Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted.
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers -- the education system actually succeeds quite well in communicating those. What the education system utterly fails at is giving kids the skills and techniques they need to resist peer pressure. The advice seems to be "Don't hang out with those people." Okay... I won't hang out with... all my friends. Okay, yeah. I'll be sure to do that next time around.
Saying I'm just stupid just means you don't remember what childhood is like. I can't think of a single person who smokes who started when they turned legal age to do so. By that time you've pretty much got enough maturity to resist the people trying to push you into it. You think there are people out there who don't understand that the shit is deadly? Seriously?
Finally, about 15 years later I'm finally having some success quitting by using electronic cigarettes -- still getting the nicotine, which isn't exactly like drinking the elixir of life, but I'm not inhaling tar, radioactive particles, ammonia, carbon monoxide and a bunch of other shit. I tried patches and gum before, it never worked because it didn't provide the rest of the "smoking experience," which includes the motion of hand to mouth, the puffing, the exhaling and watching the smoke. I tried the e-cig and bam, immediately stopped the tobacco cigarettes and haven't been tempted to go back. All that's left now is to dial down the nicotine dose, then I can start to deal with the psychological part of it. And if I slip up there, I'll just end up on the e-cig again. Never again will I go back to tobacco cigarettes.
Suppose (insanely, I know) that Mac OS X was OEM'd out to PC manufacturers, and one of them decided to build a PC and call it the "Mac PC." Ya think Apple would be all cool wi'dat?
Then I have a hard time understanding what sort of app WOULD fall afoul of the rule. How else would you acquire this info other than by its publication in a newspaper or by someone seeing it themselves?
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information
Define non-public information. Suppose I'm driving and I see a checkpoint, and I put the checkpoint on some app. How is this not public information? A checkpoint on a public road, seen by a member of the public, is not public information? Please explain.
Just like one hot summer doesn't prove it and one cold winter doesn't disprove it (even ignoring the false notion that global climate change != getting warmer everywhere all the time) we'd need to see evidence of increased storm activity for multiple years in close succession before we could draw any conclusions. In general i'm a "believer" in global climate change, but i'm not in favor of using incorrect data to try and prop up the idea.
It's not hard to prove that the Earth's temperature is increasing. Measure it at a bunch of different places all over the surface, take the average, weighted by surface area around each measurement, and you get a pretty good measure of the energy in the atmosphere. If you in fact do this, you see that the temperature is increasing, i.e. we are in a non-equilibrium state. To think that corresponding with this increase in total energy of the atmosphere, there is no change of some kind in the global climate, requires you to basically discard the known laws of physics.
I wonder if, 25 years after this, "the excellent doctors will still be excellent"?
It's been quite a while since your run-of-the-mill software programmer has had to worry about dangerous buffer overflows, memory leaks, concurrency issues, etc (of course, we sacrifice performance for all of these things but we can get them if we want). That doesn't mean there's nobody left around who knows how to, for instance, take raw elements and turn them into a 3 gigahertz CPU. When's the last time someone fired up a text editor and banged out an EXE file directly in binary? People used to be able to do that -- a few still do, a few will always be able to. Those people will always exist. Computerized inference machines like Watson will improve to astonishing degrees but it is and always will be humans who create information. Machines only process it. I'm not really worried about it.
"Thank you for your application to the Management Program. Unfortunately,
you have not met the admission requirements. Your grade point average of
3.42 is slightly above the 3.33 required."
Seriously? To get into Harvard Management you have to have a GPA less than 3.33? That explains a lot.
And your point is what? That violation of privacy is okay so long as a LED is involved? That it's okay to violate the privacy of people who aren't paying enough attention?
There's a definite trend in this thread of people saying they'd prefer physical pain to emotional pain. And yet our society looks at corporal punishment like something from an alien planet. "Cruel and unusual," and all that. Caning a thief? Unimaginable. But putting him in a cage for a number of years, subjecting him to degradation and humiliation? That's CIVILIZATION, baby.
Seems like we ought to admit that the reason we don't use physical punishment on criminals is not because of some moral imperative but because imprisonment actually hurts more.
