We enjoy the slashdot system because we don't mind rehashing the same discussions every time a new story comes up, but it's more than a little redundant.
I would detach comment threads from the stories and tag them; old comment threads could get automatically attached to a new story that's similarly tagged, and then moderated down if it's no longer applicable or up if there's nothing new to say; presumably, some sort of pruning or metamoderation to cut it down to only the best posts. In theory, wise posts could actually have f--king staying power instead of being one-offs on the latest sensationalist headline that have to get rewritten every time a site moderator reposts f--king bullshit that's not actually news until everyone gets tired of writing it, and we could stop pretending that repeating the same damn truths as last week makes you 'insightful,' 'interesting', or 'informative.'
Someone spoke on the phone is a South Asian language that was "ambient noise". Why didn't I think that Indian lady was plotting against me?
1) GP was talking about people with a brain dysfunction. That is to say, whose heads are not functioning normally. That said...
2) You don't think she's plotting against you because you have no reason to suspect so. If you'd been hearing unintelligible whispers all day, hushed voices in every shadowy nook along your route to work, and they seemed to sound much like her voice as you hear it on the train, you might consciously suspect that you were being followed and begin becoming paranoid, especially if you had begun to panic earlier in the day (violent sounds and then what sounds like laughter, or other evidence of being hunted/tailed, etc). If your anxiety really begins to rise, it can be very easy for conscious logic to fall by the wayside. If this happens every day for months, you could be a goner.
Which is to say, one or two faulty parts in a brain can be enough to screw you up. Aside from thinking you hear whispers (and other paranoid affectations), you'd be just the same as you are now, only you have reason to suspect things that just plain aren't true, and you can't find a way to go back to where you were before you started hearing them, because it's a brain affectation and not a mental one (presumably).
Actually, there are existing regulations at NASA such that any rocket that veers off course will self-destruct, because rocket fuel is nasty, powerful, volatile stuff that you don't want near populated areas. So believe it or not, there are mandatory explosives involved in space flight.
i know a lot of teenagers and adults with immature teenaged mentalities thinks government secrets are pure evil, but guess what: when it comes to fighting terrorism, they are absolutely necessary. for example: do you think bin laden would be alive or dead right now if the intel that led to him were more widely available?
Hey, guess what sunshine: you're not talking about fighting terrorism, you're talking about fighting terrorists. The institution of terrorism--that is, the mindset that gives birth to people who think "Yes, blowing up civilians is a perfectly acceptable tactic"--requires the idea that you can't change the system, that weak people don't have a voice, and that people can't escape from suffering without violence. All of those things are enhanced when governments are allowed to keep secrets. Similarly, every country leader everywhere who's a giant asshole is sitting pretty on their throne because the people who could do something about it--foreign or domestic--don't know how to stop them without unending sacrifices or oodles of cash that they either can't or refuse to afford.
Every human being in existence searches for a means to their ends. Terrorism is a means. It is a well-known means in their part of the world, and it is one that many people feel pressured towards. The ends? Common things like not dying, and keeping their families from dying, driving off a race of people that they're quite sure are going to murder them in their sleep, that sort of thing. It's a social problem, not a military one, and there's no military way to end it short of genocide or... benevolent despotism.
If you want to fight terrorists, fight them, keeping whatever secrets you like along the way. When you decide you want the conflict to end instead, we'll be waiting.
thanks to wikileaks leading to a decrease in information sharing between departments, maybe we'll have another intelligence failure
That won't happen unless the intelligence agencies are understaffed/underfunded and without a clear and overriding mandate to fix the problem. So yes, I imagine it's going to happen. Believe it or not? It's not actually that hard. Since the computer revolution started, the entirety of the world has started working on ways to share data and ways to secure it. One full generation has grown to maturity with the internet being a fact of everyday life. There are experts on the subject. There are professionals. There are multitudes of volumes of work on the subject. And if none of that is used because the government's stupid, then the reason for the inevitable failure is the government's stupidity, not because someone pointed it out.
If your choice of invective is "grow up and understand," try to think things through a little better.
I might be being dense but I don't really understand that. All that's happening is the 3DS is rendering an 800x240 image. Sure, half those (vertical) lines are from a different viewpoint but that's surely not a performance hit?
