Someone who takes your disagreement as an insult probably won't respond to requests for more detail. People are generally not very responsive to questions when they feel insulted. Yes, there may be the occasional situation where you can get away with it (maybe the person who feels insulted is favorably disposed to you for other reasons), but as a rule, this can't work.
To put it another way, if someone thinks saying there is no God is like calling their mother a whore, consider: if you really called their mother a whore would they then start answering questions about why it's insulting, even if you started making intellectual arguments about how prostitution is a consensual free market exchange for services?
It's not as if people who play Assassin's Creed have suddenly shifted over to Angry Birds in droves. The audience who plays Angry Birds is a separate audience. Furthermore, Angry Birds costs less than console games, so comparing by number of total players is misleading.
Imagine that you used no cooling at all. The components wouldn't get infinitely hot; they'd get very hot, but the hotter they get the more readily the heat would escape, until they reach some steady state where they're hot enough that the heat escapes fast enough that it doesn't get any hotter.
So technically you're correct--a steady state always means that exactly the same amount of energy is being added and removed at the same time--but using cooling will allow this steady state to exist at lower temperatures where the natural escape of heat isn't so efficient.
1) Xbox gamers approve of drone strikes 2) Editorializing on how we really shouldn't be approving of drone strikes and how drone strikes are a bad thing, etc.
If we did a poll that found that some percentage of Xbox gamers support Obama for president, should we have an article which reports that and then goes into detail about why Obama is a bad president?
On Wikipedia this is known as a "coatrack"--it's an article that is supposedly about one subject but which is really there to give the author an excuse to discuss some other topic that wouldn't belong there on its own and may not deserve an article at all.
There is nothing in the post you were responding to which said that the government should interfere. Libertarians don't believe in government interference, but libertarians are perfectly okay with people complaining, discussing the complaints, and refusing to work for employers with shitty working conditions.
There is a big difference between being happy with something and thinking the government shouldn't intervene. I'm not perfectly happy with Nazis speaking, but I don't want the government shutting them down either.
That's not the whole story either. If you read your own link carefully, it points out that Giuliani predicted the quakes using a method that has never been proven scientifically and has had no peer reviewed papers published. In other words, he's a crackpot who just happened to get lucky; there was no actual reason to believe that there would be a risk of earthquakes greater than normal. The scientists who said that this guy is wrong were basically correct; they just got unlucky.
To use a car analogy, a guy is sitting at an intersection reading tea leaves. At one point his tea leaves tell him that if you go through the intersection you'll crash. The scientists say that this is nonsense and that you shouldn't worry about crashing. You go through the intersection and you crash into a car going 100 mph through a red light. that neither you, the scientists, nor the tea leaf reader could have seen or predicted. You die.
And then the scientists are put in jail for manslaughter for telling you to ignore the tea leaf reader.
At worst, the scientists didn't properly communicate "the chance of crashing/earthquakes isn't greater than normal" as opposed to "the chance is zero", and given how the media and politicians ignore such nuances, the scientists shouldn't be held responsible for that.
Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.
It doesn't mean he took the tweets into account when shooting him. It may mean that he saw that Martin was violent (for reasons other than the tweets) and that's why he shot him, but the tweets independently confirm that he was violent.
I could say the same thing as the conventional methods of stopping global warming. What if reducing our carbon usage has serious consequences? Economic consequences are still consequences, and the use of energy is what makes modern human existence what it is. Doing everything that is necessary to stop global warming could have dire consequences on everyone.
Of course, the response is "yeah, maybe it will damage the economy and your standard of living, but global warming is really bad. We must do everything we can to stop it, even if it does come with a risk". Well, once you've said that global warming is so bad that we must risk dire economic and social consequences if necessary to stop it--suddenly the idea of risking an ice age to stop it instead isn't so crazy. Environmentalists are hoist by their own petard here.
How can you say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and then say that it's okay for someone to have their picture published, innocent or guilty? If they're innocent, they, you know, haven't done the crime.
When someone adds you to a group, Facebook automatically notifies all your friends, with no way to turn that off. He received the automatic notification--he didn't need to check anyone's profile to find it.
The only reason this is an issue is because it happened on Facebook. If she was attending a local LGBT support group and one of the members called her and accidentally let out that she was gay on her parents answering machine, it would be a non-issue.
If a member of the support group called her on her answering machine it would be the member's fault because an answering machine has a well known user interface and everyone knows or should know that if you leave a message on one other people may hear it.
Facebook's user interface is set up to encourage data mining by Facebook, and p[art of the process of doing this is to make it insanely difficult for users to handle privacy, to the point where the user interface is really at fault for the mistake and not the individual person using it, even though the person technically could have done something different.
Anyone who uses a laser to point at the sky in an astronomy outing is dumb enough that they should be charged with reckless endangerment. Laser pointers are useful to point at things because they produce a bright spot on the thing being pointed at. They will not produce this bright spot if aimed at an astronomical object, and when used on such objects, will be no more useful for pointing than just pointing one's finger.
