Hardware can use more electricity depending on how much you use it, but there are physicall limits as to how much more. Your TV isn't going to triple your electricity usage unless your usage pattern is such that you can expect that even before plugging in the TV. You certainly aren't going to find one TV tripling your electricity usage and a second TV not doing so solely because the first TV has a manufacturing defect.
George Bush was elected long enough ago that the Internet was much less influential back then.
He also is a high level politician connected to a large money-making machine. There are two categories of people who aren't affected much by out of context information on the Internet (or in the media): people with nothing to lose, and people who are so rich and powerful that even the Internet can't damage them that much.
Using a naked picture of someone to illustrate the claim that they were naked is probably fair use, especially if other fair use factors also apply (which they probably do), such as non-commercial use and no effect on the market for the naked picture.
Nothing in your British Royal Air Force comparison implies that the person being killed is a citizen of Britain, so you're really not saying that the USA shouldn't kill citizens who are terrorists, you're saying that the USA shouldn't kill *any* terrorists, citizens or not.
He actually was born to parents who were temporarily resident in the US and left the US at the age of 7. Although he did come to the US for college, he clearly wasn't raised in America or as an American.
"We're killing American citizens" may be just as much a problem with how we grant American citizenship as it is with what we do to Americans.
If you have term limits, there's another problem: since the candidate is not going to get elected again, then
1) In his last term, he won't care if he's acting against his constituents' wishes, since he'll never get elected again anyway.
2) In his last term, he'll pander to special interests. This is enabled by point 1) but is also a separate problem, since he'll want to put food on the table once he leaves office and doing so will get the special interest to hire him.
Of course, you can fix point 2 by making it illegal for him to be hired by anyone he affected during his term. For any significant position this ensures that only the rich ever take office, which is its own problem.
And if they called it snoozeSSL, the name doesn't matter. A name is a designation that should enable us to distinguish it from something of a similar kind...
The point is, though, that this name means jack
So *you're* the guy who named GIMP..
Names actually do matter. Think of a name as a type of user interface, and a bad name as an ugly user interface.
For that matter, think of a name as a way to deal with people, and a poorly named project as showing geekish lack of social skills. Saying "please" serves no function other than making people feel better. It doesn't mean anything more than the name. But that still means a lot, because we're human beings, and doing things with no technological effect is part of how we deal with other human beings.
That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.
So obviously I'm getting calories from sources other than my meals.
"I have to eat a ridiculously small amount each day to lose weight" doesn't quite have the same ring as "I have to eat a ridiculously small amount at meals each day, plus a huge number of calories outside meals". Obviously, if you eat 120 calories at meals, and have an unspecified number of calories outside meals, then it's the calories outside the meals that are causing the problem. Cut down on them.
And I drink the occasional beer or two in the evening.
The fact that you had to insert the qualifier "or two" is a sign that you're not cutting down properly.
And while I avoid sugary drinks, my tea does contain both sugar and honey.
In other words, you don't avoid sugary drinks. You can't say that tea doesn't count because you mentally put it in a separate category from Coca-Cola. Tea containing sugar is still a drink containing sugar.
it's that when I need to lose weight, I need to make my meals a *lot* smaller if I want to see some results
No you don't, you need to cut down on the calories outside meals that you just admitted to consuming.
To give you an idea, in order to lose 10kg (22lb) over a period of 3 months, one 125g (4.4oz) bag of rice and one chicken breast would be my total food intake over 4 days, for that entire 3 month period.
Google can quickly and easily show how much calories foods contain. Rice is 216 calories for 1 cup (195g) which comes out to 138 calories for 4.4oz of rice. Figures for chicken breast vary a lot but one figure I got was 342. That means you claim that in order to lose weight you must eat (138 + 342) / 4 = 120 calories per day. A sedentary male adult needs around 2400 calories per day. It varies somewhat based on age and gender, but not by that much.
I don't believe that you must reduce your calorie intake from 2400 to 120 to lose weight (5% of your normal food intake), and I don't think anyone else should believe you either.
What of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when every nut-case seems to have been issued sufficient automatic weaponry to cut all that I love right out of this world?
I'd love to know what he's talking about here, but he's probably just fallen for a lie about "automatic weapons".