There are a couple ways of doing 3D rendering. What you're saying is literally true when it comes to something like ray casting, in which every single pixel casts a ray out from the camera and calculates where it lands (useful for figuring out reflections, portals, etc). That, however, is huge in terms of the amount of processing power it takes; every pixel in every frame takes loads of floating point operations.
One of the big alternatives is rasterization, in which you look at every 3D object in the set, determine if and what part of it is on-screen, and render it. This takes much less time, allows for a lot of cheating / optimization, and is far more suited for mobile devices.
I haven't done a lot of work in CG though, so I can't really offer much in the way of details.
as dumb as saying "everyone with a Tracphone is a meth dealer" because most meth dealers use throw away Tracphones.
As a tracfone user, I can bust that myth. I bought the phone, but nobody even checked to see if I attended the "mandatory" drug-dealer training sessions. I'm sure plenty of others have found that loophole.
If you are going to be brain dead enough to say I am Liberal or I am Conservative really means that you really didn't spend any time on thinking about the issues and if they fit into your personal philosophy or not.
Personally, I think that democracies, especially representative ones, are always going to have this sort of problem. Politics is something that affects everyone, and everyone has a responsibility to vote. However, huge, HUGE swaths of the population are going to be relatively unaffected by which bonehead is in office, short of a leader that completely shatters the economy or gets involved in a land war in asia (one of the classic blunders). Practically all of the population are going to spend 90%+ of their lives working and sleeping, and the rest playing around. On top of that, they're supposed to be learning about the government and making an informed decision that will, at best, change absolutely nothing in their lives?
I think that's why people look at politics like they look at sports, and frankly, I think it's harmful. Although I don't know what the best solution is (understanding that bad solutions will lead to corruption and failure), I suspect it will involve the internet, public discussion, and direct voting on issues only by those who are informed on the matter.
It's not bad for the package as a whole, but what do you call the components? "Document Foundation Writer"... "Document Foundation Spreadsheet"... not quite there yet. Bit too much of a mouthful.
Don't act like it's a hypocritical viewpoint. In GP's words, "High level people with insider information" have the potential to make life difficult for the company they're leaving. If they get sniped by competition explicitly for that insider information--by which I mean bought out with huge stacks of cash--that could be ruinous. And unfortunately, it's not as though high level people are never mercenary / unprincipled.
GP is only acknowledging that non-competes are a reasonable request by the company under certain conditions. If you don't believe that, don't be surprised that they don't trust you with anything sensitive.
Citations are required when you're posting something as fact without a verifiable source. Considering my phrasing explicitly included weasel words, it should be clear it wasn't being posted as an encyclopedic fact. If anything, it would go against guidelines relating to hearsay and amateur research, but I don't know enough WP policy--or care--to have a handy one-line quip.
What's more, it's an opinion, and whether or not it's your opinion, it's one lots of people share. Considering the GGP is asking "Why are there so many X?" The reply, "Some of us have the opinion Y, which might explain it" is perfectly valid.
If this anthropomorphic universe you speak of is willing to do so much work for us, you bet it all revolves around us.
I don't know if you're kidding, but no. If it were an issue of 1:2 or 1:10 or even 1:100--even if the universe did 10,000 times as much work as we can understand, maybe. We measure the universe in terms of "blink of an eye" for a reason; it's fairly close to the smallest unit of time we can discern.
When the smallest unit of time we can perceive is 10^40 times larger than the update speed of the universe, you understand that we are an afterthought, something slipping through the cracks of the actual work the universe is doing. Going back to how I phrased the number--it would be like doing 10^40 years worth of hard labor so that some enormous being could make just one tiny incremental tick, just one blink of their great celestial eye; do this whole thing again another couple hundred times for one second to seem to pass for them. I'm not sure any intelligence could stay sane doing that kind of labor for that utter lack of a return, and if it's all mechanical, it's happening to everything everywhere equally, not merely for the benefit of those of us whose particles are organized to form bodies.
10^43 is an abstract concept for most people... I like to phrase Planck Time as:
The time it takes to blink is on the order of ( (Age of the Universe in years)^2 )^2 planck units of time.
