"More out than in" is actually not a bad definition of an exothermic reaction. Of course, you're ignoring the whole "converting energy from one form to another" aspect.
What's the alternative though? That you're allowed to contest a charge from 18 months ago?
I agree that there should be some flexibility but it goes both ways; people really should be checking their statements regularly and challenging anything suspicious immediately.
That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.
That depends entirely on how the repository is structured. I'm assuming though that 2.2 and 2.3 are separate trees/branches/repositories/whatever, in which case it's perfectly possible to delete the files from the current revision on those branches too. Given that the legal status of these files is in question, it would be wisest to completely remove the files - even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
I disagree - Skype *is* extremely popular, and this *will* affect millions of people. Besides, do you really think a Skype exec would publicly say that their software causes serious performance problems?
Your other points are all true but really have nothing to do with the summary, which is simply a statement of facts.
Actually in the past I've seen a lot of pages that don't contain one or more of the terms, then on viewing the cached version of the page it turns out that the missing words only appear in links to that page.
For my part, almost any search for reviews of products will see results heavily dominated by price comparison and shopping sites, all of which allow user-posted reviews, almost none of which actually have any reviews.
From time to time searching on error messages and related tech stuff throws up pages of mailing list/forum/Usenet archive sites reposting identical copies of mostly or wholly useless threads. Not spam per se, but definitely not useful.
Personally as a UK citizen I'd much rather they paid someone who knew what they were doing to do it properly than just "wiped the disks".
For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
But how do you steal my credit card and bank details by hacking some random webserver?
More to the point, the vast majority of Windows exploits are trojans. Those webservers are (mostly) maintained by sysadmins unlikely to execute the "shocking pics.zip.exe" file someone emailed them unexpectedly.
That sounds great for fraud prevention, but a lot more effort than just shoving my card in the reader and tapping in my PIN.
(YMMV according to availability of "chip and PIN" payment systems in your country, of course, but that's how it works here in the UK and much of the rest of Europe)
You think it should be possible for a user to trivially install a virus/trojan on their computer? You're blaming the user? Really?
Yes, yes I am. There is absolutely nothing the OS can do to prevent a user with administrative access from installing and running software of their choice. It can warn them, it can prompt to see if they're sure, it can require the admin password, but ultimately it can't prevent them without forcing them to log out and in as a different user, or reboot into a special maintenance mode, or something else that would be greeted with howls of outrage from the user community.
Reading email should be dead simple and safe.
And so it is. Installing or running arbitrary software from unknown and untrusted sources never has been and never will be.
Internet atheism is in many cases a circle-jerk that is at odds with serious scholarship.
That claim can also be levelled at just about anything on the Internet though, atheism is by no means unique in that. In almost every group there exist a greater or lesser number of people who just parrot whatever soundbites they happen to think sound the best without stopping to investigate their veracity.
that kind of careful argumentation is ignored by the New Atheists and their acolytes because it's too much work
Again, the only theists I've ever argued with do the equivalent, arguing based purely on faith with no reference to anything else.
That said I am not attempting to argue against your main assertion, that the majority of atheists who think they know Christianity in detail almost certainly do not.
We understand it, but that does not mean that we have to quietly accept every change, that we're not allowed to contact them and say "Woah, hang on - if that's the price then I for one am not willing to pay it!"
A black hole simply gets so massive that at one point the gravitational pull is so strong that not even light can escape.
Actually that's a good working definition of a black hole - if its gravity weren't that strong, it wouldn't be one.
It will have objects orbitting around it like planets orbit stars
Yes...
except at distances far greater than a star would normally hold.
...and no, not necessarily. That depends entirely upon the mass of the hole. The gravitational field of a black hole at a given distance is no different than that generated by a star of the same mass at the same distance; the difference is that the hole is so much smaller that you can get much closer to its centre. That vastly reduces the r in GM/(r^2), thus increasing the maximum gravity that can be experienced.
When observing a black hole, the light behind the black hole will get sucked into the black hole if it happens to cross the event horizon. This will create a nice black circle in the sky.
The situation is a little more complicated than that thanks to gravitational lensing, but essentially you're correct - a black hole will block light, while dark matter does not.
You weren't given the numbers directly, but they were effectively written on pieces of paper and left face up in a box that you have easy access to, should you wish to peek in and take a look. Your phone did that for you.
get rid of all unnecessary meetings (those that do not directly move the project forward)
A couple of years ago I was leading a team of 5 developers on a project, as well as developing one of the functional areas myself. My project manager had me booked in to a total of a day's worth of meetings a week - I would have burnt literally 20% of my time just on meetings.
I dealt with that by simply not turning up to all but 1 of them (the weekly status meeting). I said that if I was actually needed I was available to be called in, otherwise, I had more pressing matters to attend to. It worked very well.
encourage working off-site and/or out-of-hours when deep concentration is required
Unfortunately in my experience rather too many managers think that people need to be *seen* to be working, as well as actually producing results.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually his problem is equating "using a longer cable" with "receiving, re-encoding, and re-transmitting".
"More out than in" is actually not a bad definition of an exothermic reaction. Of course, you're ignoring the whole "converting energy from one form to another" aspect.
What's the alternative though? That you're allowed to contest a charge from 18 months ago?
I agree that there should be some flexibility but it goes both ways; people really should be checking their statements regularly and challenging anything suspicious immediately.
The beginning of the US seems like a long time ago to us, but to the rest of the world, we are still kids.
