I think the key word here is obese, usually defined as a BMI over 30 kg/m^2, i.e. weight divided by height squared. You might not enjoy sitting next to a person with a BMI around say 28 kg/m^2, but they'll basically remain inside their seat. Anyone whose BMI exceeds 30 will spill over into your seat, so removing them will make the crowded flight much more pleasant.
BMI isn't just useless, it's worse than useless. Not only does more muscle mass than usual completely skew the results, but being taller than average does as well.
And before all the fatties cry about how hard they got it, how many of you make life easier for people with real disabilities like blindness or being in a wheel chair?
I would guess just about all of them. Though from your contemptuous tone I'm guessing you're one of those few people who DOESN'T try to accomodate people in armchairs or blind people.
If you don't think that it's all about the much-hyped "greenhouse" warming, then you need to go back to school and read your political history.
I guess those actual climatology courses I took were a waste, huh? This I think is the problem, the anti-global warming crowd doesn't have the scientific background and don't understand the complex variables that go into climate science. If you think it's "all about the. ..'greenhouse'" then you are ignorant. You should have read less political and more science.
If it were about the overall warming, why didn't we create such an agency many years ago? Only now -- now that we are supposed to be causing some if it due to CO2 -- do they feel the need to open such an office.
Because for the previous 8 years we had an ignorant, right-wing, anti-science, anti-environment executive branch.
Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right about the "greenhouse gas" aspect of climate change being up in the air (even though you're completely and utterly wrong), what you said still makes no sense. You yourself admit that the globe is warming. The article talks about an agency set up to monitor/project global warming. You then mention one single variable that some climate studies chart--greenhouse gases--as preventing ANY sort of projection of long-term climate.
Careful now: did you check you were in a Free Speech Zone before you wrote that?
Before I wrote that I actually did think up the worst anti-free-speech activity by the government I could think of, and the Free Speech Zone issue is what I came up with. Then I thought how that compares to being dragged through courts in libel actions, and decided that as bad as the FSZ is, in the grand scheme of things it's not really up there on the speech suppression scale.
Despite all the chic pessimism, when it comes to free speech laws the US still has a very free press. Not that there aren't several other areas in the Constitution that are under attack, but speech is still free.
This new law tries to address violent over throw of government.
Nah, it's probably just a way to allow some South Carolina right-wing types go after ACORN or the ACLU or whatever other organization their little right-wing brains think is a commie pinko enemy of America.
No, you're completely and utterly wrong. There is no such thing as perfect security. The best you can get is "near impossible." So you're basically saying all security=bad security.
Re:It does not matter how hard it was/is.
on
Hardware TPM Hacked
·
· Score: 1
It does not matter how hard it was/is.
Of course it does. It took 6 months, and required using acid to dissolve portions of the chip. How can you say that it "does not matter" how hard it is? Where is the real world danger here? There's no such thing as perfect security, and it makes no sense to say all-or-nothing.
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
You're just rehashing the tired (and incorrect) old slashdot meme that somehow increased prominence is automatically economically beneficial (oh, they like when you pirate their software, that means more "marketshare").
recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
The "images" were actually quite well-done. Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them. And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).
Worth repeating: correlation is not always causation.
No, it's not worth repeating. It is repeated so frequently on slashdot that it actually has a negative effect right now by creating a kneejerk reaction where people automatically assume causation is never correlation, which is frequently wrong.
And in terms of this story, why would showing causation be the goal, anyway? If you are trying to create a program to help depressed people, you could easily just not care whether it is the cause or just a symptom, when your focus is to identify people who you want to help.
Was that before or after jumping into his Ferrari and flashing his iPhone? Why do people need to display their smug superiority from the unwashed masses when any decent calculator would give the same result?
Nonsense, my calculator made of rich mahogany and fine corinthian leather is far more accurate than your lower-class calculator.
As an attorney who works solely in federal district court, let me assure you that I am quite familiar with the statutory and constitutional basis for the authority of the federal district courts. Judges can get impeached, but that's in the Constitution, too. They can't get fired, not even by Congress. It's not "easy" to change a district court's subject matter jurisdiction in general, and it's probably not even possible constitutionally to remove the jurisdiction of a specific judge.
The writ of mandamus sent to Judge Ward is your evidence of bad behavior (besides what everyone who works it IT knows). But even short of firing him, Congress can easily change his subject matter jurisdiction.
No, you're misinterpreting what a writ of mandamus is; it's not some sort of criminal conviction, and an appellate court finding a judge abused their discretion does not rise to a finding of "bad behavior," all it means is the judge made a wrong ruling. Happens all the time in appellate rulings, and it just means that judge's orders get reversed.
But to return to the original point of contention, no, it's not misleading, in terms of legal reasoning, plain English, or common sense to say that U.S. federal district court judges are appointed for life tenures, and do not have to be re-elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Wheelchairs I mean.
I'm about 135 pounds.
Did you get a lot of sand kicked in your face at the beach? Is that why you're so angry?
I think the key word here is obese, usually defined as a BMI over 30 kg/m^2, i.e. weight divided by height squared. You might not enjoy sitting next to a person with a BMI around say 28 kg/m^2, but they'll basically remain inside their seat. Anyone whose BMI exceeds 30 will spill over into your seat, so removing them will make the crowded flight much more pleasant.
