Those who think sexism is wonderful and that women aren't as good as men and should get out of tech won. Since they just got another excuse to exclude from their teams.
Why would you not want to let China handle all the pollution and production issues and then sell you the product at less than the cost of the raw materials?
Just stock up enough of them to give local production time to start up if the freebies stop flowing in.
It's so clear cut how do 3 judges find the other way?
Surely they don't also think that if I buy a pair of shoes at Target I'm not allowed to turn around and sell them to someone else? But they think if I buy a book at Target I shouldn't be allowed to sell it to someone else? Or it's just that if that Target store happens to be across the border in Canada that changes everything and in that case no I can't resell the shoes?
cron.d files aren't scripts and don't need to be executed or sourced (doing so wouldn't work anyway).
But if you arrange for
* * * * * root/home/me/something
to be at the start of a line in a file that is in/etc/cron.d and the file also manages to be parsable by cron then your something executable will be run as root.
I already stated that it is zero work to change clocks. Disagreeing with my claim is one thing, just ignoring that is was stated makes for a pointless conversation.
For logs, sure I hadn't thought of that. I've never heard of that causing a single trial to be fucked though, and I really would expect that to make the news. Maybe there's always some sort of corroboration they can use to check what time was meant - people do sometimes make notational errors after all. Or the once a year window to have your crime go unpunished if someone happens to not note the time carefully isn't exploited enough for it to outweigh the benefits of making the change?
It's not advantageous to have the sunrise at the same time, and that isn't the goal. It's advantageous to get shift a daylight hour from morning to evening, for some people. I already stated I'd like the clocks moved 4 hours so your attempt at making it look absurd just supports my not popular at all view.
Except that people use size measures every day and they all relate to each other.
I would agree that changing the length of an hour in summer would be stupid. Changing the time we call X to be when the sun is in a different position doesn't have any knock on effect though. Other than for people who work with multiple timezones - and again they are the minority and their extra work is more than made up for by the benefit everyone else gets.
Why not move the clocks. Hours are just a measurement after all, we can change them to better suit our environment. I don't want to get up early for more daylight, I happen to want my daylight at the end of the day (heck I'm all for putting the clocks back 4 hours in winter...) and apparently enough people agree with me that large chunks of the world change their timezone in order to make that easier.
What time and energy is being wasted?
All my clocks (ok except the one the stove, which is wrong anyway) change automatically for daylight saving time and change automatically when it ends. I usually only realize we start daylight saving when I find myself getting tired a little early that first day because I got an hour less sleep without noticing.
Changing the clocks is significantly simpler than having to work out just what time does school start and finish this week. And since my job doesn't follow the school schedule the entire timing is off and the simple tasks of organize for Johnny to get to school becomes complicated.
And if, as you say, people who work outdoors don't care very much what the clock says it makes even more sense to change what the clock says for the rest of us - since apparently the main group inconvenienced by it won't care anyway.
If the blanket is "daylight hours", then tweaking the clocks so that less of those hours occur when I am sleeping means I see more daylight hours. Of course people who get up and go to bed earlier than me could see less daylight hours or just see the timing of them moved a little. Still in the country I happen those who see more daylight hours outnumber those that see less for a net win.
OK I'm about to give up, but one last time: "worst case". A poorly built, poorly designed, and poorly managed plant is very likely part of the worst case scenario.
"A best practices, well designed, passively safe plant, run by highly paid professionals and regulated by a government that is not run by industry" is not the worst case scenario.
I'm not splitting hairs, I just think the worst case is worse than having to relocate.
The reactor operators going on a month long bender ending with the reactor core exploding and a 20kg chunk of graphite landing on your head would be worse than having to relocate, for example. A delivery of nuclear fuel crashing into your bedroom one night might be worse too. Terrorist nutcases trying to crash a plane into the power plant and hitting your house while you are inside might be worse. And so on and so on.
I really don't care about nuclear power itself (as I've already said, if I had to have a power plant in my backyard a nuclear one is better than many other options). However, "worst case" means what it says and due to that is completely useless. And that's the only point I'm trying (and failing) to make.
Alternatives are irrelevant because the worst case claim wasn't a "the worst case of X is worse than the worst case of Y" (not that such an argument would make sense anyway). It's not a choice between alternatives it's a straight out claim that "the worst case is I have to relocate".
I'd *much* rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than a coal one. But that's irrelevant to what the worst case actually is.
Worst case means worst case. Something worse than a Chernobyl style dumping of radioactive material into the lungs of the nearby residents, since it's pretty unlikely we've actually experienced the absolute worst case scenario.
And worst case is always pointless to worry about, that's irrelevant to taking a punt at how bad that case might be.
There are higher rates than normal of thyroid cancer in people who where under 18 when they were evacuated from the high contamination zone of Chernobyl in 1986. Since that actually happened we have a lower bound on worst case that is already worse than "I will have to move".
The worst case scenario of some other system is irrelevant to how bad the worst case of a nuclear power plant is. It is relevant to determining which is a better choice, but the "worst case" scenario is usually irrelevant to such a decision anyway.
That a coal plant will also impact the health of the locals is also irrelevant, for the same reason, the "worst case" is solely about the thing being looked at and not relative to alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody wins?
Those who think sexism is wonderful and that women aren't as good as men and should get out of tech won. Since they just got another excuse to exclude from their teams.
Why would you not want to let China handle all the pollution and production issues and then sell you the product at less than the cost of the raw materials?
Just stock up enough of them to give local production time to start up if the freebies stop flowing in.
That doesn't stop you. You just pay 10% extra, which is way less than the 50% markup you are avoiding.