Bonus points for referring to the number of murders by guns without asking how many of those were murders by legal guns, and without breaking it out into high-crime inner cities and areas more like the one he probably lives in.
You have to give him credit. He actually provided an answer that answers the original question. (The boundary for "Golden Age" is fuzzy, but EC in the New Trend period is pre-code and fits the original request. The most recent full reprints of EC are the Russ Cochran color "EC Archives" from 2006 to 2008 which are expensive, but at least they are available.) And they are definitely very influential comics in pre-code history.
And before anyone asks, "New Trend" and "New Direction" are not the same thing.
Proving my point about bringing out the stupid. You're either totally clueless, or else you're trying to get pedantic like people on the Internet often do and claim that there's no Marvel because they were named "Timely" at the time. In that case you didn't read well because the way I phrased it, the company that is *publishing* the Masterworks right now is certainly named "Marvel".. Furthermore, even getting pedantic on this point ignores that DC Archives, which I also mentioned, certainly include Golden Age volumes.
No, this is another case of the topic brinring out the stupid in Slashdot. Are you seriously suggesting that Golden Age comics have controversy about them similar to vi versus emacs or Windows versus Linux?
Did everyone take the original post, pick out the word "comics", and ignore the rest of it?
Marvel Comics has a Marvel Masterworks line which includes a lot of Golden Age volumes. They are very expensive, but there are also $20 paperback editions that come out 7-8 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DC Comics has its DC Archives program, but most of those never get reprinted in paperbacks and the program rarely releases much nowadays.
Also, something about this topic seems to bring out the stupid in Slashdot. No, Flaming Carrot is not a Golden Age comic.
It's more influential than you or I, but it's not more influential than Jesus. The problem is that he's more influential in areas specifically related to the Wikipedia format.
If every page about someone born in August contained a link to Augustus Caesar, this would conclude that he's the most influential person in history.
Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.
What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.
He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.
In the US, a copyright assignment is not valid unless done in writing. (Google up copyright assignment writing, for instance http://www.copyrightcodex.com/... ). So either tvtropes is clueless, or that doesn't mean what you think it means.
I think that item #2 not only isn't the fauly of Wal-Mart, it's not a problem at all. It's true that someone who pushes costs onto suppliers may end up with suppliers going out of business. But all they're doing is pushing costs around. This moves around the identity of exactly who goes out of business, but it doesn't really increase the quantity.
In other words, if Wal-Mart were replaced by other stores that couldn't push costs onto suppliers, the stores would bear the costs instead of the suppliers. In the long run, this would increase the chance of the stores going out of business by exactly as much as the reduced chance of the suppliers going out of business.
Someone already pointed out that the studio has no reason to make this offer instead of normal streaming, but even if they do decide they want to make that offer, the next question is what price the studio wants to charge. The studio would charge a price for the streaming agreement that is less favorable to Netflix than the price for the DVD agreement, because Netflix can't resort to first sale. They may even charge a price that Netflix feels isn't worth it. (If Netflix then refuses to buy, it's a standoff which is bad for both the studio and Netflix, but standoffs don't get resolved instantly.)
Furthermore, studios have marketing and marketing does not always mean "sell things whenever someone wants to buy one". There are all sorts of reasons why a studio might want to limit sales, ranging from "we only want to sell this in odd years to increase demand" to "that movie was produced under a company president who was replaced and having it make a lot of money would be really bad for our office politics".
Studios can't do any of these things for physical DVDs that are covered by first sale.
After Columbine, with reports (true or not) that the killers had been bullied, nobody took that to mean that the anti-bullying crowd is dangerous or that people who claim to be victims of bullies are really just misanthropic killers. "Geeks who don't like to be bullied are part of a murder culture".
(Well, I'm sure some people took it to mean that, but we recognize that they're being assholes about it.)
But replace "bullied" with "rejected by women" and all of a sudden it means there is rampant misogyny among angry geeks. No, it's not, it means that if a lot of people are rejected by society, a few of them will become killers. This doesn't mean that the complaints about rejection are wrong, or that geeks with such complaints are dangerous, any more than Columbine showed that complaints about bullies are wrong, or that a higher murder rate when unemployment goes up shows that we should ignore unemployment. (What's the unemployment equivalent to rape culture?)