I wonder if you'd be whistling the same tune when a nuke plant near your home melts down because either A) some jackass told the world how to attack it, or B) the company was forced to rush into deployment of a "fix" that actually contains additional flaws which lead to a system failure. We're not talking about web sites and credit card numbers here, we're talking about big industrial systems that can not only kill people if things go wrong, but render swaths of geography uninhabitable for long periods of time. Your attitude is antisocial bordering on psychopathic.
But if they're not gimbaled a huge amount of energy will be wasted fighting precession as the earth rotates.
What means this "fighting precession?". As the axis of rotation changes there will be a torque on the axle -- big deal, this simply exchanges angular momentum with the earth. You just need an axle which can withstand that torque, and it ain't much torque.
According to documents filed in provincial court in Richmond, B.C., Josiah Miguel Ruben and Houman Rezazadeh-Azar are each facing six charges including theft, unauthorized use of a computer, using a device to obtain unauthorized service and theft of data.
THESE are the charges? How about "conspiracy to commit murder," or "reckless endangerment?" These are the people who will be our medical doctors?!
It would be crazy if we eventually discover that life in a given solar system evolves on the strange material floating around in the protostellar disk and eventually transfers to the planets when they become hospitable enough, it would explain why life seemed to evolve so early after Earth became (theoretically) habitable.
A little less than ten years after 2.6.0, and the only reason for bumping up to 3.0 is "I felt like it." It's just a way of saying "We couldn't come up with anything really hard-hitting and we tried for a decade, so we'll just give up and spin the version number."
I love Linux -- it runs all the "little boxes" everywhere. Places you need stability, to be out of the way, nothing fancy or interesting but still very important. I suppose it doesn't need further improvement, that's not Linus's fault. But you'll find me over in Microsoft land playing with new things. It's just more interesting. I stopped using Linux as my primary desktop three years ago and I haven't found a reason to go back...
The only thing web masters have to do is to claim that all their cookies are "necessary for the functioning of the website" and "not tracking cookies". Isn't that a huge loophole?
That's why we have these funny buildings called "courthouses" where we evaluate things critically instead of using the law like an algorithm.
None of this shit is real, and when you die poof that's it.
That's actually a very egotistical viewpoint. It presumes that the universe goes like this: nothing, nothing, nothing... billions of years of nothing... nothing... poof, I'm born, I exist, I die, then nothing, nothing, nothing...
What the hell makes me so special that *I'm* the thing that pops into existence in the middle of an infinite timeline of nothing? I assume I'm NOT special, thus my first-person experience is not special, thus it's not very likely that what happens after my physical death is "nothingness." It puts me on a pedestal as being the total unique consciousness in the world. My memories will expire when I die, but first person consciousness almost certainly will not.
A. You can not generate an infinite number of colors. Each frequency of radiation is caused by a specific change in quantum state. "See black body".
The quantum nature of light is immaterial to the problem. The problem is that, by definition, a pure frequency is a sine wave of infinite extent into the past and future. Clearly this can't be achieved. Any finite pulse will contain a range of frequencies, thus, you cannot put the channels arbitrarily close to each other as they will overlap.
B. Even with light you can have constructive and destructive harmonics. You would not want to use colors that can interfere with one another.
Interference is beside the point. You filter out the frequencies you don't care about.
Saying they used Fourier transforms is a "no shit" sort of statement. It's like saying you used a shovel when you dug a hole. You'd have to go out of your way NOT to use some aspect of Fourier theory in this problem space. By "used an FFT" they probably mean they're doing some form of OFDM modulation.
Serious question: It seems like it could be possible to use an infinite number of colors with interpolated laster on pulse modulation to transmit an infinite amount of information. Why won't this work?
The uncertainty principle, basically. In the real world, there's no such thing as light of a single frequency. This is due to some basic properties of Fourier transforms. All real light pulses are finite in duration, which means they contain a range of frequencies, not a single frequency. The only way to achieve light of a single precise frequency is for the pulse to be infinite in duration. That's not physically possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted.
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers -- the education system actually succeeds quite well in communicating those. What the education system utterly fails at is giving kids the skills and techniques they need to resist peer pressure. The advice seems to be "Don't hang out with those people." Okay... I won't hang out with... all my friends. Okay, yeah. I'll be sure to do that next time around.
