to process that, why in the hell do they have a firearm?
2. I've crossed paths with many, many officers that are clearly power hungry, especially in the area of traffic enforcement. I realize that's a "bitch job" for most cops, and it's often newbies or people incapable of moving up (not always, obviously) but the level of general disrespect I've run into is astounding.
I had a headlight out on my car last summer. Not really "out" per se, but a wire had come loose and it went out while driving. I had a motorcycle cop SCREAM IN MY FACE about the headlight. I got out, tightened the cable and the issue was resolved. I of course, did not receive an apology for the unecessary attitude. I'd write that off as a bad day or a bad apple if it was the first, second or even third time I'd had that experience, but it's not.
FWIW, I have several good friends (including the best man in my wedding) that are cops and great guys. They aren't all bad, but there are a lot of total bungholes out there, just ask the good cops and they'll tell you the same.
So, the theory here is that if the Police search you and collect evidence, but fail to bring you up on the charges, the Police are liable?
Nothing would ever get accomplished then. Police work is just (mildly) educated guessing. They collect evidence from tons of people before they hammer down on the specific perpetrator. If they're liable to all of the other people each time, they'll never be able to accomplish their jobs.
I'm not saying the system now isn't broken, just that the theory you presented just breaks it in a new and interesting way.
So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?
You are clearly correct, anyone who would willingly take a life, regardless of the purpose is a madman.
Speaking in absolutes is the the best way to go, without any chance of doubt.
You're making the assumption that the soldiers that were killed were the best of the best. In reality, say 500,000 soldiers (the best and the brightest, I'll go with you here, I have a lot of respect for the military) go overseas. 50,000 are killed (10%, obviously high vs. total sent, but this is an example, so go with me here...
Following your logic, those that were most likely to be killed would be the lowest of those 500,000, so yes, 50,000 of the "best and brightest" were killed, but it was the lowest 10% of that 500,000 (as the best and brightest of the best and brightest sent would have avoided death, as they are the best and brightest after all). Giving your estimates, that's still 1,125,000 offspring, which are from the best 90% of the best and the brightest that were sent over in the first place.
Re:Can't pay for your car? Ride a bicycle!
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
I like the concept but it just isn't applicable everywhere.
9-10 weeks ago it was -19* F here, before windchill. With wind it was somewhere around -50* F. I live about 20 miles from my office. I'm in fairly good shape, and there is no way I could safely bike that in those temperatures, simply not possible. 8-10" of snow also cause a bit of an issue, especially when one must share the road with cars that cannot safely control themselves, let alone be concerned with my safety.
I love cycling, and at a point in my life used to do a solid 30-40 miles daily. That doesn't mean it's universally practical, though I agree completely that cycling could and should be much better utilized.
Slashdot Mirror
They're making up numbers, really...
1. 1.0
2. 2.0
3. 3.0/3.1/etc
4. 95
5. 98/NT4
6. Me/2000
7. XP
8. Vista
9. 7
Hmm... I kept the home/business release separat there. Perhaps they only count the ones that didn't totally suck:
1. 3.11
2. 95C
3. 98 Second Edition
4. NT4
5. 2000
6. XP
7. 7
FWIW, I had to VERY liberal with doesn't suck on 95C and NT4, in order to make that math line up...
That was the point of the parent's post. If you "fix" a slow watch by never winding it, it won't run at all, and thusly, be correct twice a day. You must wind a watch (that requires winding of course) for it to run.
It may have been simpler here to just use the stereotypical "whoosh".
People shouldn't be taught the test answers, they should be taught the basics in the subject and how to learn.
This is exceedingly true in all manners of life.
I have implored management at my company more than once to hire people with less knowledge on the given subject and more ability to learn. Someone with knowledge and no intelligence is worthless at troubleshooting a problem. It's astounding to me how few people grasp this concept. Having knowledge is near worthless, knowing how to apply knowledge is the key.
Quite true. In fact, if gold were more reasonably priced, I could get that "grill" I've always wanted. Couple that with super cheap Uranus diamonds, and I could be quite thoroughly "blinged" out.
