Reread the original comment. Besides the fact that GP was joking, it already addresses your second point.
It'll be an excuse to replace all structural iron with other more expensive building components in new construction, and rebuild all existing buildings.
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door.
Why does this remind me of a child saying "well I'm just going to swing my arms and walk around, and if you happen to get hit, it's your fault" ?
Because you are trying to make an ad-hominem attack.
By confronting the person, *you* are escalating the situation by changing it from a simple break-and-enter to an armed standoff, and then potentially to a homocide (or even multiple). Chances are extremely high that if you do nothing, they will take your TV or whatever and leave, especially if they realise the house is occupied. It's just like being mugged - your best chances of survival are giving the mugger your money and avoiding escalating the situation.
Even if you look at it that way, what I am arguing is that the homeowner is allowed to escalate in those circumstances. What you are describing is called the "Duty to Retreat." Thankfully, I live in a jurisdiction where I am not bound to retreat and am allowed to "stand my ground" in my own home. I can't speak for where you live, but these types of laws are not limited to the U.S.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
As a joke, obviously, since actually doing this would have anyone in serious, serious trouble if/when it was discovered, and even more so for someone with actual knowledge of the law.
I spoke with her again, and confirmed this wasn't a joke, although I did misunderstand the example. The professor was describing a situation in which a homeowner was threatened and beat the burglar unconscious with a cricket bat. Without evidence that the intruder was threatening, it would be simply the intruder's word against the homeowners that it was self-defense. By planting some evidence, the homeowner would be further in the clear, and that police forensics would not be able to prove that the knife was not wielded by the burglar.
If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life and kill an attacker, then you won't be going to gaol, even if you're charged with all sorts of things at the beginning. Not in Australia, not in the UK, not in Canada, not anywhere else. In fact, if you can find any examples of this actually transpiring, I'd be quite interested, because I certainly can't recall it ever happening.
One example that immediately came to mind was Bernie Goetz, although he did two things which nailed him: he kept attacking after there was no threat and he had an unlicensed firearm. After doing a bit of searching, I came upon the case of Tony Martin, Munir Hussain and others. In Farmer's case, he shot burglars who were fleeing, and Hussain kept beating the burglar after he was subdued. Anyway, in the cases I have found, one big reason that the homeowners were convicted was that there were witnesses or people were shot in the back. This reminds me of the three reasons for shooting intruders in the chest:
Aim for the larger target.
More likely to stop a threat.
It is better for you if the burglar is killed rather than wounded. They can't testify against you and they can't sue you for their injuries
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door. If I shot a burglar in the back while he was fleeing the scene with my property, I'd be convicted of murder even in America.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
I should also point out that the nature of the crime in other countries seems to be different and has a much lower propensity to violence. My friend asked me why I was concerned about the issue and I gave a few examples; the biggest one that struck her was Fran Drescher's rape. Searching online, I have not been able to find similar situations happening in other 1st-world countries.
How do you know they are [there to do bodily harm]?
There are multiple situations one can describe. Sure, there are cases like Yoshihiro Hattori which receive a lot of media attention, but the majority of cases (which you don't hear about) involve the resident hearing an intruder, arming themselves and calling the police, confronting the intruder, and then the intruder either leaves or the homeowner fires. One example that comes to mind is Donna Jackson killing Billy Dean Reilly. I don't want to end up like the Clutter family.
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
I would caution people not to take your self defense advise. How does one prove without a doubt that the situation is imminently life-threatening? I get where you are coming from; the burglar is still a person and they shouldn't be killed just for trying to steal a few things. But that doesn't mean that I have to sit idly by waiting for the police while they decide my things would look nicer in their house. I'll confront the trespasser and shoot to kill if I feel threatened. It's up to the jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that I acted criminally - I don't have the time to conduct a trial if my life may be in danger. If there is evidence of a break-in and I didn't shoot the intruder(s) in the back, I probably wouldn't even get charged.
