Firecracker doesn't quite sound like the description, but if it was, as some are suggesting, thermite, it certainly wasn't well prepared.
P.S.: I know of no reason to believe that it was thermite, except that that is consistent with known facts. But so is potato fertilizer. And, for that matter, so is flour. Thermite is more exciting, but there's no visible evidence. His pants did catch on fire, but we don't know why. Lighter fluid would be enough to cause that, and it *is* a liquid.
*If* he was a "serious terrorist" who was just incompetent, then thermite is a reasonable suggestion. But there's still no evidence. If he's a loony who's also incompetent, then flour plus lighter fluid is reasonable. Or it could be something in between. Whoever knows the facts isn't seeing fit to release them, which causes me to lean towards lighter fluid + flour.
Sorry, it's the US that's been dropping into second or third world status. If you haven't noticed it, either you're pretty isolated, or you're quite young. I'd guess teens. (I.e., you haven't observed much yourself, and are depending on what other people are telling you.)
---caution, non-standard term use follows--- The US is still a pretty strong military power...but that doesn't translate into good living conditions. And the concentration of wealth into the hands of only a few families, as is progressively happening, is a characteristic of third world countries. In the second wolrd, the wealth equivalents are concentrated into politically powerful individuals and organizations. We also show tendencies in that direction. In the first world the wealth is rather statically concentrated into the hands of either power families of politically powerful individuals (not exclusive, of course), but they are generally more interested in maintaining the status quo than in further imbalancing the social structure.
WRT the file management dialog itself, the important thing is being able to see the entire file path (as opposed to separate buttons). Once I figured that out (actually, someone on/. told me), the Gnome file dialog receded into imperceptibility. It's no longer annoying, so I don't notice it. (And I have no idea what either the Konqueror or Dolphin file dialogs are like, so they must also be acceptable.)
P.S.: I've never been sure WHAT the "spatial view" meant. Apparently it actually refers to something concrete, but I don't know what. (If it's the spreading the file path across a bunch of buttons, then get rid of it quickly!)
That's true, but the reason that I noticed in the article was to allow for closed components to be included. One doesn't need to close the main structure if all of the distributed components become closed. (To be fair, this wasn't indicated as the reason. I just don't trust Mono. Or Miguel. Or anything he says. I neither use nor install Mono, so if you believe that you can give moderate trust to anything I say in it's favour.)
If that's your "even bigger", then I can't take your worries very seriously. I could even suggest that you might BUY some support, and not need to worry about someone berating you.
My suspicion is that your worries are either other than what you admit, or that you aren't serious. Astro-turfer and troll are two possibilities that I considered...and I haven't ruled them out, but....
Taking you at your word, what you're saying is that your employer is both cheap and paranoid. It doesn't want to pay for value, and it is afraid that someone will say nasty things to or about it. I admit that there are such companies, but usually they are already in decline. I'd say it's time to look for another job.
I don't remember Firebird vs. Firebird as a legal case, bur rather as a PR case. And I was (and am) totally on Firebird's (the database) side, even though I've never used it. They had the name first.
Technically, I'm not sure they could have won a court case, as the two names WERE used in separate areas, but they should have been more respectful. FireFox, however, is a really nice name. (And, IIRC, Firefox changed it's name from Phoenix to Firebird because of a legal suit, so that may be what you're remembering.)
No, they shouldn't be treated as persons. They shouldn't have the rights guaranteed to people by the constitution. Those rights should vest in individual people, and so should the responsibilities. You can't throw a corporation in jail, and it's been a very long time since one has been killed for violating the law. (I believe that Louisiana used to do that.) They don't age.
They just AREN'T people, and shouldn't be considered as such. They should be held to different standards, and should have different rights (if any). I'd be more willing to consider a hamster a person. At least it's a unified entity.
I don't know about #GPL, but the traditional "free the code" remedy that the FSF, etc. use is just traditional. Any developer whose copyrights are violated can hire a lawyer and try for actual damages. (Statutory damages require that the copyright have been registered, and are only effective from the date of registration.)
The FSF tries to negotiate the "free the code" remedies without going into court. If they are ignored until they *do* go into court, they'd probably ask for at least lawyers' fees, and possibly for anything up to the recall of all distributed merchandise. (Who can tell what a court would decide was fair?)
Caution: IANAL. This advice may be worth less than what you paid for it.
There ARE good reasons for calling MS hypocrites, but this isn't one. Decisions taken at this level aren't unified. Calling MS hypocrites over this is rather like calling Slashdot hypocrites for taking different sides on related stories. Usually the different sides are taken by separate people without coordination...and that's probably what happened here. I'd bet large money that the people who ripped off the code had no direct relationship or coordination with the ones who were planting media stories about how evil pirates were.
