So if you're considerate you'd kill them in a way that doesn't prolong their suffering (eating/cooking them while they're still alive would be cruel - given that it is unnecessary for us to do so).
There are plenty of scientific studies that show that humans do better on a diet that includes fish than one that doesn't, albeit non-mercury laden fish.
Humans going vegan is like cats going vegetarian. Yes it's possible, but silly.
The fishing industry has problems that need fixing - overfishing, "by-catch".
And personally I think we should be eating more of the juvenile fish and not more of the mature ones, currently the policy seems to be the other way round.
Firefox should just make it easier for you to start up different firefox instances, have them easily distinguishable and have them in different sandboxes.
That way you can use one browser instance for your banking (and whatever weird plugins, user agent etc your bank requires), another browser instance for facebook, one for "usual sites", and one for "default" (which is what opens when you accidentally click on email links).
Then you adjust your sandbox/risk exposure for a category of sites, not just plugins.
When I first heard "Down Under", that bit reminded me of the kookaburra song. The song's called "Down Under" after all, so I thought the person who came up with the flute part intentionally wanted it to resemble the "kookaburra" song.
To me copyright and patent terms should be getting shorter and shorter instead of longer and longer since: 1) We're supposed to be encouraging progress and innovation right? 2) Marketing, distribution, manufacturing and outsourcing is supposedly easier nowadays right? ( http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/ ) 3) So if you create something that people want, getting them to pay for it ASAP shouldn't be so hard.
Example: the recent Avatar movie did very well - it made 1 billion within one month.
If you need a 95 or 120 year monopoly to make enough money, IMO you should earn a living some other way. It's just bad economics - you are either not good at what you are doing and should do something else, or you are too greedy.
Quote: At the camp, Ordoñez proved a natural at racing in real world cars. He found his "experience to be consistent in the laps and to know the perfect line in the tracks" had helped him to be able to recognize real-world braking points.
As for the article/story: 1) The camera angle was too low for the car, and it was fixed. 2) In GTA3 etc who cares about hitting small stuff like traffic cones?
If women have a compulsion to wash their hands often, they'd: a) Be ashamed of it and try to keep it a secret. b) Go seek help from therapists. c) Just wash their hands often.
If men have a compulsion to wash their hands often, they'd: a) Try to find the best soap, water, time and method to do it. b) See how many times they can do it per minute/hour/day, or how few times they can do it. c) Brag about it and have long arguments with fellow "hobbyists" about a), b) and other related matters.:)
> That leaves the virtual address space. I'm currently running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU and looking at my running processes, the biggest one is using around 750MB of virtual address space. > the largest I've seen on this machine is around 1.2GB. That was a web browser,
> BTW one of the reasons Itanium has always had less than stellar performance is that Intel persistently chooses to manufacture it in the last (or worse) generation process.
The Itanium was a piece of crap, even back when Intel was trying to get everyone off the x86 and on to the already sinking Itanic. Go look up the history.
When Intel came up with it, the Itanium was the next step. So it's not like they were trying to kill it back then.
The problem was it was crap. And then AMD came around and said, hey everyone look at this AMD64 stuff.
Go look at the SPEC charts too (compare with processors of that era) - the Itanium would do extremely well for a few specific benchmarks (floating point and easily parallelized[1] stuff) but the other CPUs (POWER, x86) would beat it for the other SPEC sub-benchmarks. Or it would require crazy stuff like 24MB of cache to perform well. 24MB of cache is expensive.
[1] Paying a premium for a 24MB CPU to run easily parallelized stuff is stupid, since if your workload is so easily parallelized, you can just run it on two or more cheap computers/CPUs. And that's the problem with EPIC. They never managed to get the serial stuff as fast as x86 for the same price (EPIC = wider/bigger instructions = higher bandwidth requirements = slower than CISC). And the parallel stuff? Beaten by multicore x86s.
I don't think there's really a problem building an x86 to have a faster FPU, it's just that in the mass market, the popular floating point intensive problems are done by GPUs- and they're called games.
