Could you give a reference to the rule you are referring to? I don't know where to look it up and determine that: "The rules for Linux user names say they must not start with a digit"
Others have said that they consider some of the things posted as what they think of as kernel improvements. If those don't meet your criteria, what would? (And remember, we're talking kernel here, not user space.)
Considering the alternatives that he is proposing, and the increasing costs of fabs as features shrink, it might be a good thing.
OTOH, either neuromorphic chips or memory centered chips will drastically redefine the art of programming, possibly rendering current skills obsolete. So it's not likely to be good for the current programmers. (Even multiprocessing needs changes that aren't yet widespread.) The third option, photonic computing, might well not redefine programming, but that's a "might" depending on what the basic elements of logic turn out to be. (If it's NAND or NOR gates we're home free.)
Actually, law doesn't have a scientific meaning. It once did, but that was back when they thought of the universe as being run by the laws of God.
Related scientific terms are things like theory, hypothesis, conjecture, guesstimate, etc. None of them imply perfection. A theory is a hypothesis that has passed several tests. A conjecture is an incompletely formulated hypothesis. And a guesstimate is a conjecture that doesn't have any calculations behind it, but may fit the known data.
When you look at how scientific terms are defined (i.e., there are essentially rough estimates of the probability of correctness, with certainty of either accuracy of falsity being rejected) it's clear whey they don't easily fit into the colloquial.
Is or is not it a wholly owned subsidiary? If it isn't, you might have an argument on that basis. If someone else held majority ownership you would have an argument. As it is, I think the best argument is that the court is requiring people to break the law in the location at which they live and work.
Sorry, but that's the opposite of his proposal. His proposal would be to have MS move to Ireland and open a (wholly owned?) US based subsidiary to do business in the US.
Your definition of fraud is clearly non-standard, which makes your comment difficult to understand. Based on your usage (in the above post) it appears to be approx. "People who assert something I don't accept".
Any hair that can be grabbed is relevant. IIUC Belisarius did enforce it. And bronze blades can't be kept sharp. Obsidian could be, but it's difficult to deal with.
If you want to claim that "all self-professed Yogis are frauds" you are asserting a lie. If you said many, or possibly even most, you'd have a good point. There is no standardization of what is a yoga teacher, and there's can't be, as yoga has so many different schools. OTOH, in many places all you have to do is claim to be a yoga teacher...which makes it an easy place for con-artists to work.
It's basically like claiming that "all preachers are frauds". It's certainly true that many are, but it's also true that many aren't.
If you are thinking of an instructor that didn't believe that yoga included philosophical or spiritual meaning, I doubt he would be a valid instructor in yoga. But there are so many different schools that I could be wrong.
The root of the word yoga means union, and the idea was the union of the practitioner with the universe (in some sense...the schools differ widely about in what sense).
That gets tricky. Sometimes those chants are definitely religious, other times it would be more proper to call them philosophical. (In both cases indoctrination is fair.) But how do you rate them when the chants are in a foreign language (unintelligible to the chanter) and aren't translated?
Not precisely. Some generals required their troops to shave their beards and cut their hair to keep an opponent from grabbing them by the hair. This, of course, was certainly not widespread. Definitely not before the age of easily sharpened razors. But it happened. And it wasn't (in those cases) intended as a sign of shame.
FWIW, it's one thing to feel the described sensation, and it's another to accept the explanation for what causes the sensation. I often have a great deal of problem with accepting the explanation. But it could be that the translator didn't properly understand the original work.
What you need to remember is that there are loads of schools of yoga, and many of them weren't designed to improve your body. Some of them don't even directly address the body.
But even if you restrict the domain to hatha yoga, which is what you are contemplating, it includes things like standing on one leg for hours with your fingers pressed against your palm. This intentionally causes pain, and is not designed to improve your body in any way (though I guess it might improve your balance).
So you need to select the correct yoga. (Yoga basically means union.) Most of those who advertise as yoga teachers in the western world are claiming to benefit the body, but not all, and sometimes their school, while it may have that as a side effect, doesn't really have that as a goal.
Well, one doesn't need to have anticipated this precise incident to have anticipated it. Preventing it, however, is a different matter. The classic way to say this it "You can't make something idiot-proof, because idiots are so ingenious.".