Note: Quotation marks added for increased emphasis, due to my terminally Caucasian status.
I almost never buy these warranties, with a singular exception:
Big screen DLP televisions.
The ability to have a bulb replaced for free pays for the cost (150 dollar bulb, 90 dollar 5 year service plan). They will replace two bulbs. If I lose one, it's worth it. If one hasn't failed in 4.5 years, I'll just kill it. Woo, profit.
The interesting thing in all of this, is the terrorist is a Russian, but he's not working FOR Russia. Half of the game is trying to get information to show Russia what happened and why.
More interesting to me is the fact that the US military (well, at least certain people in it) aren't exactly cast in a good light either, yet no one is railing against it here.
Americans are slaughtered in any number of American made games. Big deal, it's a game.
That said, it's their government, they can ban what they like. How very American of us to get outraged at what another country does to it's own citizens. Perhaps a more enlightened approach would be to let them do as they please on their own land, eh?
Right, because that's a logical path...
I agree.
They're using there wrong, and at some point in their lives, they're going to regret it.
You need a citation for sarcasm?
...or, am I to assume that you harbor the belief that the Chinese government does not take part in similar activities?
I suppose that is an unbased assumption on my part; the Chinese government is known for their international tolerance and lack of self-serving ideals after all.
This is quite true. Look at the propaganda they feed their own citizens. There's absolutely no telling what kinds of mischief our awesome CIA is up to over there.
Of course, the actions of the CIA are in stark contrast to the actions of Chinese Intelligence here; primarily concerned with kittens and hugging.
If I were running a government, I'd consider this an act of war, and would appeal the UN for sanctions.
You're right, China sanctioning the US would have excellent results for their economy, they should get right no that.
Also, what does a company providing that technology have to do with whether or not the government approves it? If the government blocked companies from selling it, that would be censorship.
Actually, no, it would not. That would be regulation.
The definition of censorship:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.
That's because it's blocked by "The Great Firewall of America", duh.
Luckily, my handy-dandy Iranian made proxy bypasses said firewall...
I think the statement that 600 million to 1 billion people know how to use Word might be optimistic.
600 million to 1 billion people use Word, around 45 people worldwide actually have any clue how to use it. Around 11 people understand how to use it with the "ribbon interface".
"good faith"
That's the issue. It's been proven many times already that the RIAA has acted well outside of "good faith" and continue to do so.
Are there any examples of a living being which does not spend the majority of it's life parroting or applying the behaviour of others?
I'd contend that watching and mimicing others is the most effective method of learning. In fact, it's the ability to take and apply this learned knowledge to other situations that seperates the truly intelligent from the "average" in the world.
Not being able to get online because you used up all the power by forgetting to turn off the lights every time you left a room.
Then the original poster is a chimp and so are you. If you aren't aware that adding ~e may change the meaning of a word, I should come round and rap your ears.
Then the original poster is a chimp and so are you. If you aren't aware that adding ~e may change the meaning of a word, I should come round and rape your ears.
You're right, just one 'e' and the whole thing changes.
We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick
Not to split hairs, but Iran's governments haven't proven particularly sticky, regardless of our (or anyone else's) attempts to fiddle with them.
That said, I do agree with your sentiment.
That depends. Do we have paintball guns while we go on this walk?
Are ninjas involved in any way?
1. With this I can disagree. If the police officer doesn't know this person from adam/eve then how is the officer to know that the child is the parents? You would say they should find out if that is the case. But to that extent we have heard the stories of mothers/fathers passing their children off for sexual acts to get money etc. How does the officer not know that is the case or even so how does the officer know this person isn't trying to sell these pictures or trade them? Can the officer investigate further? Sure but they now have reason and the ability to search further. The point is the officer had a reason to arrest her for a violation of the law. Furthermore, is it the officers job to interpret the laws and what they are intended for? IMO the law has to be black and white with very little gray area. If everything is left to the interpretation of officers then we wouldn't need the checks and balances of the law. Our officers are not Judges. They can't interpret the law for what it meant to be. This is the job of judges and lawyers so then it can be reviewed for changing.
