Sure they got your card but that shouldn't get them much if they don't know the PIN.
Unless it's those American "debit" cards that pretend to be credit cards - which I guess it is if transactions take tim to get posted.
I much prefered my Australian card, didn't pretend to be a credit card, took money directly from my savings account (read checking account, but without checks for if you're American) at the time of the transaction, required a PIN. Sure if the merchants phone connection to the bank was down for some reason you couldn't use it.
Of course the American "pretend to be a credit card" ones have the advantage that they work at merchants who only accept credit cards - buying stuff online for example, but a real credit card isn't exactly difficult to get (says the guy who couldn't get one for a year or so - apparently being over 30 with no credit history at all isn't considered good in the US:)
So is an "ATM only card" card really ATM only or does it also work at merchants where you swipe your card and enter your PIN (as opposed to swipe and sign)?
The US dollar is seriously overvalued. When it corrects those relative incomes will also correct - and the current administration is working very hard at triggering that fall in the US dollar.
There are two situations in which that would be bad.
If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.
And if someone invents something which relies on some other patented thing. The owner of the existing patent can just not allow them to use it, wait three years, and use the new invention anyway.
I'm sure there are others too. One thing to note is that these things tend to affect real inventions not stupid software patents...
From an evolutionary perspective, which is more likely? If there were any effect, it seems to me unlikely that having children would give you cancer.
Why? Cancers tend to occur later in life after reproduction has already occured, hence there is little evolutionary pressure to select against them (well, there is the fact that grandparents can look after children so that the more physically able parents can keep gathering resources - then again those grandparents also consume resources).
It's a common enough phrase, meaning "It would be good of that were so, but it is not" (well close enough anyway). Possibly closer to "I wish this were so". It's really old usage (the King James Bible uses the construct, for example) .
If Europe plunges into a deep freeze then I'm sure they'll find the money to do it, if it doesn't then they don't have to. Rather than spending the money now on things that might have no affect on anything anyway.
So now we can just ignore the whole global warming thing.
for i in list-of-machines do ssh $i command-to-roll-back-a-patch done
Re:I wrote a book on Linux Patch Management
on
Linux Patch Management
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Obviously you do testing on the test machines and only push the updates to your apt repository after they have been tested, at which point the production machines auto update with them.
You don't point the production machines at the distro's repository, but non-retardation is an assumed and hence these bits aren't usually made explicit.
Surely the Chief of Staff should be held to the ethics rules mor strictly than the lower down staff. Accountability, example from the top, and so on. The people at the bottom get second chances, the people at the top should know better and shouldn't.
Of course it doesn't work that way, they just throw the lowest person they can to the lions and try not to get caught next time.
The wikipedia policy it irrelevant, it's the government ethics rules that matter.
So it's also OK for the Government to demand ID when you catch a bus. A train? Ride a push bike? Walk on the side of the road? Leave your home? What makes catching planes so special?
Actually the US government does require me to carry ID at all times, and present it on request - but I'm not a citizen so the rules are different...
I can't see a reason to rethink those tests. Obviously any one of them doesn't disprove evolution - it does however stuff up the current universal common descent part of it - of course scientists will modify the theory rather than throwing it away, until someone comes up with something that explains things better.
But any of those the things I mentioned screw up the current understanding of how things went. Of course none of them has ever turned up - in fact the opposite has happened, things have turned which support the current theory.
When I talk about finding genes I don't mean in one genetically engineered lab animal, I mean in a species (such as the human genome containing the tail genes also found in mice).
That being said, it's the idea of interspecies evolution that I have a real scientific problem with. I just don't think that anyone can really say that there's conclusive evidence of evolution between species. If the ID supporters were willing to concede to the idea of intraspecies evolution ("microevolution", in some circles) as they should, or at least verbalize that they support this idea, I have a feeling that this might have chance of fostering some real common ground between both camps.
If the theory of universal common decent is the theory of evolution as the "masses" know it. "Microevolution" is part of the evidence for the theory. There's nothing to concede - microevolution is a pure and simple fact - people have directly observed it happening, that ID supporters are in a position where they could "concede" it shows how far into crackpot land they are.
It makes dozens of falsifiable predictions any of which would destroy the theory if shown to not hold. Find a organism that uses something other than ATP, find one with right-handed amino acids, find vestigial chloroplast genes in animals, find a mammal-bird intermediate, and so on, and so on.
What are the equivalent falsifiable prediction from ID? Without making some there's no science to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the other options?
Because having just one would be too conveniant I guess... That might explain why my debit card doesn't work at some places.
No single EFTPOS system and checking accounts - two things that took me by surprise when I moved to America.
Isn't the average 9/10?
Isn't this what a PIN is supposed to prevent?
:)
Sure they got your card but that shouldn't get them much if they don't know the PIN.
Unless it's those American "debit" cards that pretend to be credit cards - which I guess it is if transactions take tim to get posted.
