That doesn't hold true once you get into the urban jungle, or essentially any location where you do not have a clear view of a large portion of the sky.
This, incidentally, is the case in quite a lot of metros in the US.
I'm not sure it's so much an issue of laziness as levelling the playing field.
If we go by your standards, one contributor could with relative ease incorporate hundreds of utterly incorrect and misleading articles based off of obscure articles that require access to paper copies that in turn takes several days to get your hands on - each.
Additionally it is entirely possible that what Wikipedia would like is free and open access for all to scientific journals rather than the walled off pay-to-enter gardens they are today. After all - everyone is free to use Wikipedia without paying for access.
And if you don't want to play by their rules, don't. Just don't expect to be allowed to use it. That's how life works, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't allow others to play with your stuff without them following the rules you've set.
I'm watching that clip and wondering if you strap on SCUBA gear, make the engine neutrally buoyant, include oxygen tanks for its engine, and just go nuts under water.
Now you have a jet-powered underwater propulsion system. That's got to be rather cool and maybe even useful?
Now - these two talks are 41 minutes total, they are on statistics, and while that is often a very boring subject... whoa. That guy has pretty much blown my mind on how to read statistics.
4) Expecting you to read the manuals thoroughly before relying on a complex computer system.
Hell, you pretty much spell it out twice, as you explain that you later "discovered" two rather important features of your navigation system. But hey - I'm sure they aren't covered in the manual at all, and are hidden features that you're supposed to pay extra for.
Example: Book costs 10 dollars. Amazon gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars Publisher gets the remaining money = 7 dollars.
Now Apple also gets 30%. Book still costs 10 dollars. Amazon gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars Apple gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars Publisher gets the remaining money = 4 dollars.
Now, if Amazon has been foolish enough to enter into a contract that means they'll have to pay Apple out of their own cut, how is that in any way Apple's fault? And why, exactly, am I supposed to feel sorry for Amazon for entering into such a foolish contract? It's not like they cannot afford to hire lawyers who can see such troublesome parts in a contract.
Drinking too much water at once will also kill you. It happened around here when a radio program challenged a guest to break some record of drinking water. Water goes to the blood too fast, and lowers the concentration of something or other, which can kill.
Yes... that's called hyper-hydration. If that sounds familiar, it's because I mentioned it in my post.
To much sodium is bad for you. It increases blood pressure.
Technically too much sodium will kill you.
For instance, if you were to ingest pure sodium in any large amount, it is very very likely to have a very exothermal reaction with water (hell, even the air in your mouth), and if there's enough of it, it'll explode and kill you.
If you meant sodium as in sodium chloride, too much of that will probably kill you simply by virtue of osmosis, whereby the cells in your body will leak their water into your stomach and intestines in an attempt to balance the salt concentration.
Granted, if you were to drink saturated brine it it is probably going to raise your blood pressure quite a lot as your body convulses in an attempt to expel it through vomiting.
You don't even have to ingest it for it to kill you. Being buried in the stuff will kill you, and that definitely qualifies as "too much sodium".
But hey - too much of pretty much anything is bad for you.
Drink too much water and you can die from hyper-hydration. Also you can drown in fairly small amounts of water. Pure oxygen can give you oxygen toxicity. Eat too much fat and the witch from Hansel & Gretel will come and eat you.
Until someone finds out that a questionable legal wire tap implicated them in some sort of crime, which could lead to serious jail time through new means, they could care less.
So what you're saying is that they care at least a little bit?
However, composite graco-latin words are not unheard of . . . automobile, for instance, might rather be suimobile or autokineticon, were it to be a pure construct
Okay, if you don't think autokineticon doesn't sound better than both automobile and suimobile, then you obviously haven't paid attention at the "spot a Decepticon" course.
Obviously an Autokineticon is an Autobot masquerading as a Decepticon;)
Well, if ICANN had a sense of humour, they'd just refuse to register any music related domain names. Period. Nothing that could even remotely be associated with any of the RIAA companies, their subsidiaries, their artists or employees.