I've always followed the belief that an officer should at least do some blatant checks before putting me in the back of a police car. If I were taken to jail for having photos of my niece taking a bath (she's 4 months old) and sat in a cell for it, and was forced to spend any amount of money proving I had not broken any laws, there would be reparations paid to me for that.
It's entirely possible I'm out of line in that belief, but this certainly seems like an instance where further information was required before jumping straight to "arrest mode".
I will say I agree with you that the law should be black and white, but by their very nature, laws must be somewhat vague, or there would be ten times the amount we have now to cover every circumstance. Some level of interpretation must exist on all levels of law enfocement, from a new deputy to the supreme court. I can guarantee that asking 10 cops what they would do to stay in accordance with a vague law, would get a good variance in answers.
I politey disagree with a couple of points here.
1. Police do not, and should not, blindly follow the letter of the law to a fault. If something is obviously outside the intents of the law (e.g. 99% of people I know have naked baby pictures of 6-12 month olds), the police should know better than to act on something like that. If they're not intelligent enough to process that, why in the hell do they have a firearm?
2. I've crossed paths with many, many officers that are clearly power hungry, especially in the area of traffic enforcement. I realize that's a "bitch job" for most cops, and it's often newbies or people incapable of moving up (not always, obviously) but the level of general disrespect I've run into is astounding.
I had a headlight out on my car last summer. Not really "out" per se, but a wire had come loose and it went out while driving. I had a motorcycle cop SCREAM IN MY FACE about the headlight. I got out, tightened the cable and the issue was resolved. I of course, did not receive an apology for the unecessary attitude. I'd write that off as a bad day or a bad apple if it was the first, second or even third time I'd had that experience, but it's not.
FWIW, I have several good friends (including the best man in my wedding) that are cops and great guys. They aren't all bad, but there are a lot of total bungholes out there, just ask the good cops and they'll tell you the same.
So, the theory here is that if the Police search you and collect evidence, but fail to bring you up on the charges, the Police are liable?
Nothing would ever get accomplished then. Police work is just (mildly) educated guessing. They collect evidence from tons of people before they hammer down on the specific perpetrator. If they're liable to all of the other people each time, they'll never be able to accomplish their jobs.
I'm not saying the system now isn't broken, just that the theory you presented just breaks it in a new and interesting way.
So you say you are basically willing to build anything that wipes life from earth as long as the madman who triggers it is conscious and has control over what he's doing?
You are clearly correct, anyone who would willingly take a life, regardless of the purpose is a madman.
Speaking in absolutes is the the best way to go, without any chance of doubt.
You're making the assumption that the soldiers that were killed were the best of the best. In reality, say 500,000 soldiers (the best and the brightest, I'll go with you here, I have a lot of respect for the military) go overseas. 50,000 are killed (10%, obviously high vs. total sent, but this is an example, so go with me here...
Following your logic, those that were most likely to be killed would be the lowest of those 500,000, so yes, 50,000 of the "best and brightest" were killed, but it was the lowest 10% of that 500,000 (as the best and brightest of the best and brightest sent would have avoided death, as they are the best and brightest after all). Giving your estimates, that's still 1,125,000 offspring, which are from the best 90% of the best and the brightest that were sent over in the first place.
I like the concept but it just isn't applicable everywhere.
9-10 weeks ago it was -19* F here, before windchill. With wind it was somewhere around -50* F. I live about 20 miles from my office. I'm in fairly good shape, and there is no way I could safely bike that in those temperatures, simply not possible. 8-10" of snow also cause a bit of an issue, especially when one must share the road with cars that cannot safely control themselves, let alone be concerned with my safety.
I love cycling, and at a point in my life used to do a solid 30-40 miles daily. That doesn't mean it's universally practical, though I agree completely that cycling could and should be much better utilized.