Corporations aren't people, and they shouldn't be treated as if they were.
The form I used was the plural form. I'm not referring to one particular observation, but rather to a series of observations of which I noticed one distinctive feature. This particular feature corroborates the results that a few studies I've read reports of came to.
If you have a different set of experiences, there may well be reasons. I, however, don't know what they are.
Everything you say is true, and it's still true that the earth is relatively placid most of the time. Most of the shifts you are talking about took place in a very short time, and most of the time is spent in between the events. (Climate change seems to be an exception, but even there dramatic shifts tend to take place quickly. It's just that you also get slow drifts.)
And, yes, vinyards now exist in England. The world is a lot warmer than it was. And that has been a slow change (on human scales---it's rather instantaneous on even a historic scale, much less a geologic scale).
Yes, the post was blatantly foolish, and the precise method proposed would be silly. I'm not certain that some analogous method wouldn't be worthwhile. OTOH, I'm also not convinced that the whole idea isn't silly. (And, yes, Plowshare is one of the things I was thinking of. *Then* we decided it was a bad idea. Perhaps we were right. OTOH, there might be some modification of the idea that would be reasonable.)
I don't know how dangerous "dangerous as people make them out to be" is. I've read studies that placed them as more dangerous than driving on marijuana (how much?), but less dangerous than alcohol. I'm not sure just how dangerous that means, but I've noticed people talking on cell phones and driving recklessly. Perhaps that's just the normal way they drive?
Not so. The earth is normally in a rather placid state, as it is at this instant. But occasional events happen which are neither placid nor safe. And they happen on a large number of scales. But almost all of the time, at any particular scale, things are relatively stable. Those aren't, however, the parts that are memorable or newsworthy.
E.g., there have been several major extinction events, but there's been only one that killed off over 90% of all species living at the time. (I didn't put a precise number on the major extinction events, because I don't want to define major, and also because the further back one looks the fuzzier one's distinction is WRT precise timing. But around seven.)
Or, another example, the super-volcano that created Yellowstone. It wiped out most species from coast to coast. But as far as I know, it's only happened once. Rare. (There've been signs that it may be revving it's engines for another blast...but it could easily be a false warning. I haven't heard anything about it for the last year, but that doesn't mean anything on the time scale at which this operates.) But MOST of the time it's quite placid, merely producing a bunch of geysers.
If you read the entire proposal, he mentioned that as one of the benefits. (Avoid global warming.)
FWIW, most of the objections are silly. If you use an underground nuclear blast, most of the radioactivity stays in place. In this case you'd want to emplace them close enough to the surface that the cavern melted by the bomb collapsed...that being kind of the point.
I don't know that the proposal is practical, but it's not blatantly obvious that it isn't.
A true spirit of science requires that you remain open minded. Period. Forever. And never reach certainty.
This means that all actions are taken against a background of uncertainty. That's the way the world is, and lying about it doesn't make it any better. All you can say is that one interpretation of the perceived facts is more probable than another. And *NOW* is when action is possible. You can't act in either the past or the future, but only in the now.
Being open minded doesn't mean being indecisive. It just means accepting that any action you take might not be the correct one. You can only make your best guess.
OTOH, generally depending on prohibition is a poor choice. Even if you can make it work, the process of so doing damages the society that does it. So come up with another way.
Possibly all cars should have a mandatory cell-phone jammer installed within them. This has the disadvantage that it's an extra expense, and it also prevents passengers from using cell phones. But it may well be woth that cost.
You definition of "victimless crimes" and mine differ significantly. OTOH, I agree, it should just be classified as reckless driving, and no special law should be needed.
But when someone presents a "clear and present danger", as does anyone who is talking on a cell-phone while driving, then that's not a victimless crime. They are denying everyone else the right to a relatively safe road even before they have an accident.
How about also painting the car they were in lavender with bright pink spots. And make them pay for it. And forbid the car being repainted for 3 years. (That'd do interesting things to it's resale value. But maybe you should just forbid them from driving any other car...though there enforcement would, again, be a problem. So just forbid them from buying or renting any other car for 3 years.)
That's probably the best answer, but it looks like being about a decade away. (I.e., the first working lab model appeared last year...and it wasn't good enough to count as a prototype.)
Training won't suffice. If the police are acting as you describe, then they are being unsafe drivers. Divided attention means MUCH less attention to each part. You need the attention to do each part, and you also need some attention to manage the coordination. (This isn't just theoretical, there's also experimental evidence.)
Slashdot Mirror
Firecracker doesn't quite sound like the description, but if it was, as some are suggesting, thermite, it certainly wasn't well prepared.