The universe being around 13 billion years old, or 1.3e10, squaring it twice (or raising to the fourth power, but that's not intuitive to the layperson) would be approximately 10^40. Blinking is a fraction of a second, so the number is only off by a couple orders of magnitude.
It's amazing how much work the universe has to do for every single moment of our lives, and yet we somehow think it all revolves around us...
I did all of calculus and most of linear so far, and even statistics(yay longhand division!) without one just fine
I had one particular test for Stat I in college where I had utterly failed to study for anything, forgot my calculator, and was utterly doomed to failure. Having filled in the few questions I knew, I found myself having nothing else I could really do. Deciding to not leave early, I picked out a sticky problem involving multiple permutations (N! / (N-k)!) with decently large numbers and simply worked them out by hand. I broke the top and bottom into factors and simplified, then did longhand division on what was left over. I'm fairly sure that the numbers I ended up dividing were still at least 5-6 digits long.
When I got my test back, I found that I had gotten the answer correct to 3 decimal places. I was so proud... well, no, I wasn't, because I got like a 40 on that test. But I figured my gradeschool teachers would have been gobsmacked.
The obvious use that comes to mind would be a field agent
Which utterly fails to explain why they have the date of birth, much less social security number. If they can provide a valid photo ID with their name on it to prove their identity that ought to be good enough. You might argue for a masked SSN to differentiate Joe Smith #1 and Joe Smith #1, but name and address ought to be good enough for that; if they live at the same house you can probably treat them as part of the same household. And if not, take out a pen and paper and write a goddamned exception rather than trying to fit it into your database or whatever.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
McDonald's produces Big Macs; they capitalize on production. Safeway buys stock and, having bought them, resells at higher prices, capitalizing on distribution and easy access.
Apple and Microsoft distribute software from third parties; they provide developers access to a marketplace, which is generally good for the consumer. But essentially, they're capitalizing on the fact that they were proactive in preventing you from getting the software anywhere else. By restricting the marketplace artificially, they are creating a monopoly where one need not exist. They may be allowed, and in fact it may be an excellent idea for everyone involved, but it's not an issue of "supposed to".
Depends on the band. A three-man band or barbershop quartet is usually pretty narrow, so there will be a lot of band-widths in a football field. An orchestra tends to be about a stage width, so there are only a few band-widths in a football field. Marching bands, on the other hand, are only constrained by your ability to keep them in time, so a football field could be less than a band-width, especially with the Hulk conducting.
Without knowing what kind of band those Hitlers are forming, it's impossible to tell. It's also a concern whether the dump-truck is your standard variety or one of the super-large ones they use in mining.
The OP was about taking care of yourself, not 300 million people.
But also, your response is stupid in another way - deer breed rapidly
You haven't thought it out. If you're hunting for food, you are relying on the fact that there are hundreds of times as much prey as there are predators.
One deer feeds a couple people for maybe a day or two, if the deer is large enough. Assuming deer double in population once every two year (two deer make two deer in two years), there have to be as many brand new deer at the end of those two years as you ate during those two years. In other words, if you ate deer every day, the population just in your area, just in the population you're targetting has to be on the order of 600-1200 deer. Multiply that by how many people will think this is a good idea.
Now, you're NOT eating only deer, but if interstate commerce is cut off and game is the only renewable source of food (how many people in any given state farm?), a lot of people are going to panic and decide to take matters into their own hands. And virtually nobody in this country has been trained in sustainable hunting, while guns are so readily available (if not ubiquitous); that means that the number of people who will have the opportunity to do panic-hunting is huge. Gonna argue with them? While they're panicking, and have a gun?
Suffice it to say, no, game hunting is not going to save us. Period.
These people are not stupid, they just have interests other than computers.
Agreed. Computer enthusiasts forget how much effort went into learning how to interface with computers without problems. Unfortunately, when you try to explain it to someone who doesn't want to spend months or years learning, an endless stream of "All you have to is A, all you have to do is B, all you have to do is C" for the simplest concepts is a source of frustration.
The biggest problem, I imagine, is that when they ask for assistance, they aren't wanting or attempting to learn something complex, they're looking for a 1-4 step process that will accomplish some particular goal. Likely, the same attitude would lead to people who are incompetent with other machinery and animals, because they all require attention and a willingness to give. And unfortunately, there are people who are into animals or machinery but not computers, or computers but neither of those, etc.