Saying I'm just stupid just means you don't remember what childhood is like. I can't think of a single person who smokes who started when they turned legal age to do so. By that time you've pretty much got enough maturity to resist the people trying to push you into it. You think there are people out there who don't understand that the shit is deadly? Seriously?
Finally, about 15 years later I'm finally having some success quitting by using electronic cigarettes -- still getting the nicotine, which isn't exactly like drinking the elixir of life, but I'm not inhaling tar, radioactive particles, ammonia, carbon monoxide and a bunch of other shit. I tried patches and gum before, it never worked because it didn't provide the rest of the "smoking experience," which includes the motion of hand to mouth, the puffing, the exhaling and watching the smoke. I tried the e-cig and bam, immediately stopped the tobacco cigarettes and haven't been tempted to go back. All that's left now is to dial down the nicotine dose, then I can start to deal with the psychological part of it. And if I slip up there, I'll just end up on the e-cig again. Never again will I go back to tobacco cigarettes.
Suppose (insanely, I know) that Mac OS X was OEM'd out to PC manufacturers, and one of them decided to build a PC and call it the "Mac PC." Ya think Apple would be all cool wi'dat?
If software is unlikely to be relevant after 20 years, then what is the danger of a 20 year patent?
Then I have a hard time understanding what sort of app WOULD fall afoul of the rule. How else would you acquire this info other than by its publication in a newspaper or by someone seeing it themselves?
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information
Define non-public information. Suppose I'm driving and I see a checkpoint, and I put the checkpoint on some app. How is this not public information? A checkpoint on a public road, seen by a member of the public, is not public information? Please explain.
Just like one hot summer doesn't prove it and one cold winter doesn't disprove it (even ignoring the false notion that global climate change != getting warmer everywhere all the time) we'd need to see evidence of increased storm activity for multiple years in close succession before we could draw any conclusions. In general i'm a "believer" in global climate change, but i'm not in favor of using incorrect data to try and prop up the idea.
It's not hard to prove that the Earth's temperature is increasing. Measure it at a bunch of different places all over the surface, take the average, weighted by surface area around each measurement, and you get a pretty good measure of the energy in the atmosphere. If you in fact do this, you see that the temperature is increasing, i.e. we are in a non-equilibrium state. To think that corresponding with this increase in total energy of the atmosphere, there is no change of some kind in the global climate, requires you to basically discard the known laws of physics.
I wonder if, 25 years after this, "the excellent doctors will still be excellent"?
It's been quite a while since your run-of-the-mill software programmer has had to worry about dangerous buffer overflows, memory leaks, concurrency issues, etc (of course, we sacrifice performance for all of these things but we can get them if we want). That doesn't mean there's nobody left around who knows how to, for instance, take raw elements and turn them into a 3 gigahertz CPU. When's the last time someone fired up a text editor and banged out an EXE file directly in binary? People used to be able to do that -- a few still do, a few will always be able to. Those people will always exist. Computerized inference machines like Watson will improve to astonishing degrees but it is and always will be humans who create information. Machines only process it. I'm not really worried about it.
"Thank you for your application to the Management Program. Unfortunately, you have not met the admission requirements. Your grade point average of 3.42 is slightly above the 3.33 required."
Seriously? To get into Harvard Management you have to have a GPA less than 3.33? That explains a lot.
And your point is what? That violation of privacy is okay so long as a LED is involved? That it's okay to violate the privacy of people who aren't paying enough attention?
There's a definite trend in this thread of people saying they'd prefer physical pain to emotional pain. And yet our society looks at corporal punishment like something from an alien planet. "Cruel and unusual," and all that. Caning a thief? Unimaginable. But putting him in a cage for a number of years, subjecting him to degradation and humiliation? That's CIVILIZATION, baby.
Seems like we ought to admit that the reason we don't use physical punishment on criminals is not because of some moral imperative but because imprisonment actually hurts more.
I wonder if you'd be whistling the same tune when a nuke plant near your home melts down because either A) some jackass told the world how to attack it, or B) the company was forced to rush into deployment of a "fix" that actually contains additional flaws which lead to a system failure. We're not talking about web sites and credit card numbers here, we're talking about big industrial systems that can not only kill people if things go wrong, but render swaths of geography uninhabitable for long periods of time. Your attitude is antisocial bordering on psychopathic.
