You'd have to entrust it to a valet -- which is nasty, or park away from the place you are going, which once again defeats the privilege that having a driver provides.
No, you'll tell the car to go park itself, and call it on your cell phone to tell it to come pick you up when you're ready.
The alleged "authority of experts" is questionable marketing bravado. In the last century, a large percentage of their articles were gleaned from popular media sources of the day and the authors were newspaper and magazine contributors.
We have a copy of the 11th edition, from 1915. It's not so great for recent history, but the list of contributors is impressive. A friend at work asked me to bring him the article on capillary action because he'd heard that it was written by J.Willard. Gibbs (if I remember correctly...). I had to tell him that the article wasn't actually by Gibbs -- he only edited it. It was originally written by some guy named James Clerk Maxwell.
"Discover" doesn't have to mean "first to discover". If you discover that your wife is having an affair, does that mean that she didn't know about it already?
You must be reading that differently than I am, or talking about a different situation. My program is a large app that might benefit from including some GPL code from elsewhere. It's not an "improvement to a GPL program".
I think you have it backwards. It's ok for my code to be used anywhere. The problem is that I can't use other people's GPL'd code in mine, even though mine is being made available even more freely than GPL'd code.
I work for a US government lab (NIST) and the software I write is freely available and not subject to copyright, by law. I would expect the same rule to apply to NASA. The lack of copyright actually causes a problem for us, because the GPL requires that authors copyright their code so that they can apply the GPL to it. That means that we can't apply the GPL and therefore can't use GPL code. I hope this is the sort of issue that this conference is going to iron out.
I used this strategy
>>> import random
>>> random.choice(["rock", "paper", "scissors"])
>>> etc. and it still beat me 20-10. I didn't have the patience for a statistically significant number of tries, though.
Of course, most digitals that I've seen have a reasonably functional autofocus
Every one that I've used has been a real pain if you want to focus on something other than what the camera wants you to focus on. I've got lots of nice clear pictures of rocks when I wanted a picture of the person standing behind them.
Though I imagine it would be really incredibly difficult to make a DSL camera take a shot that was deliberately just slightly out of focus.
My DSLR lens has a very easy manual focus override. It even works when the autofocus is turned on. I've never seen a non SLR digitial with a manual focus that was at all convenient.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)
It's much easier to focus on exactly what you want with an SLR, even a digital one.
The field next to St Remigius Church is said to contain remains of the main residence of the Bozon family, Lords of the manor from 1304 to 1539.
The badgers are just trying to enforce quantum mechanics. The remains are Bozons, and belong all in one grave. If they were Fermions, they'd belong in separate ground states.
Why is this in Idle? It's a real issue, not because the electrosensitives are right, but because they cause real trouble. Good evidence against them is valuable.
The argument, as I understand it, is that cancer is caused by mutated DNA, and DNA cannot be mutated by radiation that's too weak to break chemical bonds. Since cell phone radiation doesn't break bonds, it doesn't cause cancer. If Alzheimer's is caused by something other than mutated DNA, the argument doesn't apply.
Similarly, before the industrial revolution it was unfashionable to be tan, since being tan meant that you were working out in the fields. After the industrial revolution, it became fashionable to be tan, because that meant that you weren't in a factory all day.
Also, "Encyclopedic grade writing" has always been pretty terrible. My relatives still have some Britannicas from 1986 in her house, and you wouldn't believe the raw obviousness of some of the mistakes in them, even judging by the knowledge of the time. Encyclopedias have always been freshmen essays into complicated subjects they do not know enough about. The advantage of wikipedia, while no more authoratative, is that hundreds of people with direct experience can correct and expand the articles, whereas traditional encyclopedias are written by staff writers with limited knowledge and stay wrong forever.
That's not true. Look for a copy of the 11th Edition of the Britannica. We found the 1915 edition, in reasonable condition, in a used bookstore for less than $200. Many of the articles were written by the top scholars of the day. Of course, it's not so good for most 20th century events.
Nonsense. Columbus did discover America. He just wasn't the first one to discover it. He didn't know it was there before he found it, so he discovered it. If you find your wife in bed with another man, would you say you didn't discover her infidelity just because she knew about it first?
I second the motion. My wife went to law school after 15 years as an architect. Your experience in the real world will make law school very easy, and your experience in IT will be a great benefit to you as a lawyer.
So you're reading the original Hebrew and Greek texts? Because anything else is an interpretation. Or do you think that one particular translation (into language of your choice) is the correct and ordained one? If so, which?
As they say, if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to entrust it to a valet -- which is nasty, or park away from the place you are going, which once again defeats the privilege that having a driver provides.
No, you'll tell the car to go park itself, and call it on your cell phone to tell it to come pick you up when you're ready.