You could probably build an x86 with a really fast FPU, but it'll cost as much as an IBM POWER chip (or an Itanium)...
> Mattel has stepped into a morass that is far deeper than they know.
I doubt these new rules will be used in Scrabble competitions.
And they won't cause big problems to most people who understand the unwritten rules of playing games _socially_.
Basically when people play games socially, people will either agree to play according to a set of rules upfront, or they'll accept what the "house rules" are even if they aren't completely aware of all the "house rules".
The general assumption is that the participants will behave reasonably because: a) they want to continue playing with each other. and/or b) they want to win AND have the other person admit that it was won fair and square - makes the victory sweeter for them:).
So the new rules are only a problem when you are playing with people like that stereotypical nerdy kid who keeps insisting on his really stretched interpretations of AD&D rules[1].
In which case you just don't play with them.
[1] Yes hackers do like stretching/bypassing the limits, but IMO there's not much point "winning" in games/life if nobody wants to play with you.
> I'm not sure what "deserving of punishment" means--it's one of those emotional things that people say,
It's just the same sort of things people think/say when they attack the USA.
Anyway, such things are all a normal part of what happens when you have a war. War is messy. Soldiers make mistakes, soldiers do bad stuff.
That's why you should not go into wars lightly[1]. And certainly not based on dubious "evidence".
If too many people start _really_ hating you, you're in trouble - nuking everyone who hates you is not a good option - it's not a win. The US needs its borders open and trade flowing to maintain the "US lifestyle".
> If you make each die smaller then an impurity of the same size may only destroy 1-3 of the 4 in the same area as one of the originals.
I would have thought that an impurity/defect of the same size would be more likely to destroy more chips if the chips are smaller - esp if the defect is big. If the defect is really small it's unlikely to damage more than one chip in which case see below:
To me a more plausible reason is if each chip is smaller, you get more chips per wafer. So assuming the same number of tiny defects scattered across the wafer, you'd have more good chips per wafer - since 8 bad chips out of 100 is better than 8 bad chips out of 25. The first one = 92 good chips, the second one = 17. Which is more than 4 x.
Of course what Intel et all do is they also make the chips able to still work if some portions are defective - so the chip gets sold with less cache, and/or fewer cores.
Inside many nuclear bombs is a conventional bomb (or more than one:) ).
So nukes are safer than conventional bombs in the sense that:
1) Most nuclear bombs aren't like landmines or "dumb bombs" - they don't just blow up if you sneeze on them the wrong way. 2) If a nuclear bomb doesn't explode properly you are likely to "only" get a "conventional boom" instead of a full nuclear blast. So instead of wiping out an entire city you just blow up a magnitudes smaller area (I'm not sure how much conventional explosive there is in a typical nuke). In contrast if you had the same amount of C4 or other conventional explosives to generate the same damage as a full nuclear blast, it'll be a lot more unsafe. If stuff goes wrong, you could still wipe out a significant part of a city:).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course fish feel pain.
So if you're considerate you'd kill them in a way that doesn't prolong their suffering (eating/cooking them while they're still alive would be cruel - given that it is unnecessary for us to do so).
There are plenty of scientific studies that show that humans do better on a diet that includes fish than one that doesn't, albeit non-mercury laden fish.
Humans going vegan is like cats going vegetarian. Yes it's possible, but silly.
The fishing industry has problems that need fixing - overfishing, "by-catch".
And personally I think we should be eating more of the juvenile fish and not more of the mature ones, currently the policy seems to be the other way round.
Firefox should just make it easier for you to start up different firefox instances, have them easily distinguishable and have them in different sandboxes.
That way you can use one browser instance for your banking (and whatever weird plugins, user agent etc your bank requires), another browser instance for facebook, one for "usual sites", and one for "default" (which is what opens when you accidentally click on email links).
Then you adjust your sandbox/risk exposure for a category of sites, not just plugins.
Maybe the project's only requirements were that he write a million lines of code.
After all, correct behaviour is often defined by the requirements. If the requirements change, new bugs could appear.