While I'm sure the brace position is cool and all, I'm yet to have been in a plane where I could adopt it. I'm skinny and 193 cm tall (6'4") and even getting close to the brace position would mean me having to rip the seat in front of me out of the plane. I can just barely manage to fit into the seat when my ass is pinned against the back of my chair and my knees touching the sides of the seat in front of me.
How the designers expect anyone taller than 150 cm (5') to "brace for impact" is beyond me. Maybe they dabble in string theory and 7 other dimension I could fold my body into?
The danger is that the device could cause interference with an on-board computer. It doesn't need to crash the airplane to be disruptive
This doesn't relate to the parents point which was:
If a cell phone posed even minimal danger to air traffic then you'd be required to put them in with the hold luggage or surrender them to the airline staff for the duration of the flight.
Now, you may believe that electronic devices can cause an unfortunate interference with the plane's necessary computers, but if that is the case, why are you okay with that happening at all? Would you be okay with me bringing a potential grenade onto your plane? If not then why are you okay with something that you yourself claim can cause interference with important systems?
Like the parent said, if they posed a viable risk, people would have to check it with their luggage.
[The company's marketing vice president Damon] Jordan did not expect to face any privacy issues by aggregating publicly available information, stating: "If the information is public, there are no privacy issues."
That's an interesting stance from such a public figure. I really hope no one will try to aggregate every piece of publicly available information about this particular person and post it in a single, easy to use post/thread.
Personally I'd consider it a rather large violation, but hey - to each their own, right?
Considering that elephants can run at 40 km/h, which is 100 meters in 9 seconds flat, 200 meters in 18 seconds and 400 meters in 36 seconds, and the world records for those distances are 9.58, 19.19 and 43.18 seconds respectively, I fail to see how the inability to outrun a mammoth has ever been a problem.
Granted, we have no real knowledge of their actual speeds, so it could be 5 km/h but it could also be 60 km/h like a giraffe or 50 km/h like a white rhinoceros.
Humans have never really had a need to outrun any of our prey animals. We have relied on intelligence, stamina and weapons to take them down, not speed and strength.
But I'm guessing that just means you didn't descend from genes smart enough to outwit a cow.
It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).
You mean that Iran are being bastards for not caring about nuclear proliferation, whereas Israel are cool for just not signing that treaty?
Also, keep in mind that the non-proliferation treaty came into effect in 1970 - 8 years before the Iranian revolution. From the Iranian perspective it might simply be a case of "no, that was signed by a US puppet government and in no way applies to the free country of Iran". Like the US not wanting to pay taxes to the UK, despite the colonies having signed treaties to that effect before the Revolution.
but he, apparently, quit smoking pot, so it is very hard to see where he stood on that
Sure, but quitting a substance is not the same as being anti-substance.
How many previous tobacco smokers wants it made illegal to smoke? Previous drinkers and alcoholics? I don't smoke tobacco, do not consume alcohol, do not use THC or other illegal drugs. But I don't see the point in making them illegal (including most of the currently illegal ones) either.
As such I'd say it's more likely that a previous pot-smoker is going to be pro-pot than anti-pot.
While Palin and the GOPs rhetoric is nasty, there is no evidence that they lead to this event.
Very true. And Palin went as far as to record a video saying that nothing she said or did, was in any way indicative or suggestive that violence would, could or should be a way to make your voice heard. Didn't regret anything in her rhetoric.
However - if she doesn't regret anything she's said or done, if she truly believes nothing she's said or done is in any way responsible for this guys actions (and I don't think so either), why the hell did she (or her representatives) take down the now infamous map with the cross-hairs on it?
Still, this is the fairest cap I've seen a wireless provider implement so far.
I'm guessing you're in the US. I pay 299 SEK (about 45 USD a month) for my cell phone and subscription; granted that's not including free minutes or texts, but I get 10 GB data with that. Go over 10 GB and I'm throttled to 0.2 Mbit/s.
And I'm fairly certain you can get even better and fairer deals than what I'm on.
People having kids can be directly attributed to two causes, lack of education and religion.
That's strange - I've seen religious 5-year-olds who don't have kids. In other words it having kids CANNOT be directly attributed to religion and a lack of education.