Proof? Let's start with the facts that 1) this is how all other interviews have all worked, and 2) the Slashdot article here directly links to a FAQ which, short as it is, describes deciding which questions to "send along" and "pass on".
Based on the fact that the primary source is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, I believe the government contractor over the nun. I can't believe that nobody here has heard of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before--it's a left-wing advocacy group that opposes nuclear weapons. Obviously it's in their interests to make the intruders look as good as possible and the US as bad as possible.
They're also the same people that produce the doomsday clock, which says that we're now closer to nuclear armageddon than we were in the entire 1960-1980 time period.
Slashdot interviews work by people posting questions, and the questions being answered by the subject as part of a later interview. The subject does not respond like another Slashdot poster.
So the SteveWoz replies are all fake.
Which should be obvious, except it's apparently not obvious enough to keep them from being moderated up to +5 rather than -1 Troll.
Being able to subpoena anything pretty much means having it done by people who have an ax to grind, or to benefit someone with an ax to grind.
It's like asking "should the police be able to arrest suspects?" The answer is that clearly it's not a good idea for the police to arrest anyone they want to, and that we need to make rules about who the police can arrest, but on the other hand, we shouldn't just say "the police should never arrest anyone". Arrests are necessary to catch suspects, and catching suspects is necessary because some of them will turn out to be criminals.
Sometimes people with an ax to grind will need to see scientists' documents, and actually use them to discredit the scientists--but that's not a reason not to do it--that's the whole point of doing it, just like sometimes people will be arrested, tried, and put in jail.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that 1) Russia cannot enforce global censorship because it would require that the US cooperate in doing so, and 2) the US wants to be able to censor international domains at will.
"If the company does well, so does the employee" is actually a bad deal for employees because it is the opposite of diversification. It sets it up so that if the company goes bankrupt, the employee loses twice--not only does he not have a job, but his stock options are worthless too.
Except for the outside activities part, those are things that can legitimately motivate employees, but the reference to cake day and corporate massage day in the original post make it sound more like it's the kind of management who would give employees as few benefits as possible. Engineers aren't stupid and can figure out that you can buy an awful lot of cake with even a slight raise.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone who takes your disagreement as an insult probably won't respond to requests for more detail. People are generally not very responsive to questions when they feel insulted. Yes, there may be the occasional situation where you can get away with it (maybe the person who feels insulted is favorably disposed to you for other reasons), but as a rule, this can't work.
To put it another way, if someone thinks saying there is no God is like calling their mother a whore, consider: if you really called their mother a whore would they then start answering questions about why it's insulting, even if you started making intellectual arguments about how prostitution is a consensual free market exchange for services?
It's not as if people who play Assassin's Creed have suddenly shifted over to Angry Birds in droves. The audience who plays Angry Birds is a separate audience. Furthermore, Angry Birds costs less than console games, so comparing by number of total players is misleading.
Imagine that you used no cooling at all. The components wouldn't get infinitely hot; they'd get very hot, but the hotter they get the more readily the heat would escape, until they reach some steady state where they're hot enough that the heat escapes fast enough that it doesn't get any hotter.
So technically you're correct--a steady state always means that exactly the same amount of energy is being added and removed at the same time--but using cooling will allow this steady state to exist at lower temperatures where the natural escape of heat isn't so efficient.
I was wondering which products use astatine, but alas, the Slashdot summary is a lie. They mention it, but only to say it's not used for anything.
This is composed of two parts:
1) Xbox gamers approve of drone strikes
2) Editorializing on how we really shouldn't be approving of drone strikes and how drone strikes are a bad thing, etc.
If we did a poll that found that some percentage of Xbox gamers support Obama for president, should we have an article which reports that and then goes into detail about why Obama is a bad president?
On Wikipedia this is known as a "coatrack"--it's an article that is supposedly about one subject but which is really there to give the author an excuse to discuss some other topic that wouldn't belong there on its own and may not deserve an article at all.
There is nothing in the post you were responding to which said that the government should interfere. Libertarians don't believe in government interference, but libertarians are perfectly okay with people complaining, discussing the complaints, and refusing to work for employers with shitty working conditions.
There is a big difference between being happy with something and thinking the government shouldn't intervene. I'm not perfectly happy with Nazis speaking, but I don't want the government shutting them down either.
That's not the whole story either. If you read your own link carefully, it points out that Giuliani predicted the quakes using a method that has never been proven scientifically and has had no peer reviewed papers published. In other words, he's a crackpot who just happened to get lucky; there was no actual reason to believe that there would be a risk of earthquakes greater than normal. The scientists who said that this guy is wrong were basically correct; they just got unlucky.
To use a car analogy, a guy is sitting at an intersection reading tea leaves. At one point his tea leaves tell him that if you go through the intersection you'll crash. The scientists say that this is nonsense and that you shouldn't worry about crashing. You go through the intersection and you crash into a car going 100 mph through a red light. that neither you, the scientists, nor the tea leaf reader could have seen or predicted. You die.