Tic-tac-toe and checkers/draughts can be played quite successfully by computers.
People still play these games.
When I first heard "Down Under", that bit reminded me of the kookaburra song. The song's called "Down Under" after all, so I thought the person who came up with the flute part intentionally wanted it to resemble the "kookaburra" song.
To me copyright and patent terms should be getting shorter and shorter instead of longer and longer since:
1) We're supposed to be encouraging progress and innovation right?
2) Marketing, distribution, manufacturing and outsourcing is supposedly easier nowadays right? ( http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/ )
3) So if you create something that people want, getting them to pay for it ASAP shouldn't be so hard.
Example: the recent Avatar movie did very well - it made 1 billion within one month.
If you need a 95 or 120 year monopoly to make enough money, IMO you should earn a living some other way. It's just bad economics - you are either not good at what you are doing and should do something else, or you are too greedy.
Too bad, there can only be one subscriber.
Or USSR satellites that failed? ;)
Dangerous of course if the satellites were booby trapped...
I believe a significant design requirement was the shuttle had to be able to bring a satellite down _intact_.
Yeah the poor starving North Americans will get less calories from seaweed carbs and mainly get vitamins and minerals.
Perhaps North American gut bacteria are more efficient at digesting high fructose corn syrup.
> If the Fedora project had any clue they would have fixed their retarded packaging system years ago. Slowest, EVAR!
Really? Have you tried suse and yast?
http://www.dailytech.com/Champion+Gran+Turismo+Gamer+Becomes+Realworld+Racing+Champion/article17035.htm
Video game driving skills do apply to real life:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/othersports/04nascar.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Champion+Gran+Turismo+Gamer+Becomes+Realworld+Racing+Champion/article17035.htm
Quote: At the camp, Ordoñez proved a natural at racing in real world cars. He found his "experience to be consistent in the laps and to know the perfect line in the tracks" had helped him to be able to recognize real-world braking points.
As for the article/story:
1) The camera angle was too low for the car, and it was fixed.
2) In GTA3 etc who cares about hitting small stuff like traffic cones?
She's a female after all...
:)
If women have a compulsion to wash their hands often, they'd:
a) Be ashamed of it and try to keep it a secret.
b) Go seek help from therapists.
c) Just wash their hands often.
If men have a compulsion to wash their hands often, they'd:
a) Try to find the best soap, water, time and method to do it.
b) See how many times they can do it per minute/hour/day, or how few times they can do it.
c) Brag about it and have long arguments with fellow "hobbyists" about a), b) and other related matters.
> That leaves the virtual address space. I'm currently running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU and looking at my running processes, the biggest one is using around 750MB of virtual address space.
;).
> the largest I've seen on this machine is around 1.2GB. That was a web browser,
Let me guess, the web browser was Firefox?
> BTW one of the reasons Itanium has always had less than stellar performance is that Intel persistently chooses to manufacture it in the last (or worse) generation process.
The Itanium was a piece of crap, even back when Intel was trying to get everyone off the x86 and on to the already sinking Itanic. Go look up the history.
When Intel came up with it, the Itanium was the next step. So it's not like they were trying to kill it back then.
The problem was it was crap. And then AMD came around and said, hey everyone look at this AMD64 stuff.
Go look at the SPEC charts too (compare with processors of that era) - the Itanium would do extremely well for a few specific benchmarks (floating point and easily parallelized[1] stuff) but the other CPUs (POWER, x86) would beat it for the other SPEC sub-benchmarks. Or it would require crazy stuff like 24MB of cache to perform well. 24MB of cache is expensive.
[1] Paying a premium for a 24MB CPU to run easily parallelized stuff is stupid, since if your workload is so easily parallelized, you can just run it on two or more cheap computers/CPUs. And that's the problem with EPIC. They never managed to get the serial stuff as fast as x86 for the same price (EPIC = wider/bigger instructions = higher bandwidth requirements = slower than CISC). And the parallel stuff? Beaten by multicore x86s.