Don't be so dismissive. Knowing how many tanks the Germans had in total is related to knowing how many they can marshal in a particular region. Also, part of the allies' goal was to figure out how many tanks the Germans could manufacture. If that number was high, then the Germans could have bolstered an undersupplied and perceived-to-be-weak region.
To be back on track, the math involved is pretty straightforward. For those interested, the Wikipedia article has more information on the subject.
Somebody needs to point this guy to Mozilla Labs and tell him to join the community and start working on his own dreams instead of proposing/forcing them on the community.
This is my biggest complaint with many Open Source "lusers" and it happens all the time. I often see bug reports which look like, "Please fix ABC or add new feature XYZ ASAP. It shouldn't be too hard to fix. This ticket is priority important because I need this feature yesterday." People seem to think that Open Source means that programmers will magically write the software they need for free.
No, you can do it, but don't call it green. It's like what Scott Adams said when he was building his "green" home:
The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built.
It is for areas of the world where there aren't random creeks (if there were enough random creeks in Haiti, they would be sending water purification tablets and jugs or pots and tea kettles and telling everyone to boil their own water). This is a desalination system, so it can work off of seawater. Industrial scale reverse osmosis desalination plants do exist, showing that there are places where there isn't enough freshwater for the population even in good times.
The system you linked certainly does look impressive. However, it is billed as a water purification rather than a desalination system. Later in the page, it does say that it can handle saline water. Does that mean it can handle seawater, like a reverse osmosis system, or is it designed to work from a river and so its limit is brackish water?
Reverse osmosis works using permeable membranes - that isn't really the limiting factor since huge reverse osmosis plants exist in a number of places. The issue is that it takes a lot of energy to push water through one of these membranes, and solar probably isn't cutting it.
A clever shill will create a new user account when their old one is being filtered. They will not submit a review whose summary states, "Armed with this book, can a Business Analyst be used to write application logic? I don't believe so, and I'll tell you why."
There were two posts. The initial comment that got the FBI's attention was posted by the friend to an obscure blog. Later on, the owner of the vehicle then posted on reddit asking what the device was.
Then go to the library. I haven't needed Netflix nor Blockbuster for a good long time. My library is part of a rather large network of libraries. I can go to the library itself and browse available titles and I can also put a hold online for pretty much any movie I want. Yes, I have to wait a bit longer for recent releases compared to a pay service, but I'm patient and there are plenty of older good movies that have zero wait that you can watch in the interim. Now, if you live somewhere where there aren't any good libraries, well, I guess you are SOL. I've never had this problem, but I guess if you live in the boonies it affects you.
Tryna kill you in your sleep
So y'all need to
Hide your kids, hide your wife
Hide your kids, hide your wife
And hide your husband
Cuz they killin' errbody out here
The thing is, most people don't care about doing everything you want to do with your electronics
Well that's KIND OF THE ENTIRE POINT.
No, that's not the entire point. Your point is that a "proper open tablet could pretty much wipe out netbooks." It's not a lack of openness that's holding back tablets, else the currently available x86-based tablets would have taken over and the iPad would not be successful where others have not been. What is holding back tablets is the price and lack of utility. Sure, openness will help out with these two things (as I mentioned in a previous post), but openness in the sense you are describing isn't really the issue.
With a system where developers are free to do as they like, no one has to be limited by myopic jerks like you. The entire world doesn't have to be mired in mediocrity.
Not myopic, realistic. And you're the one throwing the insults, so not sure who the jerk is. And while the entire world doesn't have to be mired in mediocrity, it seems to be quite content to do so. How many people hack their gadgets or buy things based upon customizability and control? Get real; price and ease of use are the main things consumers care about.
The thing is, most people don't care about doing everything you want to do with your electronics, and what Apple provides covers pretty much all of their needs. If you don't believe me, talk to product owners. Furthermore, even if a the device does offer some advanced capability, often the user does not have the skill, desire or need to use it. How many people actually care about tethering? How many of those would be able to set it up?