I much prefered my Australian card, didn't pretend to be a credit card, took money directly from my savings account (read checking account, but without checks for if you're American) at the time of the transaction, required a PIN. Sure if the merchants phone connection to the bank was down for some reason you couldn't use it.
Of course the American "pretend to be a credit card" ones have the advantage that they work at merchants who only accept credit cards - buying stuff online for example, but a real credit card isn't exactly difficult to get (says the guy who couldn't get one for a year or so - apparently being over 30 with no credit history at all isn't considered good in the US
So is an "ATM only card" card really ATM only or does it also work at merchants where you swipe your card and enter your PIN (as opposed to swipe and sign)?
And then you have those who "finish" it in less than 10 minutes... http://speeddemosarchive.com/Morrowind.html
Which part of "Many years ago" do you have trouble understanding?
The US dollar is seriously overvalued. When it corrects those relative incomes will also correct - and the current administration is working very hard at triggering that fall in the US dollar.
Just what do you think the word "Real" in "Real GDP" means?
Do you know what the word "and" means?
There are two situations in which that would be bad.
If someone invents something for which the barriers to entry are too high - why shouldn't they be able to license it to the existing companies. Instead of the existing companies just waiting 3 years and then using the invention anyway.
And if someone invents something which relies on some other patented thing. The owner of the existing patent can just not allow them to use it, wait three years, and use the new invention anyway.
I'm sure there are others too. One thing to note is that these things tend to affect real inventions not stupid software patents...
not worthy of an article here?
So no one should be able to start up a new business then? Seeing they usually stay in the red for a while before turning their first profit...
And if I want to loan money to a company that's in the red, why shouldn't I be able to?
From an evolutionary perspective, which is more likely? If there were any effect, it seems to me unlikely that having children would give you cancer.
Why? Cancers tend to occur later in life after reproduction has already occured, hence there is little evolutionary pressure to select against them (well, there is the fact that grandparents can look after children so that the more physically able parents can keep gathering resources - then again those grandparents also consume resources).
Because moving the processing to the GPU wastes so much CPU...
It's a common enough phrase, meaning "It would be good of that were so, but it is not" (well close enough anyway). Possibly closer to "I wish this were so". It's really old usage (the King James Bible uses the construct, for example) .
It's not lazy thinking. It's what he believes, and he is up front and honest about it.
Because it can be done then, rather than now.
If Europe plunges into a deep freeze then I'm sure they'll find the money to do it, if it doesn't then they don't have to. Rather than spending the money now on things that might have no affect on anything anyway.
So now we can just ignore the whole global warming thing.
for i in list-of-machines
do
ssh $i command-to-roll-back-a-patch
done
Obviously you do testing on the test machines and only push the updates to your apt repository after they have been tested, at which point the production machines auto update with them.
You don't point the production machines at the distro's repository, but non-retardation is an assumed and hence these bits aren't usually made explicit.
whoosh. You'll need to jump higher to catch those over your head shots.
Surely the Chief of Staff should be held to the ethics rules mor strictly than the lower down staff. Accountability, example from the top, and so on. The people at the bottom get second chances, the people at the top should know better and shouldn't.
Of course it doesn't work that way, they just throw the lowest person they can to the lions and try not to get caught next time.
The wikipedia policy it irrelevant, it's the government ethics rules that matter.
So it's also OK for the Government to demand ID when you catch a bus. A train? Ride a push bike? Walk on the side of the road? Leave your home? What makes catching planes so special?
Actually the US government does require me to carry ID at all times, and present it on request - but I'm not a citizen so the rules are different...
I can't see a reason to rethink those tests. Obviously any one of them doesn't disprove evolution - it does however stuff up the current universal common descent part of it - of course scientists will modify the theory rather than throwing it away, until someone comes up with something that explains things better.
But any of those the things I mentioned screw up the current understanding of how things went. Of course none of them has ever turned up - in fact the opposite has happened, things have turned which support the current theory.
When I talk about finding genes I don't mean in one genetically engineered lab animal, I mean in a species (such as the human genome containing the tail genes also found in mice).
That being said, it's the idea of interspecies evolution that I have a real scientific problem with. I just don't think that anyone can really say that there's conclusive evidence of evolution between species. If the ID supporters were willing to concede to the idea of intraspecies evolution ("microevolution", in some circles) as they should, or at least verbalize that they support this idea, I have a feeling that this might have chance of fostering some real common ground between both camps.
If the theory of universal common decent is the theory of evolution as the "masses" know it. "Microevolution" is part of the evidence for the theory. There's nothing to concede - microevolution is a pure and simple fact - people have directly observed it happening, that ID supporters are in a position where they could "concede" it shows how far into crackpot land they are.
It makes dozens of falsifiable predictions any of which would destroy the theory if shown to not hold. Find a organism that uses something other than ATP, find one with right-handed amino acids, find vestigial chloroplast genes in animals, find a mammal-bird intermediate, and so on, and so on.
What are the equivalent falsifiable prediction from ID? Without making some there's no science to be done.
It's not a gas giant.