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount
"Afford" a discount? Did you miss the point that when they lowered prices, profit and revenue went up?
Silly. They can't afford to profit before they make their money back. After all, if they don't charge enough to lower sales, how will they ever gain enough fans to spread word of mouth? Isn't that the basic law of antiviral marketing?
The pressure is in large part the primary concern, but what I'm trying to say is that energy delivery and force are a matter of time. The bullet accelerates over the course of inches or feet, depending on the weapon, while the stock of the rifle is not accelerating more than millimeters before it encounters your shoulder, if that. The bullet, being up to speed, attempts to decelerate using every layer of flesh it encounters, and every layer of flesh fails until the bullet gets way way down to a snail's pace (or more likely, hits bone or passes through). At your shoulder, the flesh doesn't have to dissipate nearly as much energy at each moment, because it doesn't have to decelerate, and the incoming energy to the shoulder never gets too high. If the stock of the rifle were also a bullet, you would probably be injured, but I submit the stock-bullet would not penetrate nearly as far. It's the difference between hitting lightly with a hammer 100 times versus hitting with the same TOTAL force once.
Slashdot Mirror
We enjoy the slashdot system because we don't mind rehashing the same discussions every time a new story comes up, but it's more than a little redundant.
I would detach comment threads from the stories and tag them; old comment threads could get automatically attached to a new story that's similarly tagged, and then moderated down if it's no longer applicable or up if there's nothing new to say; presumably, some sort of pruning or metamoderation to cut it down to only the best posts. In theory, wise posts could actually have f--king staying power instead of being one-offs on the latest sensationalist headline that have to get rewritten every time a site moderator reposts f--king bullshit that's not actually news until everyone gets tired of writing it, and we could stop pretending that repeating the same damn truths as last week makes you 'insightful,' 'interesting', or 'informative.'
Someone spoke on the phone is a South Asian language that was "ambient noise". Why didn't I think that Indian lady was plotting against me?
1) GP was talking about people with a brain dysfunction. That is to say, whose heads are not functioning normally. That said...
2) You don't think she's plotting against you because you have no reason to suspect so. If you'd been hearing unintelligible whispers all day, hushed voices in every shadowy nook along your route to work, and they seemed to sound much like her voice as you hear it on the train, you might consciously suspect that you were being followed and begin becoming paranoid, especially if you had begun to panic earlier in the day (violent sounds and then what sounds like laughter, or other evidence of being hunted/tailed, etc). If your anxiety really begins to rise, it can be very easy for conscious logic to fall by the wayside. If this happens every day for months, you could be a goner.
Which is to say, one or two faulty parts in a brain can be enough to screw you up. Aside from thinking you hear whispers (and other paranoid affectations), you'd be just the same as you are now, only you have reason to suspect things that just plain aren't true, and you can't find a way to go back to where you were before you started hearing them, because it's a brain affectation and not a mental one (presumably).
Actually, there are existing regulations at NASA such that any rocket that veers off course will self-destruct, because rocket fuel is nasty, powerful, volatile stuff that you don't want near populated areas. So believe it or not, there are mandatory explosives involved in space flight.
i know a lot of teenagers and adults with immature teenaged mentalities thinks government secrets are pure evil, but guess what: when it comes to fighting terrorism, they are absolutely necessary. for example: do you think bin laden would be alive or dead right now if the intel that led to him were more widely available?
Hey, guess what sunshine: you're not talking about fighting terrorism, you're talking about fighting terrorists. The institution of terrorism--that is, the mindset that gives birth to people who think "Yes, blowing up civilians is a perfectly acceptable tactic"--requires the idea that you can't change the system, that weak people don't have a voice, and that people can't escape from suffering without violence. All of those things are enhanced when governments are allowed to keep secrets. Similarly, every country leader everywhere who's a giant asshole is sitting pretty on their throne because the people who could do something about it--foreign or domestic--don't know how to stop them without unending sacrifices or oodles of cash that they either can't or refuse to afford.
