If the ball is dropped, you don't have to hit third at all. You can advance a little bit before the ball hits the ground and then you don't have to run as far. You can even start running if you're really sure the ball won't get caught. The advantage is probably better than just getting a running start from the base.
Another thing is that if you're starting out behind the base, you have to time your start such that you hit the base after the ball is caught, but not so long after that you waste the benefit of a running start. It's already hard to time a tag up, this just makes it that much more likely that you'll mistime it.
That might make sense if they were certain the ball is going to be caught, but usually they advance a little bit so they're that much closer to home in case the ball isn't caught.
Assange insisted on sex without a condom against the lady's wishes (the implication being that sex *without* a condom was not consensual).
As long as not having sex at all remained an option, it's not rape. Is anyone saying that Assange used force or prevented the women from declining sex, full stop? It seems they allowed their infatuation with Assange to override their normal standards and now they regret it.
1. Here in California, it's hard to bypass the sales tax because most of the major retailers have a local presence. The places that don't aren't necessarily cheaper, and if they are, they tend not to be places I'd trust with my credit card.
2. Most states with sales tax also have use tax that covers out of state purchases. You're supposed to report them when you file your state taxes. As an individual making small purchases, you're unlikely to get caught for it, but it's technically illegal.
They should of course accept that everyone is as ignorant as you about the fact that ALL mobile phones get signal attenuation when you hold your hand around the antenna.
Sure, but the phones do not all experience this attenuation equally. The attenuation on the iPhone 4 is significantly worse than the Nexus One and the iPhone 3GS. The problem can be easily ameliorated with a bit of plastic covering the antenna. The basic criticism, that the exposed antenna in contact with human skin causes reception problems, is accurate.
It's pretty clear from the complaint that the laptop was loaded with software to communicate with their handlers. They asked him to get that model so they could swap it with another laptop of the same model with everything already set up.
If you read the complaint, these people got paid close to six figure salaries to write a monthly reports about American politics using mostly publicly available information and a spattering of first-hand reporting. A lot of bloggers do more work for much less money.
If there were technical problems, they could be overcome and at Adobe's expense, not Apple's. Plus, the rule blocks any multi-platform compatibility layer, not just Flash and including open source ones, regardless of whether there is any technical impediment.
Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
That already exists. It's called UPnP. Xbox Live even supports it.
If we're talking about average home users, UPnP works well enough, if they even need it which many don't. On the other hand, if your "end users" are system admins managing large, complex networks, then there just isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. The more complex and specialized your demands on the system are, the more effort you're going to have to put into configuring it.
The common ancestor we share with the dinosaurs was not itself a dinosaur, but the birds started out as a branch of the dinosaurs. If you consider the word "dinosaur" to be a clade, then they are dinosaurs.
Of course the person who wrote the code *THINKS* the code does something which, in fact, it does not
Sure, but it's helpful if they tell you what they think it does, in detail. If you're lucky, you can ask them and they might remember. Or they could just write it down once somewhere convenient. Perhaps it might be stored along with the code.
But it shouldn't be a complex system. There should be no law longer than the Constitution.
That's absurd. Any organization with more than a few hundred employees is complex enough to warrant its own written policies and procedures, which are usually just as unintelligible because precise, unmistakable language is often necessarily verbose and technical. The terms of a bank loan are longer than the Constitution and you're required to follow that at all times too.
I would agree that the law should be as accessible as possible but it probably isn't. However, it's never going to be as simple as you want it to be.
Imagine a revision control system where all you could look at were diffs, and never a source code with the diffs applied to them. Would you use such a revision control system? Would you use such a revision control system to write a complex piece of software?
Can we agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed without specifically blaming HR 3200 for it? A health care bill isn't the place to reform the way Congress works anyway.
Ever try to actually read a piece of "important" legislation? I have. Once. I gave up.
Imagine a lawyer saying "Ever try to actually read a piece of 'important' source code? I have. Once. I gave up."
Should we be surprised that the design of a complex system, developed by professionals following their own best practices, is inaccessible to laymen? It's almost surprising that it's as accessible as it is. I think there are some ways they can make it more accessible, particularly in how they describe how an existing law is to be changed, but I would expect that a professional in the field would have some explanation for why they think it's necessary.
What's to stop them from doing it again with another class of articles? Maybe they'll decide that articles about healthcare are controversial next, and then they'll unilaterally restrict those too. And who is "trusted"?
I suppose it's a testament to the success of Wikipedia that everyone gets up in arms about a potential rule change. Everyone here talks like it would be the end of the world if the effects don't turn out exactly as intended. Why not try it and find out?
Oh wait, they have tried it on the German Wikipedia for quite some time. By all accounts, the Germans are satisfied with the results. And they even did it with every article. So much for the slippery slope.