I'm going to agree and disagree with your statement. Openness by itself won't do anything. However, openness leads to two things that will help tablets.
First, it opens up the market to competition. While this may not help a company like Apple, Google's Android platform allows new companies to enter the market without having to write the entire software stack. This in turn should drive prices down.
Secondly, an "open" platform allows more things to be done with it. Say some company is willing to sell me a netbook with a detachable keyboard (or a tablet with a clip-on keyboard that swivels), I would be more inclined to purchase that over a traditional netbook. Maybe not everyone, especially if it commands a hefty premium.
The one advantage that netbooks currently have is that they can run Windows and hence all the software that is developed for Windows. Until someone makes a good office suite for Android, I don't see people flocking to tablets over netbooks any time soon.
It's not even people giving recommendations to friends. It's people giving recommendations to anyone. Some jackass who went to the same college as me simply spammed everyone who went to there asking for recommendations. Perhaps back in the day it was a bit of the norm for people from the same university to skip together, but my school had nearly 5k people in it's graduating class and I certainly wouldn't vouch for just anyone from there. However, with the level of anonymity and lack of accountability on LinkedIn, I'm pretty sure someone eventually just clicked the "recommend" button and that was that. Similarly, I've seen people just asking everyone in their network for recommendations as well. This is a bit more legit, but it becomes a bit fishy when you are asking people who have only tangentially worked with you for a recommendation, but I wouldn't doubt that there are people who still click the recommend button even in those cases.
Compared to such articles as AnandTech's coverage of this in November 2009, I don't see much new information. Perhaps the key bit, and this is glossed over but you can tell from the slides AMD gave them, is the difference between the bulldozer and bobcat cores. The bulldozer cores contain the two integer units that have been revealed before, but the bobcat core only has one but it still implements hyperthreading.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be an excuse to replace all structural iron with other more expensive building components in new construction, and rebuild all existing buildings.
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door.
Why does this remind me of a child saying "well I'm just going to swing my arms and walk around, and if you happen to get hit, it's your fault" ?
Because you are trying to make an ad-hominem attack.
By confronting the person, *you* are escalating the situation by changing it from a simple break-and-enter to an armed standoff, and then potentially to a homocide (or even multiple). Chances are extremely high that if you do nothing, they will take your TV or whatever and leave, especially if they realise the house is occupied. It's just like being mugged - your best chances of survival are giving the mugger your money and avoiding escalating the situation.
Even if you look at it that way, what I am arguing is that the homeowner is allowed to escalate in those circumstances. What you are describing is called the "Duty to Retreat." Thankfully, I live in a jurisdiction where I am not bound to retreat and am allowed to "stand my ground" in my own home. I can't speak for where you live, but these types of laws are not limited to the U.S.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
As a joke, obviously, since actually doing this would have anyone in serious, serious trouble if/when it was discovered, and even more so for someone with actual knowledge of the law.
I spoke with her again, and confirmed this wasn't a joke, although I did misunderstand the example. The professor was describing a situation in which a homeowner was threatened and beat the burglar unconscious with a cricket bat. Without evidence that the intruder was threatening, it would be simply the intruder's word against the homeowners that it was self-defense. By planting some evidence, the homeowner would be further in the clear, and that police forensics would not be able to prove that the knife was not wielded by the burglar.
If you have a genuine reason to fear for your life and kill an attacker, then you won't be going to gaol, even if you're charged with all sorts of things at the beginning. Not in Australia, not in the UK, not in Canada, not anywhere else. In fact, if you can find any examples of this actually transpiring, I'd be quite interested, because I certainly can't recall it ever happening.