Having kids can be directly attributed to heterosexual sex between sexually mature individuals that doesn't involve contraception.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't hold true once you get into the urban jungle, or essentially any location where you do not have a clear view of a large portion of the sky.
This, incidentally, is the case in quite a lot of metros in the US.
I'm not sure it's so much an issue of laziness as levelling the playing field.
If we go by your standards, one contributor could with relative ease incorporate hundreds of utterly incorrect and misleading articles based off of obscure articles that require access to paper copies that in turn takes several days to get your hands on - each.
Additionally it is entirely possible that what Wikipedia would like is free and open access for all to scientific journals rather than the walled off pay-to-enter gardens they are today. After all - everyone is free to use Wikipedia without paying for access.
And if you don't want to play by their rules, don't. Just don't expect to be allowed to use it. That's how life works, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't allow others to play with your stuff without them following the rules you've set.
I'm watching that clip and wondering if you strap on SCUBA gear, make the engine neutrally buoyant, include oxygen tanks for its engine, and just go nuts under water.
Now you have a jet-powered underwater propulsion system. That's got to be rather cool and maybe even useful?
I realise we all do this pretty much, but this guy seriously changed my view of "developing countries":
Ted Talk: Hans Rosling, debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen
The this one:
Ted Talk: Hans Rosling, new insights on poverty and life around the world
Now - these two talks are 41 minutes total, they are on statistics, and while that is often a very boring subject ... whoa. That guy has pretty much blown my mind on how to read statistics.
4) Expecting you to read the manuals thoroughly before relying on a complex computer system.
Hell, you pretty much spell it out twice, as you explain that you later "discovered" two rather important features of your navigation system. But hey - I'm sure they aren't covered in the manual at all, and are hidden features that you're supposed to pay extra for.
And why exactly is it Apple's fault that Amazon decided to enter into such a silly contract?
I think you got the maths wrong.
Example: Book costs 10 dollars.
Amazon gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars
Publisher gets the remaining money = 7 dollars.
Now Apple also gets 30%. Book still costs 10 dollars.
Amazon gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars
Apple gets 30% of 10 dollars = 3 dollars
Publisher gets the remaining money = 4 dollars.
Now, if Amazon has been foolish enough to enter into a contract that means they'll have to pay Apple out of their own cut, how is that in any way Apple's fault? And why, exactly, am I supposed to feel sorry for Amazon for entering into such a foolish contract? It's not like they cannot afford to hire lawyers who can see such troublesome parts in a contract.
Yes ... that's called hyper-hydration. If that sounds familiar, it's because I mentioned it in my post.
Technically too much sodium will kill you.
For instance, if you were to ingest pure sodium in any large amount, it is very very likely to have a very exothermal reaction with water (hell, even the air in your mouth), and if there's enough of it, it'll explode and kill you.
If you meant sodium as in sodium chloride, too much of that will probably kill you simply by virtue of osmosis, whereby the cells in your body will leak their water into your stomach and intestines in an attempt to balance the salt concentration.
Granted, if you were to drink saturated brine it it is probably going to raise your blood pressure quite a lot as your body convulses in an attempt to expel it through vomiting.
You don't even have to ingest it for it to kill you. Being buried in the stuff will kill you, and that definitely qualifies as "too much sodium".
But hey - too much of pretty much anything is bad for you.
Drink too much water and you can die from hyper-hydration. Also you can drown in fairly small amounts of water.
Pure oxygen can give you oxygen toxicity.
Eat too much fat and the witch from Hansel & Gretel will come and eat you.
So what you're saying is that they care at least a little bit?
I'll let David Mitchell elaborate.
Let's see. I'm running Opera 11 on OS X 10.6.6 on an iMac from 2008 (2.4 GHz Core2Duo, 2 GB RAM), and Opera is using less than 1% CPU.
Activity Monitor is consuming more space than Opera, and Slashdot isn't the only site I have open.
I'm thinking it's a very localized problem
Let me see if I got this straight.
People who may or may not genuinely believe that you are trolling are themselves trolls, because you, the suspected troll, say they are?
Okay, if you don't think autokineticon doesn't sound better than both automobile and suimobile, then you obviously haven't paid attention at the "spot a Decepticon" course.