But if they're not gimbaled a huge amount of energy will be wasted fighting precession as the earth rotates.
What means this "fighting precession?". As the axis of rotation changes there will be a torque on the axle -- big deal, this simply exchanges angular momentum with the earth. You just need an axle which can withstand that torque, and it ain't much torque.
Since when does cheating on an exam result in criminal charges????
Next time a "doctor" is about to put you under and saw through your sternum to operate on your heart, ask yourself the same question.
According to documents filed in provincial court in Richmond, B.C., Josiah Miguel Ruben and Houman Rezazadeh-Azar are each facing six charges including theft, unauthorized use of a computer, using a device to obtain unauthorized service and theft of data.
THESE are the charges? How about "conspiracy to commit murder," or "reckless endangerment?" These are the people who will be our medical doctors?!
It would be crazy if we eventually discover that life in a given solar system evolves on the strange material floating around in the protostellar disk and eventually transfers to the planets when they become hospitable enough, it would explain why life seemed to evolve so early after Earth became (theoretically) habitable.
If Jefferson was born again today, he'd be categorized as a terrorist and hidden away at Guantanamo.
A little less than ten years after 2.6.0, and the only reason for bumping up to 3.0 is "I felt like it." It's just a way of saying "We couldn't come up with anything really hard-hitting and we tried for a decade, so we'll just give up and spin the version number." I love Linux -- it runs all the "little boxes" everywhere. Places you need stability, to be out of the way, nothing fancy or interesting but still very important. I suppose it doesn't need further improvement, that's not Linus's fault. But you'll find me over in Microsoft land playing with new things. It's just more interesting. I stopped using Linux as my primary desktop three years ago and I haven't found a reason to go back...
may have insignificantly more "radioactive" particles within about a mile downwind from the chimney during times of normal operation.
Ah. So like, all the time then.
Perhaps they were phased by 2 pi radians, and you didn't notice the integral rotation because they turned so quickly.
The only thing web masters have to do is to claim that all their cookies are "necessary for the functioning of the website" and "not tracking cookies". Isn't that a huge loophole?
That's why we have these funny buildings called "courthouses" where we evaluate things critically instead of using the law like an algorithm.
None of this shit is real, and when you die poof that's it.
That's actually a very egotistical viewpoint. It presumes that the universe goes like this: nothing, nothing, nothing... billions of years of nothing... nothing... poof, I'm born, I exist, I die, then nothing, nothing, nothing...
What the hell makes me so special that *I'm* the thing that pops into existence in the middle of an infinite timeline of nothing? I assume I'm NOT special, thus my first-person experience is not special, thus it's not very likely that what happens after my physical death is "nothingness." It puts me on a pedestal as being the total unique consciousness in the world. My memories will expire when I die, but first person consciousness almost certainly will not.
A nice way of saying the PATRIOT act will stop being extended when we get rid of every last human being who hates America.
Exactly correct. The PATRIOT act will end when we have eliminated those who hate America: the "representatives" who continue to extend it.
A. You can not generate an infinite number of colors. Each frequency of radiation is caused by a specific change in quantum state. "See black body".
The quantum nature of light is immaterial to the problem. The problem is that, by definition, a pure frequency is a sine wave of infinite extent into the past and future. Clearly this can't be achieved. Any finite pulse will contain a range of frequencies, thus, you cannot put the channels arbitrarily close to each other as they will overlap.
B. Even with light you can have constructive and destructive harmonics. You would not want to use colors that can interfere with one another.
Interference is beside the point. You filter out the frequencies you don't care about.
Saying they used Fourier transforms is a "no shit" sort of statement. It's like saying you used a shovel when you dug a hole. You'd have to go out of your way NOT to use some aspect of Fourier theory in this problem space. By "used an FFT" they probably mean they're doing some form of OFDM modulation.
Serious question: It seems like it could be possible to use an infinite number of colors with interpolated laster on pulse modulation to transmit an infinite amount of information. Why won't this work?
The uncertainty principle, basically. In the real world, there's no such thing as light of a single frequency. This is due to some basic properties of Fourier transforms. All real light pulses are finite in duration, which means they contain a range of frequencies, not a single frequency. The only way to achieve light of a single precise frequency is for the pulse to be infinite in duration. That's not physically possible.