Depends on what you mean by "nearly". If you mean within the life of most readers, I'd agree. But it's not immanent. I'd put it 15-20 years away. The problem is, most tasks that humans do don't require a full-scale human level AI.
Well, one reason is that the "3 laws" were intentionally designed to not be safely implementable. The only "robots" that I can think of that came near to implementing it were "the humanoids" (Williamson), and they were intolerable.
You should notice that this is based on the analysis of a survey, and neither expect that kind of detail, nor give it too high a probability of not being unbiased.
That said, the conclusions listed in the summary (bar a bit of numeric problems) seem quite reasonable. It's been my observation that women are generally more offended by crude language than are men, even when it isn't directed at them.
Currently many more people need to restrict calories than need to add them. There *are* those who need more calories, but it's generally better to get most (not all) of them from proteins and oils. That said, there are people with different metabolisms. But just about nobody needs sugars. The exceptions have medical problems. And even starches aren't really needed, though they are often convenient. (Just don't avoid the fiber, minerals, and vitamins. Whoops! Grains are quite a convenient package.)
I'm no expert in this area, but based on various things I've heard I wouldn't say that the WSJ is still a reputable source for accurate news. What it still has is the reputation as a reputable source for accurate news that it developed under prior owners and managers.
I occasionally find Wikipedia useful, but not all that often. Usually what I'm looking for will be elsewhere. Sometimes Wikipedia will point to it, but it would be better if Google pointed there directly.
Also, Wikipedia often has poor quality information. I never trust anything from Wikipedia that I can't confirm elsewhere. It's a bit more reliable that a random web page, but not a whole bunch more reliable. And there are lots of things it just doesn't cover. (You can't report your original research, e.g.)
Most of them moved to Japan or Taiwan or South Korea. Texas got the residue. (But I hear that many of the early movers moved on to China, and a few of those have started looking at Indonesia.)
Slashdot Mirror
Could you give a reference to the rule you are referring to? I don't know where to look it up and determine that:
"The rules for Linux user names say they must not start with a digit"
What would you count as a kernel improvement?
Others have said that they consider some of the things posted as what they think of as kernel improvements. If those don't meet your criteria, what would? (And remember, we're talking kernel here, not user space.)
IIRC, that bug only existed in MSWind 95A, not even in 95B, much less 98. (They had other problems.)
Considering the alternatives that he is proposing, and the increasing costs of fabs as features shrink, it might be a good thing.
OTOH, either neuromorphic chips or memory centered chips will drastically redefine the art of programming, possibly rendering current skills obsolete. So it's not likely to be good for the current programmers. (Even multiprocessing needs changes that aren't yet widespread.) The third option, photonic computing, might well not redefine programming, but that's a "might" depending on what the basic elements of logic turn out to be. (If it's NAND or NOR gates we're home free.)
Actually, law doesn't have a scientific meaning. It once did, but that was back when they thought of the universe as being run by the laws of God.
Related scientific terms are things like theory, hypothesis, conjecture, guesstimate, etc. None of them imply perfection. A theory is a hypothesis that has passed several tests. A conjecture is an incompletely formulated hypothesis. And a guesstimate is a conjecture that doesn't have any calculations behind it, but may fit the known data.
When you look at how scientific terms are defined (i.e., there are essentially rough estimates of the probability of correctness, with certainty of either accuracy of falsity being rejected) it's clear whey they don't easily fit into the colloquial.
Is or is not it a wholly owned subsidiary? If it isn't, you might have an argument on that basis. If someone else held majority ownership you would have an argument. As it is, I think the best argument is that the court is requiring people to break the law in the location at which they live and work.
Sorry, but that's the opposite of his proposal. His proposal would be to have MS move to Ireland and open a (wholly owned?) US based subsidiary to do business in the US.
Your definition of fraud is clearly non-standard, which makes your comment difficult to understand. Based on your usage (in the above post) it appears to be approx. "People who assert something I don't accept".
Any hair that can be grabbed is relevant. IIUC Belisarius did enforce it. And bronze blades can't be kept sharp. Obsidian could be, but it's difficult to deal with.