That's possibly because a lot of us have been in buildings that are older than your country.
It didn't quite work that way in the MP expenses scandal, though admittedly only three(?) were ever actually brought to trial.
That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.
That depends entirely on how the repository is structured. I'm assuming though that 2.2 and 2.3 are separate trees/branches/repositories/whatever, in which case it's perfectly possible to delete the files from the current revision on those branches too. Given that the legal status of these files is in question, it would be wisest to completely remove the files - even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
I disagree - Skype *is* extremely popular, and this *will* affect millions of people. Besides, do you really think a Skype exec would publicly say that their software causes serious performance problems?
Your other points are all true but really have nothing to do with the summary, which is simply a statement of facts.
Actually in the past I've seen a lot of pages that don't contain one or more of the terms, then on viewing the cached version of the page it turns out that the missing words only appear in links to that page.
I don't know if that's changed recently though.
For my part, almost any search for reviews of products will see results heavily dominated by price comparison and shopping sites, all of which allow user-posted reviews, almost none of which actually have any reviews.
From time to time searching on error messages and related tech stuff throws up pages of mailing list/forum/Usenet archive sites reposting identical copies of mostly or wholly useless threads. Not spam per se, but definitely not useful.
Personally as a UK citizen I'd much rather they paid someone who knew what they were doing to do it properly than just "wiped the disks".
For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)
They're not worried about piracy, they're worried about spoilers.
The ARTICLE may *infer*
No, the article may not infer.
You may infer. The article may imply.
You're going to need a really good policy argument to explain why we should strip IP protection from a multi-trillion dollar industry, particularly in this economy.
Software is covered by copyright; removing the ability to patent it would not strip the industry of IP protection.
But how do you steal my credit card and bank details by hacking some random webserver?
More to the point, the vast majority of Windows exploits are trojans. Those webservers are (mostly) maintained by sysadmins unlikely to execute the "shocking pics.zip.exe" file someone emailed them unexpectedly.
I assume by "=" you actually mean "<=", right?
That sounds great for fraud prevention, but a lot more effort than just shoving my card in the reader and tapping in my PIN.
(YMMV according to availability of "chip and PIN" payment systems in your country, of course, but that's how it works here in the UK and much of the rest of Europe)
Not using a trademark doesn't lose it, but not defending it when someone else uses it can.
But that's ok because Linux doesn't get viruses, right?
You think it should be possible for a user to trivially install a virus/trojan on their computer? You're blaming the user? Really?
Yes, yes I am. There is absolutely nothing the OS can do to prevent a user with administrative access from installing and running software of their choice. It can warn them, it can prompt to see if they're sure, it can require the admin password, but ultimately it can't prevent them without forcing them to log out and in as a different user, or reboot into a special maintenance mode, or something else that would be greeted with howls of outrage from the user community.
Reading email should be dead simple and safe.
And so it is. Installing or running arbitrary software from unknown and untrusted sources never has been and never will be.
Internet atheism is in many cases a circle-jerk that is at odds with serious scholarship.
That claim can also be levelled at just about anything on the Internet though, atheism is by no means unique in that. In almost every group there exist a greater or lesser number of people who just parrot whatever soundbites they happen to think sound the best without stopping to investigate their veracity.
that kind of careful argumentation is ignored by the New Atheists and their acolytes because it's too much work
Again, the only theists I've ever argued with do the equivalent, arguing based purely on faith with no reference to anything else.
That said I am not attempting to argue against your main assertion, that the majority of atheists who think they know Christianity in detail almost certainly do not.
file permissions etc. make things easier to lock down
I really don't understand that statement - are you trying to say that Windows doesn't support fine-grained file permissions?
We understand it, but that does not mean that we have to quietly accept every change, that we're not allowed to contact them and say "Woah, hang on - if that's the price then I for one am not willing to pay it!"
A black hole simply gets so massive that at one point the gravitational pull is so strong that not even light can escape.
Actually that's a good working definition of a black hole - if its gravity weren't that strong, it wouldn't be one.
It will have objects orbitting around it like planets orbit stars
Yes...
except at distances far greater than a star would normally hold.
...and no, not necessarily. That depends entirely upon the mass of the hole. The gravitational field of a black hole at a given distance is no different than that generated by a star of the same mass at the same distance; the difference is that the hole is so much smaller that you can get much closer to its centre. That vastly reduces the r in GM/(r^2), thus increasing the maximum gravity that can be experienced.
When observing a black hole, the light behind the black hole will get sucked into the black hole if it happens to cross the event horizon. This will create a nice black circle in the sky.
The situation is a little more complicated than that thanks to gravitational lensing, but essentially you're correct - a black hole will block light, while dark matter does not.
You weren't given the numbers directly, but they were effectively written on pieces of paper and left face up in a box that you have easy access to, should you wish to peek in and take a look. Your phone did that for you.
get rid of all unnecessary meetings (those that do not directly move the project forward)
A couple of years ago I was leading a team of 5 developers on a project, as well as developing one of the functional areas myself. My project manager had me booked in to a total of a day's worth of meetings a week - I would have burnt literally 20% of my time just on meetings.
I dealt with that by simply not turning up to all but 1 of them (the weekly status meeting). I said that if I was actually needed I was available to be called in, otherwise, I had more pressing matters to attend to. It worked very well.
encourage working off-site and/or out-of-hours when deep concentration is required
Unfortunately in my experience rather too many managers think that people need to be *seen* to be working, as well as actually producing results.