Obviously an Autokineticon is an Autobot masquerading as a Decepticon ;)
Well, if ICANN had a sense of humour, they'd just refuse to register any music related domain names. Period. Nothing that could even remotely be associated with any of the RIAA companies, their subsidiaries, their artists or employees.
I mean - to avoid lawsuits.
While I'm sure the brace position is cool and all, I'm yet to have been in a plane where I could adopt it. I'm skinny and 193 cm tall (6'4") and even getting close to the brace position would mean me having to rip the seat in front of me out of the plane. I can just barely manage to fit into the seat when my ass is pinned against the back of my chair and my knees touching the sides of the seat in front of me.
How the designers expect anyone taller than 150 cm (5') to "brace for impact" is beyond me. Maybe they dabble in string theory and 7 other dimension I could fold my body into?
This doesn't relate to the parents point which was:
Now, you may believe that electronic devices can cause an unfortunate interference with the plane's necessary computers, but if that is the case, why are you okay with that happening at all? Would you be okay with me bringing a potential grenade onto your plane? If not then why are you okay with something that you yourself claim can cause interference with important systems?
Like the parent said, if they posed a viable risk, people would have to check it with their luggage.
From the article:
That's an interesting stance from such a public figure. I really hope no one will try to aggregate every piece of publicly available information about this particular person and post it in a single, easy to use post/thread.
Personally I'd consider it a rather large violation, but hey - to each their own, right?
Considering that elephants can run at 40 km/h, which is 100 meters in 9 seconds flat, 200 meters in 18 seconds and 400 meters in 36 seconds, and the world records for those distances are 9.58, 19.19 and 43.18 seconds respectively, I fail to see how the inability to outrun a mammoth has ever been a problem.
Granted, we have no real knowledge of their actual speeds, so it could be 5 km/h but it could also be 60 km/h like a giraffe or 50 km/h like a white rhinoceros.
Humans have never really had a need to outrun any of our prey animals. We have relied on intelligence, stamina and weapons to take them down, not speed and strength.
But I'm guessing that just means you didn't descend from genes smart enough to outwit a cow.
You mean that Iran are being bastards for not caring about nuclear proliferation, whereas Israel are cool for just not signing that treaty?
Also, keep in mind that the non-proliferation treaty came into effect in 1970 - 8 years before the Iranian revolution. From the Iranian perspective it might simply be a case of "no, that was signed by a US puppet government and in no way applies to the free country of Iran". Like the US not wanting to pay taxes to the UK, despite the colonies having signed treaties to that effect before the Revolution.
Sure, but quitting a substance is not the same as being anti-substance.
How many previous tobacco smokers wants it made illegal to smoke? Previous drinkers and alcoholics? I don't smoke tobacco, do not consume alcohol, do not use THC or other illegal drugs. But I don't see the point in making them illegal (including most of the currently illegal ones) either.
As such I'd say it's more likely that a previous pot-smoker is going to be pro-pot than anti-pot.
Very true. And Palin went as far as to record a video saying that nothing she said or did, was in any way indicative or suggestive that violence would, could or should be a way to make your voice heard. Didn't regret anything in her rhetoric.
However - if she doesn't regret anything she's said or done, if she truly believes nothing she's said or done is in any way responsible for this guys actions (and I don't think so either), why the hell did she (or her representatives) take down the now infamous map with the cross-hairs on it?
I'm guessing you're in the US. I pay 299 SEK (about 45 USD a month) for my cell phone and subscription; granted that's not including free minutes or texts, but I get 10 GB data with that. Go over 10 GB and I'm throttled to 0.2 Mbit/s.
And I'm fairly certain you can get even better and fairer deals than what I'm on.
That's strange - I've seen religious 5-year-olds who don't have kids. In other words it having kids CANNOT be directly attributed to religion and a lack of education.
Having kids can be directly attributed to heterosexual sex between sexually mature individuals that doesn't involve contraception.
Just leave the phone at your workstation when you go home. Only place to charge it. Trust me ;)
Which still boils down to your employer ordering you to spend YOUR money on THEIR tasks.
I'll answer your claim of this with a courteous piss off.