And then the scientists are put in jail for manslaughter for telling you to ignore the tea leaf reader.
At worst, the scientists didn't properly communicate "the chance of crashing/earthquakes isn't greater than normal" as opposed to "the chance is zero", and given how the media and politicians ignore such nuances, the scientists shouldn't be held responsible for that.
It's stealing by the standards of the people who did the stealing.
It's not hypocritical to say
1) it's not stealing but
2) it's what you call stealing
Also, it's hypocrisy on the part of Netflix, since Netflix opposes piracy. Instead of sending out s press release commending Netflix, they should ask Netflix to send out a press release saying that piracy is good because it's nothing more than what Netflix does themselves.
It doesn't mean he took the tweets into account when shooting him. It may mean that he saw that Martin was violent (for reasons other than the tweets) and that's why he shot him, but the tweets independently confirm that he was violent.
This is to be used for the defense, not for the prosecutor.
I could say the same thing as the conventional methods of stopping global warming. What if reducing our carbon usage has serious consequences? Economic consequences are still consequences, and the use of energy is what makes modern human existence what it is. Doing everything that is necessary to stop global warming could have dire consequences on everyone.
Of course, the response is "yeah, maybe it will damage the economy and your standard of living, but global warming is really bad. We must do everything we can to stop it, even if it does come with a risk". Well, once you've said that global warming is so bad that we must risk dire economic and social consequences if necessary to stop it--suddenly the idea of risking an ice age to stop it instead isn't so crazy. Environmentalists are hoist by their own petard here.
How can you say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and then say that it's okay for someone to have their picture published, innocent or guilty? If they're innocent, they, you know, haven't done the crime.
When someone adds you to a group, Facebook automatically notifies all your friends, with no way to turn that off. He received the automatic notification--he didn't need to check anyone's profile to find it.
If a member of the support group called her on her answering machine it would be the member's fault because an answering machine has a well known user interface and everyone knows or should know that if you leave a message on one other people may hear it.
Facebook's user interface is set up to encourage data mining by Facebook, and p[art of the process of doing this is to make it insanely difficult for users to handle privacy, to the point where the user interface is really at fault for the mistake and not the individual person using it, even though the person technically could have done something different.
Anyone who uses a laser to point at the sky in an astronomy outing is dumb enough that they should be charged with reckless endangerment. Laser pointers are useful to point at things because they produce a bright spot on the thing being pointed at. They will not produce this bright spot if aimed at an astronomical object, and when used on such objects, will be no more useful for pointing than just pointing one's finger.
Xenon and krypton are rare and expensive, especially xenon, which is used in spacecraft ion engines. Using it for this purpose is a serious waste.
Proof? Let's start with the facts that 1) this is how all other interviews have all worked, and 2) the Slashdot article here directly links to a FAQ which, short as it is, describes deciding which questions to "send along" and "pass on".
Based on the fact that the primary source is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, I believe the government contractor over the nun. I can't believe that nobody here has heard of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists before--it's a left-wing advocacy group that opposes nuclear weapons. Obviously it's in their interests to make the intruders look as good as possible and the US as bad as possible.
They're also the same people that produce the doomsday clock, which says that we're now closer to nuclear armageddon than we were in the entire 1960-1980 time period.
Slashdot interviews work by people posting questions, and the questions being answered by the subject as part of a later interview. The subject does not respond like another Slashdot poster.
So the SteveWoz replies are all fake.
Which should be obvious, except it's apparently not obvious enough to keep them from being moderated up to +5 rather than -1 Troll.
Being able to subpoena anything pretty much means having it done by people who have an ax to grind, or to benefit someone with an ax to grind.
It's like asking "should the police be able to arrest suspects?" The answer is that clearly it's not a good idea for the police to arrest anyone they want to, and that we need to make rules about who the police can arrest, but on the other hand, we shouldn't just say "the police should never arrest anyone". Arrests are necessary to catch suspects, and catching suspects is necessary because some of them will turn out to be criminals.
Sometimes people with an ax to grind will need to see scientists' documents, and actually use them to discredit the scientists--but that's not a reason not to do it--that's the whole point of doing it, just like sometimes people will be arrested, tried, and put in jail.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that 1) Russia cannot enforce global censorship because it would require that the US cooperate in doing so, and 2) the US wants to be able to censor international domains at will.
2 shows that 1 is possible.
"If the company does well, so does the employee" is actually a bad deal for employees because it is the opposite of diversification. It sets it up so that if the company goes bankrupt, the employee loses twice--not only does he not have a job, but his stock options are worthless too.
Except for the outside activities part, those are things that can legitimately motivate employees, but the reference to cake day and corporate massage day in the original post make it sound more like it's the kind of management who would give employees as few benefits as possible. Engineers aren't stupid and can figure out that you can buy an awful lot of cake with even a slight raise.
Second link got eaten.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2754473&cid=39508965