Every human being in existence searches for a means to their ends. Terrorism is a means. It is a well-known means in their part of the world, and it is one that many people feel pressured towards. The ends? Common things like not dying, and keeping their families from dying, driving off a race of people that they're quite sure are going to murder them in their sleep, that sort of thing. It's a social problem, not a military one, and there's no military way to end it short of genocide or... benevolent despotism.
If you want to fight terrorists, fight them, keeping whatever secrets you like along the way. When you decide you want the conflict to end instead, we'll be waiting.
thanks to wikileaks leading to a decrease in information sharing between departments, maybe we'll have another intelligence failure
That won't happen unless the intelligence agencies are understaffed/underfunded and without a clear and overriding mandate to fix the problem. So yes, I imagine it's going to happen. Believe it or not? It's not actually that hard. Since the computer revolution started, the entirety of the world has started working on ways to share data and ways to secure it. One full generation has grown to maturity with the internet being a fact of everyday life. There are experts on the subject. There are professionals. There are multitudes of volumes of work on the subject. And if none of that is used because the government's stupid, then the reason for the inevitable failure is the government's stupidity, not because someone pointed it out.
If your choice of invective is "grow up and understand," try to think things through a little better.
I might be being dense but I don't really understand that. All that's happening is the 3DS is rendering an 800x240 image. Sure, half those (vertical) lines are from a different viewpoint but that's surely not a performance hit?
There are a couple ways of doing 3D rendering. What you're saying is literally true when it comes to something like ray casting, in which every single pixel casts a ray out from the camera and calculates where it lands (useful for figuring out reflections, portals, etc). That, however, is huge in terms of the amount of processing power it takes; every pixel in every frame takes loads of floating point operations.
One of the big alternatives is rasterization, in which you look at every 3D object in the set, determine if and what part of it is on-screen, and render it. This takes much less time, allows for a lot of cheating / optimization, and is far more suited for mobile devices.
I haven't done a lot of work in CG though, so I can't really offer much in the way of details.
as dumb as saying "everyone with a Tracphone is a meth dealer" because most meth dealers use throw away Tracphones.
As a tracfone user, I can bust that myth. I bought the phone, but nobody even checked to see if I attended the "mandatory" drug-dealer training sessions. I'm sure plenty of others have found that loophole.
I guess somehow judges don't get the fact that people can use them as a means to commit crimes--like, you know, theft.
It's funny, I'm pretty sure lawyers have known that from the very beginning...
If you are going to be brain dead enough to say I am Liberal or I am Conservative really means that you really didn't spend any time on thinking about the issues and if they fit into your personal philosophy or not.
Personally, I think that democracies, especially representative ones, are always going to have this sort of problem. Politics is something that affects everyone, and everyone has a responsibility to vote. However, huge, HUGE swaths of the population are going to be relatively unaffected by which bonehead is in office, short of a leader that completely shatters the economy or gets involved in a land war in asia (one of the classic blunders). Practically all of the population are going to spend 90%+ of their lives working and sleeping, and the rest playing around. On top of that, they're supposed to be learning about the government and making an informed decision that will, at best, change absolutely nothing in their lives?
I think that's why people look at politics like they look at sports, and frankly, I think it's harmful. Although I don't know what the best solution is (understanding that bad solutions will lead to corruption and failure), I suspect it will involve the internet, public discussion, and direct voting on issues only by those who are informed on the matter.
"Document Foundation Suite" sounds pretty good.
It's not bad for the package as a whole, but what do you call the components? "Document Foundation Writer"... "Document Foundation Spreadsheet"... not quite there yet. Bit too much of a mouthful.
Maybe just Foundation? Is that taken?
Don't act like it's a hypocritical viewpoint. In GP's words, "High level people with insider information" have the potential to make life difficult for the company they're leaving. If they get sniped by competition explicitly for that insider information--by which I mean bought out with huge stacks of cash--that could be ruinous. And unfortunately, it's not as though high level people are never mercenary / unprincipled.
GP is only acknowledging that non-competes are a reasonable request by the company under certain conditions. If you don't believe that, don't be surprised that they don't trust you with anything sensitive.