Well, point is everything we used to know was wrong.
That's not really true. Science is a process of refinement, of closer and closer approximation. Newtonian mechanics may have been "wrong" in the absolute sense, but it got the general picture right and was good enough to send men to the Moon. Every mistake we uncover brings us closer to the truth, so that the next mistake we uncover is unlikely to be as big as the one we just did.
If those limits cannot be broken we will probably never make contact with any alien race (if they exist).
The article is saying that even if those limits are not broken, we probably would have content with alien species, if there were at least 10 of them in the galaxy. If those limits could be broken, then the number must be even lower.
If you start from the premise of "everything we know may be wrong" what's the point? You can speculate about anything. This stuff is only interesting because it is based on our current understanding, even if that understanding is wrong.
If I subsequently enter a PvP zone I would be mighty pissed if I was prevented/disallowed/discouraged to actually do what I came to do: PvP.
The game turned out to be something other than what he expected. I'm sure that's happened to all of us at some point. Once he realized this, he could have stopped paying for the game, asked for a refund, and tried something else.
The other users have no right to tell me how to play the game that I bought with my money for my own purposes.
So play by yourself, then. You're playing with other people, not computer programs. If they don't want to play with you because you're being a dick, you don't have a right to force them to play with you.
They have no right - although it's hard to stop them - to harass me for playing the game according to the intended rules.
No one is saying that the people who made threats and insulted him were right to do so. But it should be noted that he gave as good as he got. Read some of the posts here by other players. He was flaming them right back.
Absolutely not, he was playing as any newcomer would. I know my immediate impression would be: "An arena where the forces of good and evil do battle in order to see who's the best? Sounds like a blast! Wait, all they do is talk to each other and have their robots fight? What the fuck?"
He was a newcomer, but not for long. After his initial, obviously understandable reaction, it was politely explained to him that the community consensus differed from the official rules. The developers are not God and their rules are not perfect or beyond question. He doesn't like the way other people play, so he is naturally disappointed, as others are disappointed in the way he plays. The human, social way to resolve the conflict is to seek to change the consensus through persuasion rather than antagonizing people who disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing the spelling and complaining about changing the spelling are equally petty. Both you and the editor would be better off if you didn't bother.
If the ball is dropped, you don't have to hit third at all. You can advance a little bit before the ball hits the ground and then you don't have to run as far. You can even start running if you're really sure the ball won't get caught. The advantage is probably better than just getting a running start from the base.
Another thing is that if you're starting out behind the base, you have to time your start such that you hit the base after the ball is caught, but not so long after that you waste the benefit of a running start. It's already hard to time a tag up, this just makes it that much more likely that you'll mistime it.
That might make sense if they were certain the ball is going to be caught, but usually they advance a little bit so they're that much closer to home in case the ball isn't caught.
Assange insisted on sex without a condom against the lady's wishes (the implication being that sex *without* a condom was not consensual).
As long as not having sex at all remained an option, it's not rape. Is anyone saying that Assange used force or prevented the women from declining sex, full stop? It seems they allowed their infatuation with Assange to override their normal standards and now they regret it.
Two things:
1. Here in California, it's hard to bypass the sales tax because most of the major retailers have a local presence. The places that don't aren't necessarily cheaper, and if they are, they tend not to be places I'd trust with my credit card.
2. Most states with sales tax also have use tax that covers out of state purchases. You're supposed to report them when you file your state taxes. As an individual making small purchases, you're unlikely to get caught for it, but it's technically illegal.
They should of course accept that everyone is as ignorant as you about the fact that ALL mobile phones get signal attenuation when you hold your hand around the antenna.
Sure, but the phones do not all experience this attenuation equally. The attenuation on the iPhone 4 is significantly worse than the Nexus One and the iPhone 3GS. The problem can be easily ameliorated with a bit of plastic covering the antenna. The basic criticism, that the exposed antenna in contact with human skin causes reception problems, is accurate.
It's pretty clear from the complaint that the laptop was loaded with software to communicate with their handlers. They asked him to get that model so they could swap it with another laptop of the same model with everything already set up.
If you read the complaint, these people got paid close to six figure salaries to write a monthly reports about American politics using mostly publicly available information and a spattering of first-hand reporting. A lot of bloggers do more work for much less money.
She knew she was under surveillance, so she wasn't going to keep the phone long enough for the FBI to get a tap on it.
You think the theft of a prototype lawnmower would receive this kind of press and police attention?
If there were technical problems, they could be overcome and at Adobe's expense, not Apple's. Plus, the rule blocks any multi-platform compatibility layer, not just Flash and including open source ones, regardless of whether there is any technical impediment.
It's a trade-off of security for convenience, sure. It's not something you would enable on anything other than a private home network.
Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
That already exists. It's called UPnP. Xbox Live even supports it.