If you want to claim that "all self-professed Yogis are frauds" you are asserting a lie. If you said many, or possibly even most, you'd have a good point. There is no standardization of what is a yoga teacher, and there's can't be, as yoga has so many different schools. OTOH, in many places all you have to do is claim to be a yoga teacher...which makes it an easy place for con-artists to work.
It's basically like claiming that "all preachers are frauds". It's certainly true that many are, but it's also true that many aren't.
If you are thinking of an instructor that didn't believe that yoga included philosophical or spiritual meaning, I doubt he would be a valid instructor in yoga. But there are so many different schools that I could be wrong.
The root of the word yoga means union, and the idea was the union of the practitioner with the universe (in some sense...the schools differ widely about in what sense).
That gets tricky. Sometimes those chants are definitely religious, other times it would be more proper to call them philosophical. (In both cases indoctrination is fair.) But how do you rate them when the chants are in a foreign language (unintelligible to the chanter) and aren't translated?
Not precisely. Some generals required their troops to shave their beards and cut their hair to keep an opponent from grabbing them by the hair. This, of course, was certainly not widespread. Definitely not before the age of easily sharpened razors. But it happened. And it wasn't (in those cases) intended as a sign of shame.
FWIW, it's one thing to feel the described sensation, and it's another to accept the explanation for what causes the sensation. I often have a great deal of problem with accepting the explanation. But it could be that the translator didn't properly understand the original work.
What you need to remember is that there are loads of schools of yoga, and many of them weren't designed to improve your body. Some of them don't even directly address the body.
But even if you restrict the domain to hatha yoga, which is what you are contemplating, it includes things like standing on one leg for hours with your fingers pressed against your palm. This intentionally causes pain, and is not designed to improve your body in any way (though I guess it might improve your balance).
So you need to select the correct yoga. (Yoga basically means union.) Most of those who advertise as yoga teachers in the western world are claiming to benefit the body, but not all, and sometimes their school, while it may have that as a side effect, doesn't really have that as a goal.
Well, one doesn't need to have anticipated this precise incident to have anticipated it. Preventing it, however, is a different matter. The classic way to say this it "You can't make something idiot-proof, because idiots are so ingenious.".
Depends on what you mean by "nearly". If you mean within the life of most readers, I'd agree. But it's not immanent. I'd put it 15-20 years away. The problem is, most tasks that humans do don't require a full-scale human level AI.
Well, one reason is that the "3 laws" were intentionally designed to not be safely implementable. The only "robots" that I can think of that came near to implementing it were "the humanoids" (Williamson), and they were intolerable.
Both. Into the same hive. But perhaps it would be more ecological to use a hornets nest or two.
You should notice that this is based on the analysis of a survey, and neither expect that kind of detail, nor give it too high a probability of not being unbiased.
That said, the conclusions listed in the summary (bar a bit of numeric problems) seem quite reasonable. It's been my observation that women are generally more offended by crude language than are men, even when it isn't directed at them.
Currently many more people need to restrict calories than need to add them. There *are* those who need more calories, but it's generally better to get most (not all) of them from proteins and oils. That said, there are people with different metabolisms. But just about nobody needs sugars. The exceptions have medical problems. And even starches aren't really needed, though they are often convenient. (Just don't avoid the fiber, minerals, and vitamins. Whoops! Grains are quite a convenient package.)
I'm no expert in this area, but based on various things I've heard I wouldn't say that the WSJ is still a reputable source for accurate news. What it still has is the reputation as a reputable source for accurate news that it developed under prior owners and managers.
I occasionally find Wikipedia useful, but not all that often. Usually what I'm looking for will be elsewhere. Sometimes Wikipedia will point to it, but it would be better if Google pointed there directly.
Also, Wikipedia often has poor quality information. I never trust anything from Wikipedia that I can't confirm elsewhere. It's a bit more reliable that a random web page, but not a whole bunch more reliable. And there are lots of things it just doesn't cover. (You can't report your original research, e.g.)
Most of them moved to Japan or Taiwan or South Korea. Texas got the residue. (But I hear that many of the early movers moved on to China, and a few of those have started looking at Indonesia.)
The problem with your comment is that you are assuming the two used of "they" refer to the same groups of people (though there *is* overlap).