P.S.: I know of no reason to believe that it was thermite, except that that is consistent with known facts. But so is potato fertilizer. And, for that matter, so is flour. Thermite is more exciting, but there's no visible evidence. His pants did catch on fire, but we don't know why. Lighter fluid would be enough to cause that, and it *is* a liquid.
*If* he was a "serious terrorist" who was just incompetent, then thermite is a reasonable suggestion. But there's still no evidence. If he's a loony who's also incompetent, then flour plus lighter fluid is reasonable. Or it could be something in between. Whoever knows the facts isn't seeing fit to release them, which causes me to lean towards lighter fluid + flour.
Sorry, it's the US that's been dropping into second or third world status. If you haven't noticed it, either you're pretty isolated, or you're quite young. I'd guess teens. (I.e., you haven't observed much yourself, and are depending on what other people are telling you.)
---caution, non-standard term use follows---
The US is still a pretty strong military power...but that doesn't translate into good living conditions. And the concentration of wealth into the hands of only a few families, as is progressively happening, is a characteristic of third world countries. In the second wolrd, the wealth equivalents are concentrated into politically powerful individuals and organizations. We also show tendencies in that direction. In the first world the wealth is rather statically concentrated into the hands of either power families of politically powerful individuals (not exclusive, of course), but they are generally more interested in maintaining the status quo than in further imbalancing the social structure.
WRT the file management dialog itself, the important thing is being able to see the entire file path (as opposed to separate buttons). Once I figured that out (actually, someone on /. told me), the Gnome file dialog receded into imperceptibility. It's no longer annoying, so I don't notice it. (And I have no idea what either the Konqueror or Dolphin file dialogs are like, so they must also be acceptable.)
P.S.: I've never been sure WHAT the "spatial view" meant. Apparently it actually refers to something concrete, but I don't know what. (If it's the spreading the file path across a bunch of buttons, then get rid of it quickly!)
That's a pity. Konqueror is a much better application for the function than Dolphin.
That's true, but the reason that I noticed in the article was to allow for closed components to be included. One doesn't need to close the main structure if all of the distributed components become closed. (To be fair, this wasn't indicated as the reason. I just don't trust Mono. Or Miguel. Or anything he says. I neither use nor install Mono, so if you believe that you can give moderate trust to anything I say in it's favour.)
If that's your "even bigger", then I can't take your worries very seriously. I could even suggest that you might BUY some support, and not need to worry about someone berating you.
My suspicion is that your worries are either other than what you admit, or that you aren't serious. Astro-turfer and troll are two possibilities that I considered...and I haven't ruled them out, but ....
Taking you at your word, what you're saying is that your employer is both cheap and paranoid. It doesn't want to pay for value, and it is afraid that someone will say nasty things to or about it. I admit that there are such companies, but usually they are already in decline. I'd say it's time to look for another job.
The idea that King James could be considered a liberal... Well, it's a bit beyond my boggle threshold.
I don't remember Firebird vs. Firebird as a legal case, bur rather as a PR case. And I was (and am) totally on Firebird's (the database) side, even though I've never used it. They had the name first.
Technically, I'm not sure they could have won a court case, as the two names WERE used in separate areas, but they should have been more respectful. FireFox, however, is a really nice name. (And, IIRC, Firefox changed it's name from Phoenix to Firebird because of a legal suit, so that may be what you're remembering.)
No, they shouldn't be treated as persons. They shouldn't have the rights guaranteed to people by the constitution. Those rights should vest in individual people, and so should the responsibilities. You can't throw a corporation in jail, and it's been a very long time since one has been killed for violating the law. (I believe that Louisiana used to do that.) They don't age.
They just AREN'T people, and shouldn't be considered as such. They should be held to different standards, and should have different rights (if any). I'd be more willing to consider a hamster a person. At least it's a unified entity.
I don't know about #GPL, but the traditional "free the code" remedy that the FSF, etc. use is just traditional. Any developer whose copyrights are violated can hire a lawyer and try for actual damages. (Statutory damages require that the copyright have been registered, and are only effective from the date of registration.)
The FSF tries to negotiate the "free the code" remedies without going into court. If they are ignored until they *do* go into court, they'd probably ask for at least lawyers' fees, and possibly for anything up to the recall of all distributed merchandise. (Who can tell what a court would decide was fair?)
Caution: IANAL. This advice may be worth less than what you paid for it.
If that goes off, there are at least two reasons I won't be worrying about global warming anymore.
There ARE good reasons for calling MS hypocrites, but this isn't one. Decisions taken at this level aren't unified. Calling MS hypocrites over this is rather like calling Slashdot hypocrites for taking different sides on related stories. Usually the different sides are taken by separate people without coordination...and that's probably what happened here. I'd bet large money that the people who ripped off the code had no direct relationship or coordination with the ones who were planting media stories about how evil pirates were.