You can reverse it and say that about politicians--trouble is, if you say it about politicians in the West, it will be false. Much of the Middle East is dependent on a tribal culture that is based around nepotism. We don't have anything like it in the West, even if there is more than one Kennedy in politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardware can use more electricity depending on how much you use it, but there are physicall limits as to how much more. Your TV isn't going to triple your electricity usage unless your usage pattern is such that you can expect that even before plugging in the TV. You certainly aren't going to find one TV tripling your electricity usage and a second TV not doing so solely because the first TV has a manufacturing defect.
George Bush was elected long enough ago that the Internet was much less influential back then.
He also is a high level politician connected to a large money-making machine. There are two categories of people who aren't affected much by out of context information on the Internet (or in the media): people with nothing to lose, and people who are so rich and powerful that even the Internet can't damage them that much.
Using a naked picture of someone to illustrate the claim that they were naked is probably fair use, especially if other fair use factors also apply (which they probably do), such as non-commercial use and no effect on the market for the naked picture.
Nothing in your British Royal Air Force comparison implies that the person being killed is a citizen of Britain, so you're really not saying that the USA shouldn't kill citizens who are terrorists, you're saying that the USA shouldn't kill *any* terrorists, citizens or not.
He actually was born to parents who were temporarily resident in the US and left the US at the age of 7. Although he did come to the US for college, he clearly wasn't raised in America or as an American.
"We're killing American citizens" may be just as much a problem with how we grant American citizenship as it is with what we do to Americans.
If you have term limits, there's another problem: since the candidate is not going to get elected again, then
1) In his last term, he won't care if he's acting against his constituents' wishes, since he'll never get elected again anyway.
2) In his last term, he'll pander to special interests. This is enabled by point 1) but is also a separate problem, since he'll want to put food on the table once he leaves office and doing so will get the special interest to hire him.
Of course, you can fix point 2 by making it illegal for him to be hired by anyone he affected during his term. For any significant position this ensures that only the rich ever take office, which is its own problem.
So *you're* the guy who named GIMP..
Names actually do matter. Think of a name as a type of user interface, and a bad name as an ugly user interface.
For that matter, think of a name as a way to deal with people, and a poorly named project as showing geekish lack of social skills. Saying "please" serves no function other than making people feel better. It doesn't mean anything more than the name. But that still means a lot, because we're human beings, and doing things with no technological effect is part of how we deal with other human beings.
Because, of course, it's so easy to get politicians to reduce taxes.
Yeah, the gas tax wouldn't be so bad if we reduced other taxes to make up for it. But it's not going to happen that way.
The malware is named "Googl app stoy".
If you're dumb enough to download something spelled that way, you deserve, well, almost anything.
If the article was about something in New York, would we see a headline describing it as "York"?
That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.
"I have to eat a ridiculously small amount each day to lose weight" doesn't quite have the same ring as "I have to eat a ridiculously small amount at meals each day, plus a huge number of calories outside meals". Obviously, if you eat 120 calories at meals, and have an unspecified number of calories outside meals, then it's the calories outside the meals that are causing the problem. Cut down on them.
The fact that you had to insert the qualifier "or two" is a sign that you're not cutting down properly.
In other words, you don't avoid sugary drinks. You can't say that tea doesn't count because you mentally put it in a separate category from Coca-Cola. Tea containing sugar is still a drink containing sugar.
No you don't, you need to cut down on the calories outside meals that you just admitted to consuming.
Google can quickly and easily show how much calories foods contain. Rice is 216 calories for 1 cup (195g) which comes out to 138 calories for 4.4oz of rice. Figures for chicken breast vary a lot but one figure I got was 342. That means you claim that in order to lose weight you must eat (138 + 342) / 4 = 120 calories per day. A sedentary male adult needs around 2400 calories per day. It varies somewhat based on age and gender, but not by that much.
I don't believe that you must reduce your calorie intake from 2400 to 120 to lose weight (5% of your normal food intake), and I don't think anyone else should believe you either.
I'd love to know what he's talking about here, but he's probably just fallen for a lie about "automatic weapons".
Bonus points for referring to the number of murders by guns without asking how many of those were murders by legal guns, and without breaking it out into high-crime inner cities and areas more like the one he probably lives in.