I don't think there's really a problem building an x86 to have a faster FPU, it's just that in the mass market, the popular floating point intensive problems are done by GPUs- and they're called games.
You could probably build an x86 with a really fast FPU, but it'll cost as much as an IBM POWER chip (or an Itanium)...
Mod parent up!
It's one of those Daily Mail Drivels.
FWIW - it looks like the blogger was better at posting a retraction...
The Guardian is not much better (they were the ones with the untrue headline "Children should be taught creationism, says education expert")
So who should have more credibility? The blogger or the newspapers?
> Mattel has stepped into a morass that is far deeper than they know.
:).
I doubt these new rules will be used in Scrabble competitions.
And they won't cause big problems to most people who understand the unwritten rules of playing games _socially_.
Basically when people play games socially, people will either agree to play according to a set of rules upfront, or they'll accept what the "house rules" are even if they aren't completely aware of all the "house rules".
The general assumption is that the participants will behave reasonably because:
a) they want to continue playing with each other.
and/or
b) they want to win AND have the other person admit that it was won fair and square - makes the victory sweeter for them
So the new rules are only a problem when you are playing with people like that stereotypical nerdy kid who keeps insisting on his really stretched interpretations of AD&D rules[1].
In which case you just don't play with them.
[1] Yes hackers do like stretching/bypassing the limits, but IMO there's not much point "winning" in games/life if nobody wants to play with you.
> I'm not sure what "deserving of punishment" means--it's one of those emotional things that people say,
It's just the same sort of things people think/say when they attack the USA.
Anyway, such things are all a normal part of what happens when you have a war. War is messy. Soldiers make mistakes, soldiers do bad stuff.
That's why you should not go into wars lightly[1]. And certainly not based on dubious "evidence".
If too many people start _really_ hating you, you're in trouble - nuking everyone who hates you is not a good option - it's not a win. The US needs its borders open and trade flowing to maintain the "US lifestyle".
[1] http://slashdot.org/journal/208853/How-to-reduce-unwanted-wars
> If you make each die smaller then an impurity of the same size may only destroy 1-3 of the 4 in the same area as one of the originals.
I would have thought that an impurity/defect of the same size would be more likely to destroy more chips if the chips are smaller - esp if the defect is big. If the defect is really small it's unlikely to damage more than one chip in which case see below:
To me a more plausible reason is if each chip is smaller, you get more chips per wafer. So assuming the same number of tiny defects scattered across the wafer, you'd have more good chips per wafer - since 8 bad chips out of 100 is better than 8 bad chips out of 25. The first one = 92 good chips, the second one = 17. Which is more than 4 x.
Of course what Intel et all do is they also make the chips able to still work if some portions are defective - so the chip gets sold with less cache, and/or fewer cores.
> Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to make its mistakes again.
;).
Those that learn from history are doomed to see mistakes repeated over and over again anyway - because the rest don't learn from history
Hey it could be a once in a lifetime wave ;).
There other places to kiss :).
> They're much safer than conventional bombs.
:) ).
:).
Inside many nuclear bombs is a conventional bomb (or more than one
So nukes are safer than conventional bombs in the sense that:
1) Most nuclear bombs aren't like landmines or "dumb bombs" - they don't just blow up if you sneeze on them the wrong way.
2) If a nuclear bomb doesn't explode properly you are likely to "only" get a "conventional boom" instead of a full nuclear blast. So instead of wiping out an entire city you just blow up a magnitudes smaller area (I'm not sure how much conventional explosive there is in a typical nuke). In contrast if you had the same amount of C4 or other conventional explosives to generate the same damage as a full nuclear blast, it'll be a lot more unsafe. If stuff goes wrong, you could still wipe out a significant part of a city
> I tried the same thing in a honda civic (not mine, lol) at about 50km/h and the deceleration was so great that my head banged into the steering.
Either the seat belts were not working/good, or you should have worn them.
> Compiling both qt and gtk on Gentoo is a bear for every security fix.
So don't? Can't you just download the updated binary packages with Gentoo?
How much time are you spending building packages and how much time are you actually saving?