Corporations aren't people, and they shouldn't be treated as if they were.
The form I used was the plural form. I'm not referring to one particular observation, but rather to a series of observations of which I noticed one distinctive feature. This particular feature corroborates the results that a few studies I've read reports of came to.
If you have a different set of experiences, there may well be reasons. I, however, don't know what they are.
Everything you say is true, and it's still true that the earth is relatively placid most of the time. Most of the shifts you are talking about took place in a very short time, and most of the time is spent in between the events. (Climate change seems to be an exception, but even there dramatic shifts tend to take place quickly. It's just that you also get slow drifts.)
And, yes, vinyards now exist in England. The world is a lot warmer than it was. And that has been a slow change (on human scales---it's rather instantaneous on even a historic scale, much less a geologic scale).
Yes, the post was blatantly foolish, and the precise method proposed would be silly. I'm not certain that some analogous method wouldn't be worthwhile. OTOH, I'm also not convinced that the whole idea isn't silly. (And, yes, Plowshare is one of the things I was thinking of. *Then* we decided it was a bad idea. Perhaps we were right. OTOH, there might be some modification of the idea that would be reasonable.)
I don't know how dangerous "dangerous as people make them out to be" is. I've read studies that placed them as more dangerous than driving on marijuana (how much?), but less dangerous than alcohol. I'm not sure just how dangerous that means, but I've noticed people talking on cell phones and driving recklessly. Perhaps that's just the normal way they drive?
Not so. The earth is normally in a rather placid state, as it is at this instant. But occasional events happen which are neither placid nor safe. And they happen on a large number of scales. But almost all of the time, at any particular scale, things are relatively stable. Those aren't, however, the parts that are memorable or newsworthy.
E.g., there have been several major extinction events, but there's been only one that killed off over 90% of all species living at the time. (I didn't put a precise number on the major extinction events, because I don't want to define major, and also because the further back one looks the fuzzier one's distinction is WRT precise timing. But around seven.)
Or, another example, the super-volcano that created Yellowstone. It wiped out most species from coast to coast. But as far as I know, it's only happened once. Rare. (There've been signs that it may be revving it's engines for another blast...but it could easily be a false warning. I haven't heard anything about it for the last year, but that doesn't mean anything on the time scale at which this operates.) But MOST of the time it's quite placid, merely producing a bunch of geysers.
If you read the entire proposal, he mentioned that as one of the benefits. (Avoid global warming.)
FWIW, most of the objections are silly. If you use an underground nuclear blast, most of the radioactivity stays in place. In this case you'd want to emplace them close enough to the surface that the cavern melted by the bomb collapsed...that being kind of the point.
I don't know that the proposal is practical, but it's not blatantly obvious that it isn't.
A true spirit of science requires that you remain open minded. Period. Forever. And never reach certainty.
This means that all actions are taken against a background of uncertainty. That's the way the world is, and lying about it doesn't make it any better. All you can say is that one interpretation of the perceived facts is more probable than another. And *NOW* is when action is possible. You can't act in either the past or the future, but only in the now.
Being open minded doesn't mean being indecisive. It just means accepting that any action you take might not be the correct one. You can only make your best guess.
He's probably not quite that bad. Close, though.
Yes. Almost no Jews or Muslim eat pork.
OTOH, generally depending on prohibition is a poor choice. Even if you can make it work, the process of so doing damages the society that does it. So come up with another way.
Possibly all cars should have a mandatory cell-phone jammer installed within them. This has the disadvantage that it's an extra expense, and it also prevents passengers from using cell phones. But it may well be woth that cost.
What solution(s) would you propose?
You definition of "victimless crimes" and mine differ significantly. OTOH, I agree, it should just be classified as reckless driving, and no special law should be needed.
But when someone presents a "clear and present danger", as does anyone who is talking on a cell-phone while driving, then that's not a victimless crime. They are denying everyone else the right to a relatively safe road even before they have an accident.
How about also painting the car they were in lavender with bright pink spots. And make them pay for it. And forbid the car being repainted for 3 years. (That'd do interesting things to it's resale value. But maybe you should just forbid them from driving any other car...though there enforcement would, again, be a problem. So just forbid them from buying or renting any other car for 3 years.)
That's probably the best answer, but it looks like being about a decade away. (I.e., the first working lab model appeared last year...and it wasn't good enough to count as a prototype.)
Training won't suffice. If the police are acting as you describe, then they are being unsafe drivers. Divided attention means MUCH less attention to each part. You need the attention to do each part, and you also need some attention to manage the coordination. (This isn't just theoretical, there's also experimental evidence.)