You have to give him credit. He actually provided an answer that answers the original question. (The boundary for "Golden Age" is fuzzy, but EC in the New Trend period is pre-code and fits the original request. The most recent full reprints of EC are the Russ Cochran color "EC Archives" from 2006 to 2008 which are expensive, but at least they are available.) And they are definitely very influential comics in pre-code history.
And before anyone asks, "New Trend" and "New Direction" are not the same thing.
Proving my point about bringing out the stupid. You're either totally clueless, or else you're trying to get pedantic like people on the Internet often do and claim that there's no Marvel because they were named "Timely" at the time. In that case you didn't read well because the way I phrased it, the company that is *publishing* the Masterworks right now is certainly named "Marvel".. Furthermore, even getting pedantic on this point ignores that DC Archives, which I also mentioned, certainly include Golden Age volumes.
No, this is another case of the topic brinring out the stupid in Slashdot. Are you seriously suggesting that Golden Age comics have controversy about them similar to vi versus emacs or Windows versus Linux?
Did everyone take the original post, pick out the word "comics", and ignore the rest of it?
Marvel Comics has a Marvel Masterworks line which includes a lot of Golden Age volumes. They are very expensive, but there are also $20 paperback editions that come out 7-8 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DC Comics has its DC Archives program, but most of those never get reprinted in paperbacks and the program rarely releases much nowadays.
Also, something about this topic seems to bring out the stupid in Slashdot. No, Flaming Carrot is not a Golden Age comic.
It's more influential than you or I, but it's not more influential than Jesus. The problem is that he's more influential in areas specifically related to the Wikipedia format.
If every page about someone born in August contained a link to Augustus Caesar, this would conclude that he's the most influential person in history.
You know nothing about libertarians.
Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.
He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.
In the US, a copyright assignment is not valid unless done in writing. (Google up copyright assignment writing, for instance http://www.copyrightcodex.com/... ). So either tvtropes is clueless, or that doesn't mean what you think it means.
I think that item #2 not only isn't the fauly of Wal-Mart, it's not a problem at all. It's true that someone who pushes costs onto suppliers may end up with suppliers going out of business. But all they're doing is pushing costs around. This moves around the identity of exactly who goes out of business, but it doesn't really increase the quantity.
In other words, if Wal-Mart were replaced by other stores that couldn't push costs onto suppliers, the stores would bear the costs instead of the suppliers. In the long run, this would increase the chance of the stores going out of business by exactly as much as the reduced chance of the suppliers going out of business.
Oh, please.
Someone already pointed out that the studio has no reason to make this offer instead of normal streaming, but even if they do decide they want to make that offer, the next question is what price the studio wants to charge. The studio would charge a price for the streaming agreement that is less favorable to Netflix than the price for the DVD agreement, because Netflix can't resort to first sale. They may even charge a price that Netflix feels isn't worth it. (If Netflix then refuses to buy, it's a standoff which is bad for both the studio and Netflix, but standoffs don't get resolved instantly.)
Furthermore, studios have marketing and marketing does not always mean "sell things whenever someone wants to buy one". There are all sorts of reasons why a studio might want to limit sales, ranging from "we only want to sell this in odd years to increase demand" to "that movie was produced under a company president who was replaced and having it make a lot of money would be really bad for our office politics".
Studios can't do any of these things for physical DVDs that are covered by first sale.
After Columbine, with reports (true or not) that the killers had been bullied, nobody took that to mean that the anti-bullying crowd is dangerous or that people who claim to be victims of bullies are really just misanthropic killers. "Geeks who don't like to be bullied are part of a murder culture".
(Well, I'm sure some people took it to mean that, but we recognize that they're being assholes about it.)
But replace "bullied" with "rejected by women" and all of a sudden it means there is rampant misogyny among angry geeks. No, it's not, it means that if a lot of people are rejected by society, a few of them will become killers. This doesn't mean that the complaints about rejection are wrong, or that geeks with such complaints are dangerous, any more than Columbine showed that complaints about bullies are wrong, or that a higher murder rate when unemployment goes up shows that we should ignore unemployment. (What's the unemployment equivalent to rape culture?)
You can reverse it and say that about politicians--trouble is, if you say it about politicians in the West, it will be false. Much of the Middle East is dependent on a tribal culture that is based around nepotism. We don't have anything like it in the West, even if there is more than one Kennedy in politics.