"Citation needed"
Citations are required when you're posting something as fact without a verifiable source. Considering my phrasing explicitly included weasel words, it should be clear it wasn't being posted as an encyclopedic fact. If anything, it would go against guidelines relating to hearsay and amateur research, but I don't know enough WP policy--or care--to have a handy one-line quip.
What's more, it's an opinion, and whether or not it's your opinion, it's one lots of people share. Considering the GGP is asking "Why are there so many X?" The reply, "Some of us have the opinion Y, which might explain it" is perfectly valid.
Because we all want to see change, it takes a giant-ass lever to move the world, and Google's reasonably close to trustworthy.
If this anthropomorphic universe you speak of is willing to do so much work for us, you bet it all revolves around us.
I don't know if you're kidding, but no. If it were an issue of 1:2 or 1:10 or even 1:100--even if the universe did 10,000 times as much work as we can understand, maybe. We measure the universe in terms of "blink of an eye" for a reason; it's fairly close to the smallest unit of time we can discern.
When the smallest unit of time we can perceive is 10^40 times larger than the update speed of the universe, you understand that we are an afterthought, something slipping through the cracks of the actual work the universe is doing. Going back to how I phrased the number--it would be like doing 10^40 years worth of hard labor so that some enormous being could make just one tiny incremental tick, just one blink of their great celestial eye; do this whole thing again another couple hundred times for one second to seem to pass for them. I'm not sure any intelligence could stay sane doing that kind of labor for that utter lack of a return, and if it's all mechanical, it's happening to everything everywhere equally, not merely for the benefit of those of us whose particles are organized to form bodies.
10^43 is an abstract concept for most people... I like to phrase Planck Time as:
The time it takes to blink is on the order of ( (Age of the Universe in years)^2 )^2 planck units of time.
The universe being around 13 billion years old, or 1.3e10, squaring it twice (or raising to the fourth power, but that's not intuitive to the layperson) would be approximately 10^40. Blinking is a fraction of a second, so the number is only off by a couple orders of magnitude.
It's amazing how much work the universe has to do for every single moment of our lives, and yet we somehow think it all revolves around us...
I did all of calculus and most of linear so far, and even statistics(yay longhand division!) without one just fine
I had one particular test for Stat I in college where I had utterly failed to study for anything, forgot my calculator, and was utterly doomed to failure. Having filled in the few questions I knew, I found myself having nothing else I could really do. Deciding to not leave early, I picked out a sticky problem involving multiple permutations (N! / (N-k)!) with decently large numbers and simply worked them out by hand. I broke the top and bottom into factors and simplified, then did longhand division on what was left over. I'm fairly sure that the numbers I ended up dividing were still at least 5-6 digits long.
When I got my test back, I found that I had gotten the answer correct to 3 decimal places. I was so proud... well, no, I wasn't, because I got like a 40 on that test. But I figured my gradeschool teachers would have been gobsmacked.
At least this time there wasn't an elephant in the way...
The obvious use that comes to mind would be a field agent
Which utterly fails to explain why they have the date of birth, much less social security number. If they can provide a valid photo ID with their name on it to prove their identity that ought to be good enough. You might argue for a masked SSN to differentiate Joe Smith #1 and Joe Smith #1, but name and address ought to be good enough for that; if they live at the same house you can probably treat them as part of the same household. And if not, take out a pen and paper and write a goddamned exception rather than trying to fit it into your database or whatever.
To be fair, he read your comment, he just got distracted because he was playing Angry Birds.
Or how about Apple's monopoly on the iPhone/iPad apps?
You're supposed to have a "monopoly" over your own products. McDonald's controls where you can get Big Macs from, Microsoft controls where you can get Xbox 360 games from, Safeway controls what they stock in their stores, and Apple controls where you can buy iOS apps from.
McDonald's produces Big Macs; they capitalize on production. Safeway buys stock and, having bought them, resells at higher prices, capitalizing on distribution and easy access.
Apple and Microsoft distribute software from third parties; they provide developers access to a marketplace, which is generally good for the consumer. But essentially, they're capitalizing on the fact that they were proactive in preventing you from getting the software anywhere else. By restricting the marketplace artificially, they are creating a monopoly where one need not exist. They may be allowed, and in fact it may be an excellent idea for everyone involved, but it's not an issue of "supposed to".