(I picked the one that zeroed out my taxes for the year. I didn't get audited.)
Yet.
The alleged "authority of experts" is questionable marketing bravado. In the last century, a large percentage of their articles were gleaned from popular media sources of the day and the authors were newspaper and magazine contributors.
We have a copy of the 11th edition, from 1915. It's not so great for recent history, but the list of contributors is impressive. A friend at work asked me to bring him the article on capillary action because he'd heard that it was written by J.Willard. Gibbs (if I remember correctly...). I had to tell him that the article wasn't actually by Gibbs -- he only edited it. It was originally written by some guy named James Clerk Maxwell.
"Discover" doesn't have to mean "first to discover". If you discover that your wife is having an affair, does that mean that she didn't know about it already?
I hadn't heard that interpretation before. I'll ask about it. Thanks.
-- Steve
You must be reading that differently than I am, or talking about a different situation. My program is a large app that might benefit from including some GPL code from elsewhere. It's not an "improvement to a GPL program".
-- Steve
I think you have it backwards. It's ok for my code to be used anywhere. The problem is that I can't use other people's GPL'd code in mine, even though mine is being made available even more freely than GPL'd code.
-- Steve
I work for a US government lab (NIST) and the software I write is freely available and not subject to copyright, by law. I would expect the same rule to apply to NASA. The lack of copyright actually causes a problem for us, because the GPL requires that authors copyright their code so that they can apply the GPL to it. That means that we can't apply the GPL and therefore can't use GPL code. I hope this is the sort of issue that this conference is going to iron out.
-- Steve
I used this strategy
>>> import random
>>> random.choice(["rock", "paper", "scissors"])
>>> etc.
and it still beat me 20-10. I didn't have the patience for a statistically significant number of tries, though.
Of course, most digitals that I've seen have a reasonably functional autofocus
Every one that I've used has been a real pain if you want to focus on something other than what the camera wants you to focus on. I've got lots of nice clear pictures of rocks when I wanted a picture of the person standing behind them.
Though I imagine it would be really incredibly difficult to make a DSL camera take a shot that was deliberately just slightly out of focus.
My DSLR lens has a very easy manual focus override. It even works when the autofocus is turned on. I've never seen a non SLR digitial with a manual focus that was at all convenient.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)
It's much easier to focus on exactly what you want with an SLR, even a digital one.
-- Steve
A "bee-odesic"?
The badgers are just trying to enforce quantum mechanics. The remains are Bozons, and belong all in one grave. If they were Fermions, they'd belong in separate ground states.
Why is this in Idle? It's a real issue, not because the electrosensitives are right, but because they cause real trouble. Good evidence against them is valuable.
The argument, as I understand it, is that cancer is caused by mutated DNA, and DNA cannot be mutated by radiation that's too weak to break chemical bonds. Since cell phone radiation doesn't break bonds, it doesn't cause cancer. If Alzheimer's is caused by something other than mutated DNA, the argument doesn't apply.
Similarly, before the industrial revolution it was unfashionable to be tan, since being tan meant that you were working out in the fields. After the industrial revolution, it became fashionable to be tan, because that meant that you weren't in a factory all day.
Also, "Encyclopedic grade writing" has always been pretty terrible. My relatives still have some Britannicas from 1986 in her house, and you wouldn't believe the raw obviousness of some of the mistakes in them, even judging by the knowledge of the time. Encyclopedias have always been freshmen essays into complicated subjects they do not know enough about. The advantage of wikipedia, while no more authoratative, is that hundreds of people with direct experience can correct and expand the articles, whereas traditional encyclopedias are written by staff writers with limited knowledge and stay wrong forever.
That's not true. Look for a copy of the 11th Edition of the Britannica. We found the 1915 edition, in reasonable condition, in a used bookstore for less than $200. Many of the articles were written by the top scholars of the day. Of course, it's not so good for most 20th century events.
Nonsense. Columbus did discover America. He just wasn't the first one to discover it. He didn't know it was there before he found it, so he discovered it. If you find your wife in bed with another man, would you say you didn't discover her infidelity just because she knew about it first?
-- Steve
I second the motion. My wife went to law school after 15 years as an architect. Your experience in the real world will make law school very easy, and your experience in IT will be a great benefit to you as a lawyer.
-- Steve
My first computer was a Digicomp. It had a hand operated clock and not much RAM (3 bits), but it was lots of fun. Never ever got a BSOD, either.
... but only if they use the iPod's wheel to simulate a rotary-dial phone.
Neutron stars have superfluid cores. Superfluidity isn't quite the same as superconductivity, but it's related. See http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer s/970213.html, for example.
-- Steve