Why?
That's what proofreaders and copyeditors are for.
Yes I do, though that's harldy going to motivate me to read a wikipedia article.
per however many kilowatts are used in an average 30 minute charge.
Where do you think the current books on the shelves are printed?
It's so clear cut how do 3 judges find the other way?
Surely they don't also think that if I buy a pair of shoes at Target I'm not allowed to turn around and sell them to someone else? But they think if I buy a book at Target I shouldn't be allowed to sell it to someone else? Or it's just that if that Target store happens to be across the border in Canada that changes everything and in that case no I can't resell the shoes?
cron.d files aren't scripts and don't need to be executed or sourced (doing so wouldn't work anyway).
But if you arrange for
* * * * * root /home/me/something
to be at the start of a line in a file that is in /etc/cron.d and the file also manages to be parsable by cron then your something executable will be run as root.
There is more to "judeo-chistian mythology" than just the Bible.
I already stated that it is zero work to change clocks. Disagreeing with my claim is one thing, just ignoring that is was stated makes for a pointless conversation.
For logs, sure I hadn't thought of that. I've never heard of that causing a single trial to be fucked though, and I really would expect that to make the news. Maybe there's always some sort of corroboration they can use to check what time was meant - people do sometimes make notational errors after all. Or the once a year window to have your crime go unpunished if someone happens to not note the time carefully isn't exploited enough for it to outweigh the benefits of making the change?
It's not advantageous to have the sunrise at the same time, and that isn't the goal. It's advantageous to get shift a daylight hour from morning to evening, for some people. I already stated I'd like the clocks moved 4 hours so your attempt at making it look absurd just supports my not popular at all view.
Except that people use size measures every day and they all relate to each other.
I would agree that changing the length of an hour in summer would be stupid. Changing the time we call X to be when the sun is in a different position doesn't have any knock on effect though. Other than for people who work with multiple timezones - and again they are the minority and their extra work is more than made up for by the benefit everyone else gets.
Why not move the clocks. Hours are just a measurement after all, we can change them to better suit our environment. I don't want to get up early for more daylight, I happen to want my daylight at the end of the day (heck I'm all for putting the clocks back 4 hours in winter...) and apparently enough people agree with me that large chunks of the world change their timezone in order to make that easier.
What time and energy is being wasted?
All my clocks (ok except the one the stove, which is wrong anyway) change automatically for daylight saving time and change automatically when it ends. I usually only realize we start daylight saving when I find myself getting tired a little early that first day because I got an hour less sleep without noticing.
Changing the clocks is significantly simpler than having to work out just what time does school start and finish this week. And since my job doesn't follow the school schedule the entire timing is off and the simple tasks of organize for Johnny to get to school becomes complicated.
And if, as you say, people who work outdoors don't care very much what the clock says it makes even more sense to change what the clock says for the rest of us - since apparently the main group inconvenienced by it won't care anyway.
Except in this case, for some people, it does.
If the blanket is "daylight hours", then tweaking the clocks so that less of those hours occur when I am sleeping means I see more daylight hours. Of course people who get up and go to bed earlier than me could see less daylight hours or just see the timing of them moved a little. Still in the country I happen those who see more daylight hours outnumber those that see less for a net win.
Well obviously, it's a 100 hour trip after all (assuming you use the Apollo 11 mission profile) :)
OK I'm about to give up, but one last time: "worst case". A poorly built, poorly designed, and poorly managed plant is very likely part of the worst case scenario.
"A best practices, well designed, passively safe plant, run by highly paid professionals and regulated by a government that is not run by industry" is not the worst case scenario.
I'm not splitting hairs, I just think the worst case is worse than having to relocate.
The reactor operators going on a month long bender ending with the reactor core exploding and a 20kg chunk of graphite landing on your head would be worse than having to relocate, for example. A delivery of nuclear fuel crashing into your bedroom one night might be worse too. Terrorist nutcases trying to crash a plane into the power plant and hitting your house while you are inside might be worse. And so on and so on.
I really don't care about nuclear power itself (as I've already said, if I had to have a power plant in my backyard a nuclear one is better than many other options). However, "worst case" means what it says and due to that is completely useless. And that's the only point I'm trying (and failing) to make.
Alternatives are irrelevant because the worst case claim wasn't a "the worst case of X is worse than the worst case of Y" (not that such an argument would make sense anyway). It's not a choice between alternatives it's a straight out claim that "the worst case is I have to relocate".
I'd *much* rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than a coal one. But that's irrelevant to what the worst case actually is.
Yes. When the claim is "worst case" you take the worst case. Amazing!
Yes. Worst case means exactly what it says on the tin.
Worst case means worst case. Something worse than a Chernobyl style dumping of radioactive material into the lungs of the nearby residents, since it's pretty unlikely we've actually experienced the absolute worst case scenario.
And worst case is always pointless to worry about, that's irrelevant to taking a punt at how bad that case might be.
What makes you think they aren't?
There are higher rates than normal of thyroid cancer in people who where under 18 when they were evacuated from the high contamination zone of Chernobyl in 1986. Since that actually happened we have a lower bound on worst case that is already worse than "I will have to move".
The worst case scenario of some other system is irrelevant to how bad the worst case of a nuclear power plant is. It is relevant to determining which is a better choice, but the "worst case" scenario is usually irrelevant to such a decision anyway.
That a coal plant will also impact the health of the locals is also irrelevant, for the same reason, the "worst case" is solely about the thing being looked at and not relative to alternatives.
You have a remarkably stupid idea of what "worst case" means.