Depends on the band. A three-man band or barbershop quartet is usually pretty narrow, so there will be a lot of band-widths in a football field. An orchestra tends to be about a stage width, so there are only a few band-widths in a football field. Marching bands, on the other hand, are only constrained by your ability to keep them in time, so a football field could be less than a band-width, especially with the Hulk conducting.
Without knowing what kind of band those Hitlers are forming, it's impossible to tell. It's also a concern whether the dump-truck is your standard variety or one of the super-large ones they use in mining.
The tweet in question:
Signing off 4 weekend. Text banking custs, if u lose ur mobile device or chng ur mobile # update ur profile @ mobile.wellsfargo.com #WFCtips
(140 characters by @Ask_WellsFargo)
What it would be if they didn't decide to cram two completely separate messages in under the character limit:
Text banking customers: if you lose your mobile device or change your mobile number, update your profile at mobile.wellsfargo.com #WFCtips
(138)
Signing off for the weekend, insert some nonsense about getting back to them monday here, etc, etc.
Twitter is an exercise in brevity, to be sure, but this is a bank. I'm sure they pay the man enough that he can hit "Post" twice.
The OP was about taking care of yourself, not 300 million people.
But also, your response is stupid in another way - deer breed rapidly
You haven't thought it out. If you're hunting for food, you are relying on the fact that there are hundreds of times as much prey as there are predators.
One deer feeds a couple people for maybe a day or two, if the deer is large enough. Assuming deer double in population once every two year (two deer make two deer in two years), there have to be as many brand new deer at the end of those two years as you ate during those two years. In other words, if you ate deer every day, the population just in your area, just in the population you're targetting has to be on the order of 600-1200 deer. Multiply that by how many people will think this is a good idea.
Now, you're NOT eating only deer, but if interstate commerce is cut off and game is the only renewable source of food (how many people in any given state farm?), a lot of people are going to panic and decide to take matters into their own hands. And virtually nobody in this country has been trained in sustainable hunting, while guns are so readily available (if not ubiquitous); that means that the number of people who will have the opportunity to do panic-hunting is huge. Gonna argue with them? While they're panicking, and have a gun?
Suffice it to say, no, game hunting is not going to save us. Period.
These people are not stupid, they just have interests other than computers.
Agreed. Computer enthusiasts forget how much effort went into learning how to interface with computers without problems. Unfortunately, when you try to explain it to someone who doesn't want to spend months or years learning, an endless stream of "All you have to is A, all you have to do is B, all you have to do is C" for the simplest concepts is a source of frustration.
The biggest problem, I imagine, is that when they ask for assistance, they aren't wanting or attempting to learn something complex, they're looking for a 1-4 step process that will accomplish some particular goal. Likely, the same attitude would lead to people who are incompetent with other machinery and animals, because they all require attention and a willingness to give. And unfortunately, there are people who are into animals or machinery but not computers, or computers but neither of those, etc.
Yeah and the only reason why Valve could afford to do such a discount
"Afford" a discount? Did you miss the point that when they lowered prices, profit and revenue went up?
Silly. They can't afford to profit before they make their money back. After all, if they don't charge enough to lower sales, how will they ever gain enough fans to spread word of mouth? Isn't that the basic law of antiviral marketing?
Seriously, everyone, open the link in an incognito window or similar if you have one, it eats into your history as soon as it starts.
The pressure is in large part the primary concern, but what I'm trying to say is that energy delivery and force are a matter of time. The bullet accelerates over the course of inches or feet, depending on the weapon, while the stock of the rifle is not accelerating more than millimeters before it encounters your shoulder, if that. The bullet, being up to speed, attempts to decelerate using every layer of flesh it encounters, and every layer of flesh fails until the bullet gets way way down to a snail's pace (or more likely, hits bone or passes through). At your shoulder, the flesh doesn't have to dissipate nearly as much energy at each moment, because it doesn't have to decelerate, and the incoming energy to the shoulder never gets too high. If the stock of the rifle were also a bullet, you would probably be injured, but I submit the stock-bullet would not penetrate nearly as far. It's the difference between hitting lightly with a hammer 100 times versus hitting with the same TOTAL force once.