One example that immediately came to mind was Bernie Goetz, although he did two things which nailed him: he kept attacking after there was no threat and he had an unlicensed firearm. After doing a bit of searching, I came upon the case of Tony Martin, Munir Hussain and others. In Farmer's case, he shot burglars who were fleeing, and Hussain kept beating the burglar after he was subdued. Anyway, in the cases I have found, one big reason that the homeowners were convicted was that there were witnesses or people were shot in the back. This reminds me of the three reasons for shooting intruders in the chest:
I don't think that is correct. By confronting the person, I would be making a citizen's arrest, and most countries have provisions for such a thing. At this point, the intruder would be escalating the situation if he tries to attack, and I would be killing the person for attacking me, not carrying my TV out the door. If I shot a burglar in the back while he was fleeing the scene with my property, I'd be convicted of murder even in America.
There are also practical considerations besides the legal ones. I was discussing this with an Australian friend of mine who at one time was studying to become a solicitor. She mentioned that one of her legal studies professors told the class that if they killed a burglar in their home, they should put a kitchen knife in their hand.
I should also point out that the nature of the crime in other countries seems to be different and has a much lower propensity to violence. My friend asked me why I was concerned about the issue and I gave a few examples; the biggest one that struck her was Fran Drescher's rape. Searching online, I have not been able to find similar situations happening in other 1st-world countries.
How do you know they are [there to do bodily harm]?
There are multiple situations one can describe. Sure, there are cases like Yoshihiro Hattori which receive a lot of media attention, but the majority of cases (which you don't hear about) involve the resident hearing an intruder, arming themselves and calling the police, confronting the intruder, and then the intruder either leaves or the homeowner fires. One example that comes to mind is Donna Jackson killing Billy Dean Reilly. I don't want to end up like the Clutter family.
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
I would caution people not to take your self defense advise. How does one prove without a doubt that the situation is imminently life-threatening? I get where you are coming from; the burglar is still a person and they shouldn't be killed just for trying to steal a few things. But that doesn't mean that I have to sit idly by waiting for the police while they decide my things would look nicer in their house. I'll confront the trespasser and shoot to kill if I feel threatened. It's up to the jury decide beyond reasonable doubt that I acted criminally - I don't have the time to conduct a trial if my life may be in danger. If there is evidence of a break-in and I didn't shoot the intruder(s) in the back, I probably wouldn't even get charged.
Don't be so dismissive. Knowing how many tanks the Germans had in total is related to knowing how many they can marshal in a particular region. Also, part of the allies' goal was to figure out how many tanks the Germans could manufacture. If that number was high, then the Germans could have bolstered an undersupplied and perceived-to-be-weak region.
To be back on track, the math involved is pretty straightforward. For those interested, the Wikipedia article has more information on the subject.
Somebody needs to point this guy to Mozilla Labs and tell him to join the community and start working on his own dreams instead of proposing/forcing them on the community.
This is my biggest complaint with many Open Source "lusers" and it happens all the time. I often see bug reports which look like, "Please fix ABC or add new feature XYZ ASAP. It shouldn't be too hard to fix. This ticket is priority important because I need this feature yesterday." People seem to think that Open Source means that programmers will magically write the software they need for free.
The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built.
It is for areas of the world where there aren't random creeks (if there were enough random creeks in Haiti, they would be sending water purification tablets and jugs or pots and tea kettles and telling everyone to boil their own water). This is a desalination system, so it can work off of seawater. Industrial scale reverse osmosis desalination plants do exist, showing that there are places where there isn't enough freshwater for the population even in good times.
The system you linked certainly does look impressive. However, it is billed as a water purification rather than a desalination system. Later in the page, it does say that it can handle saline water. Does that mean it can handle seawater, like a reverse osmosis system, or is it designed to work from a river and so its limit is brackish water?
Reverse osmosis works using permeable membranes - that isn't really the limiting factor since huge reverse osmosis plants exist in a number of places. The issue is that it takes a lot of energy to push water through one of these membranes, and solar probably isn't cutting it.
A clever shill will create a new user account when their old one is being filtered. They will not submit a review whose summary states, "Armed with this book, can a Business Analyst be used to write application logic? I don't believe so, and I'll tell you why."
For it to be a shill, yes.
If he was a shill, wouldn't this be a positive review?