BMI isn't just useless, it's worse than useless. Not only does more muscle mass than usual completely skew the results, but being taller than average does as well.
And before all the fatties cry about how hard they got it, how many of you make life easier for people with real disabilities like blindness or being in a wheel chair?
I would guess just about all of them. Though from your contemptuous tone I'm guessing you're one of those few people who DOESN'T try to accomodate people in armchairs or blind people.
"Fairly soon."
Again, that's still possible with closed source.
That's the beauty of Open Source.
And that couldn't possibly happen with closed source?
If you don't think that it's all about the much-hyped "greenhouse" warming, then you need to go back to school and read your political history.
.'greenhouse'" then you are ignorant. You should have read less political and more science.
I guess those actual climatology courses I took were a waste, huh? This I think is the problem, the anti-global warming crowd doesn't have the scientific background and don't understand the complex variables that go into climate science. If you think it's "all about the. .
If it were about the overall warming, why didn't we create such an agency many years ago? Only now -- now that we are supposed to be causing some if it due to CO2 -- do they feel the need to open such an office.
Because for the previous 8 years we had an ignorant, right-wing, anti-science, anti-environment executive branch.
Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right about the "greenhouse gas" aspect of climate change being up in the air (even though you're completely and utterly wrong), what you said still makes no sense. You yourself admit that the globe is warming. The article talks about an agency set up to monitor/project global warming. You then mention one single variable that some climate studies chart--greenhouse gases--as preventing ANY sort of projection of long-term climate.
Careful now: did you check you were in a Free Speech Zone before you wrote that?
Before I wrote that I actually did think up the worst anti-free-speech activity by the government I could think of, and the Free Speech Zone issue is what I came up with. Then I thought how that compares to being dragged through courts in libel actions, and decided that as bad as the FSZ is, in the grand scheme of things it's not really up there on the speech suppression scale.
Despite all the chic pessimism, when it comes to free speech laws the US still has a very free press. Not that there aren't several other areas in the Constitution that are under attack, but speech is still free.
This new law tries to address violent over throw of government.
Nah, it's probably just a way to allow some South Carolina right-wing types go after ACORN or the ACLU or whatever other organization their little right-wing brains think is a commie pinko enemy of America.
As far as I understood it, none of the SW books were canon.
That near impossible = possible = bad security.
No, you're completely and utterly wrong. There is no such thing as perfect security. The best you can get is "near impossible." So you're basically saying all security=bad security.
It does not matter how hard it was/is.
Of course it does. It took 6 months, and required using acid to dissolve portions of the chip. How can you say that it "does not matter" how hard it is? Where is the real world danger here? There's no such thing as perfect security, and it makes no sense to say all-or-nothing.
Yes, of course, because that never worked, and companies like Microsoft and Adobe don't benefit at all from people pirating their software.
And piracy always works, and no company has ever lost potential sales because their stuff was pirated. Strawmen are fun.
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
You're just rehashing the tired (and incorrect) old slashdot meme that somehow increased prominence is automatically economically beneficial (oh, they like when you pirate their software, that means more "marketshare").
Nevertheless, I think your conclusion is generally correct -- most duels should have ended with both parties injured.
I would think from a statistical standpoint most duels would end with the duellists missing each other.
Some parts of computing should just not be done by non-technical users, designing secure systems is one of them.
If those non-technical users are able to create security holes, than that's the engineer's fault.
recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
The "images" were actually quite well-done. Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them. And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).
Worth repeating: correlation is not always causation.
No, it's not worth repeating. It is repeated so frequently on slashdot that it actually has a negative effect right now by creating a kneejerk reaction where people automatically assume causation is never correlation, which is frequently wrong.
And in terms of this story, why would showing causation be the goal, anyway? If you are trying to create a program to help depressed people, you could easily just not care whether it is the cause or just a symptom, when your focus is to identify people who you want to help.
Doremus, R. H. (1994) Glass Science, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 339 pp. ISBN 0471891746, disagrees with web page man.
Urban legend. Glass is an amorphous solid.
can't say the same thing for your DVD/BluRay+-R discs in 25 years
I would put more faith in optical media outlasting magnetic media like betamax.
Was that before or after jumping into his Ferrari and flashing his iPhone? Why do people need to display their smug superiority from the unwashed masses when any decent calculator would give the same result?
Nonsense, my calculator made of rich mahogany and fine corinthian leather is far more accurate than your lower-class calculator.
As an attorney who works solely in federal district court, let me assure you that I am quite familiar with the statutory and constitutional basis for the authority of the federal district courts. Judges can get impeached, but that's in the Constitution, too. They can't get fired, not even by Congress. It's not "easy" to change a district court's subject matter jurisdiction in general, and it's probably not even possible constitutionally to remove the jurisdiction of a specific judge.
The writ of mandamus sent to Judge Ward is your evidence of bad behavior (besides what everyone who works it IT knows). But even short of firing him, Congress can easily change his subject matter jurisdiction.
No, you're misinterpreting what a writ of mandamus is; it's not some sort of criminal conviction, and an appellate court finding a judge abused their discretion does not rise to a finding of "bad behavior," all it means is the judge made a wrong ruling. Happens all the time in appellate rulings, and it just means that judge's orders get reversed.
But to return to the original point of contention, no, it's not misleading, in terms of legal reasoning, plain English, or common sense to say that U.S. federal district court judges are appointed for life tenures, and do not have to be re-elected.