If we're talking about average home users, UPnP works well enough, if they even need it which many don't. On the other hand, if your "end users" are system admins managing large, complex networks, then there just isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. The more complex and specialized your demands on the system are, the more effort you're going to have to put into configuring it.
The common ancestor we share with the dinosaurs was not itself a dinosaur, but the birds started out as a branch of the dinosaurs. If you consider the word "dinosaur" to be a clade, then they are dinosaurs.
If spammers are able to keep ads up, it's because people--possibly people like you--aren't flagging bad ads.
So if the users don't do it and the spammers get through anyway, why can't we have more powerful searches again?
Of course the person who wrote the code *THINKS* the code does something which, in fact, it does not
Sure, but it's helpful if they tell you what they think it does, in detail. If you're lucky, you can ask them and they might remember. Or they could just write it down once somewhere convenient. Perhaps it might be stored along with the code.
But it shouldn't be a complex system. There should be no law longer than the Constitution.
That's absurd. Any organization with more than a few hundred employees is complex enough to warrant its own written policies and procedures, which are usually just as unintelligible because precise, unmistakable language is often necessarily verbose and technical. The terms of a bank loan are longer than the Constitution and you're required to follow that at all times too.
I would agree that the law should be as accessible as possible but it probably isn't. However, it's never going to be as simple as you want it to be.
Imagine a revision control system where all you could look at were diffs, and never a source code with the diffs applied to them. Would you use such a revision control system? Would you use such a revision control system to write a complex piece of software?
Can we agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed without specifically blaming HR 3200 for it? A health care bill isn't the place to reform the way Congress works anyway.
Ever try to actually read a piece of "important" legislation? I have. Once. I gave up.
Imagine a lawyer saying "Ever try to actually read a piece of 'important' source code? I have. Once. I gave up."
Should we be surprised that the design of a complex system, developed by professionals following their own best practices, is inaccessible to laymen? It's almost surprising that it's as accessible as it is. I think there are some ways they can make it more accessible, particularly in how they describe how an existing law is to be changed, but I would expect that a professional in the field would have some explanation for why they think it's necessary.
What's to stop them from doing it again with another class of articles? Maybe they'll decide that articles about healthcare are controversial next, and then they'll unilaterally restrict those too. And who is "trusted"?
I suppose it's a testament to the success of Wikipedia that everyone gets up in arms about a potential rule change. Everyone here talks like it would be the end of the world if the effects don't turn out exactly as intended. Why not try it and find out?
Oh wait, they have tried it on the German Wikipedia for quite some time. By all accounts, the Germans are satisfied with the results. And they even did it with every article. So much for the slippery slope.
Well, point is everything we used to know was wrong.
That's not really true. Science is a process of refinement, of closer and closer approximation. Newtonian mechanics may have been "wrong" in the absolute sense, but it got the general picture right and was good enough to send men to the Moon. Every mistake we uncover brings us closer to the truth, so that the next mistake we uncover is unlikely to be as big as the one we just did.
If those limits cannot be broken we will probably never make contact with any alien race (if they exist).
The article is saying that even if those limits are not broken, we probably would have content with alien species, if there were at least 10 of them in the galaxy. If those limits could be broken, then the number must be even lower.
If you start from the premise of "everything we know may be wrong" what's the point? You can speculate about anything. This stuff is only interesting because it is based on our current understanding, even if that understanding is wrong.
If I subsequently enter a PvP zone I would be mighty pissed if I was prevented/disallowed/discouraged to actually do what I came to do: PvP.
The game turned out to be something other than what he expected. I'm sure that's happened to all of us at some point. Once he realized this, he could have stopped paying for the game, asked for a refund, and tried something else.
The other users have no right to tell me how to play the game that I bought with my money for my own purposes.
So play by yourself, then. You're playing with other people, not computer programs. If they don't want to play with you because you're being a dick, you don't have a right to force them to play with you.
They have no right - although it's hard to stop them - to harass me for playing the game according to the intended rules.
No one is saying that the people who made threats and insulted him were right to do so. But it should be noted that he gave as good as he got. Read some of the posts here by other players. He was flaming them right back.
Absolutely not, he was playing as any newcomer would. I know my immediate impression would be: "An arena where the forces of good and evil do battle in order to see who's the best? Sounds like a blast! Wait, all they do is talk to each other and have their robots fight? What the fuck?"
He was a newcomer, but not for long. After his initial, obviously understandable reaction, it was politely explained to him that the community consensus differed from the official rules. The developers are not God and their rules are not perfect or beyond question. He doesn't like the way other people play, so he is naturally disappointed, as others are disappointed in the way he plays. The human, social way to resolve the conflict is to seek to change the consensus through persuasion rather than antagonizing people who disagree with you.