There were two posts. The initial comment that got the FBI's attention was posted by the friend to an obscure blog. Later on, the owner of the vehicle then posted on reddit asking what the device was.
Guess I'm just a library kinda guy.
Then go to the library. I haven't needed Netflix nor Blockbuster for a good long time. My library is part of a rather large network of libraries. I can go to the library itself and browse available titles and I can also put a hold online for pretty much any movie I want. Yes, I have to wait a bit longer for recent releases compared to a pay service, but I'm patient and there are plenty of older good movies that have zero wait that you can watch in the interim. Now, if you live somewhere where there aren't any good libraries, well, I guess you are SOL. I've never had this problem, but I guess if you live in the boonies it affects you.
Tryna kill you in your sleep
So y'all need to
Hide your kids, hide your wife
Hide your kids, hide your wife
And hide your husband
Cuz they killin' errbody out here
Also http://www.rottenapples.info/.
The thing is, most people don't care about doing everything you want to do with your electronics
Well that's KIND OF THE ENTIRE POINT.
No, that's not the entire point. Your point is that a "proper open tablet could pretty much wipe out netbooks." It's not a lack of openness that's holding back tablets, else the currently available x86-based tablets would have taken over and the iPad would not be successful where others have not been. What is holding back tablets is the price and lack of utility. Sure, openness will help out with these two things (as I mentioned in a previous post), but openness in the sense you are describing isn't really the issue.
With a system where developers are free to do as they like, no one has to be limited by myopic jerks like you. The entire world doesn't have to be mired in mediocrity.
Not myopic, realistic. And you're the one throwing the insults, so not sure who the jerk is. And while the entire world doesn't have to be mired in mediocrity, it seems to be quite content to do so. How many people hack their gadgets or buy things based upon customizability and control? Get real; price and ease of use are the main things consumers care about.
You also don't read about it in the paper.
The thing is, most people don't care about doing everything you want to do with your electronics, and what Apple provides covers pretty much all of their needs. If you don't believe me, talk to product owners. Furthermore, even if a the device does offer some advanced capability, often the user does not have the skill, desire or need to use it. How many people actually care about tethering? How many of those would be able to set it up?
That is moshgirl. Old meme is old.
I'm going to agree and disagree with your statement. Openness by itself won't do anything. However, openness leads to two things that will help tablets.
First, it opens up the market to competition. While this may not help a company like Apple, Google's Android platform allows new companies to enter the market without having to write the entire software stack. This in turn should drive prices down.
Secondly, an "open" platform allows more things to be done with it. Say some company is willing to sell me a netbook with a detachable keyboard (or a tablet with a clip-on keyboard that swivels), I would be more inclined to purchase that over a traditional netbook. Maybe not everyone, especially if it commands a hefty premium.
The one advantage that netbooks currently have is that they can run Windows and hence all the software that is developed for Windows. Until someone makes a good office suite for Android, I don't see people flocking to tablets over netbooks any time soon.
It's not even people giving recommendations to friends. It's people giving recommendations to anyone. Some jackass who went to the same college as me simply spammed everyone who went to there asking for recommendations. Perhaps back in the day it was a bit of the norm for people from the same university to skip together, but my school had nearly 5k people in it's graduating class and I certainly wouldn't vouch for just anyone from there. However, with the level of anonymity and lack of accountability on LinkedIn, I'm pretty sure someone eventually just clicked the "recommend" button and that was that. Similarly, I've seen people just asking everyone in their network for recommendations as well. This is a bit more legit, but it becomes a bit fishy when you are asking people who have only tangentially worked with you for a recommendation, but I wouldn't doubt that there are people who still click the recommend button even in those cases.
Compared to such articles as AnandTech's coverage of this in November 2009, I don't see much new information. Perhaps the key bit, and this is glossed over but you can tell from the slides AMD gave them, is the difference between the bulldozer and bobcat cores. The bulldozer cores contain the two integer units that have been revealed before, but the bobcat core only has one but it still implements hyperthreading.