If the guys complaining about google actually clicked through to the cached versions of the two links that _don't_ contain "to be or not to be", they'd notice that google points out that that "to be or not to be" occurs only in pages pointing to these pages.
Google is smart. Smart people do things sometimes that surprise you, while dumb people tend not to. In spite of this, it is better to have smart friends than dumb ones.
What, exactly, is your point? In case it escaped your attention in grade school, the English language is not known for consistent or logical grammar. Replacing adjectives by other adjectives need not make any kind of sense. Your first headline could have two different interpretations - either someone (presumably MS) is saying that India is welcome to take advantage of the source code offer, or India is welcoming the offer. The 'welcome' in the two interpretations actually mean slightly different things. The same headline with 'cool' in place of 'welcome' _is_ unambiguously saying that India is not responding positively to the offer.
Why is it confusing? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the English language can see that 'cool' applies to India - hence it can only mean not interested. If you wanted to say it was "agreeable to", you would have something like "India thinks MS source code offer [is] cool".
If MS Source code offer had been anthropomorphic, of course the headline might mean that the offer thought India was cool...
The outer rim of the hard drive (the faster part) is usually at the logical beginning of the drive, not the end. Also, a large portion of the time required to load things, especially small executables, is seek time, not read. Putting things at the beginning of the drive improves disk throughput for those files, but if they are small, that is irrelevant. Frequently accessed files should be closer to the center of the drive to minimize seeks (of course, if they're small and frequently accessed, they're probably sitting in RAM anyway, so this won't apply). For the same reason, it may be better to keep your swap (if you actually ever hit it) in the middle of the drive.
You didn't have to write your own script: sysvinit has a concept of runlevels with 1 for single-user, 2 for multi-user without net, 3 for multi-user net and 5 for X. Gentoo linux takes this even further: you could have an arbitrary number of runlevels with mnemonic names.
The OP didn't say she was too poor to afford stuff or was having a hard time making ends meet: he said she was too poor to afford an attorney, which is a very different proposition from being able to afford broadband: internet access over ADSL from Verizon is only $35/month here, but that wouldn't buy you more than a half-hour of an attorney's time, if that.
What I wonder is why a video card can't do the same thing to show more fluid motion. For ex, suppose your card is only capable of 30fps. Why can't it just add motion blur in each frame based on what the previous one was so it looks fluid instead of like a high-speed slide-show?
AFAIK your explanation of TV is backwards. NTSC is 60Hz interlaced. That means there are effectively 30 actual images per second and it draws half an image in 1/60 of a second. The reason TV on a monitor looks weird is because your monitor is usually not running a 60Hz interlaced mode. Thus the app has to fill in the blank lines with something, which can either be just the data from the previous frame, or some sort of filter applied to it.
I suggest you take a thermometer and stick it into that coffee you drink: water at a "mere" 160F (70C) can cause second- and third-degree burns in one second. Which means that if you're really drinking coffee that hot, spilling it down your front will result in a trip to the hospital and a few skin grafts.
According to the Aussie govt (http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/brochures/hot_water.html ), hot water at just 55 deg celcius can scald a child within 10 seconds. 60 deg can cause a scald within 1 second.
I would submit that all the physics buffs showing off that they know water never gets hotter than 100 deg and hence can't do much damage have absolutely no clue how hot 100 deg celcius really is. The friendly Englishman a few posts back sipping his tea at 95 deg C really takes the cake...apparently he doesn't bother to brew it, after which the temperature of a _really_ hot cup would be less than 60 deg.
All the worked-up posters also miss the fundamental good that the McD's case did: McD's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee to a level comparable with home-brewed until they got hit with this judgement. The system actually worked here, folks.
Uh, beggin' pardon for being so obtuse, but wtf is wrong with a "heavily sought-after" coconut picker asking for more money, or sending his kids to whatever school he wants? Or do you think that just because you are "upper-caste" and a coconut picker is "lower-caste" you have a God-given right to his labour?
The way I understood the choice was that either Neo can go to the Source, destroy the matrix, which will kill everyone plugged into it at the time, while the machines destroy Zion, thus exterminating all of humanity, or go through the other door back into the matrix, but it will be too late to save Zion anyway. That's why the architect talks about hope: all the other Neo's hoped to prevent the destruction of Zion, planning to come back and fight the Source another day, but this one went back into the matrix to save Trinity alone.
Actually, in a perfect world, the poster is actually correct: the free-market produces goods at cost. That's why economists love it: it gives you the most efficient way of production and the lowest prices.
The cost here, however, is not just the cost of packaging: it includes the costs of labor, of marketing, of the risk that the record won't sell, the market interest rate (nobody would sell CD's if they could make more money from a savings account), and just enough profit on top to allow the marginal firm to enter the market. These costs are presumably different for CD's and cassettes - or else there's price fixing.
You should remember that Hitler started small: the first thing that he did was to make Jews carry ID papers, then wear little thingummies that identified them as Jews and so on down the line till he was shovelling them into gas chambers.
The Bush admin has already started making Muslims (well, it's based on country of origin, but look at the countries on the list...) register and show up for interviews and stuff - if Rumsfeld gets his way and escalates the war to Syria/Iran etc, how long do you think it will be before Muslims start carrying ID, or being put in camps? And if you think Americans will never stand for this, you haven't seen `Das Experiment'.
Actually, it's known that if you take the number of primes in the sequence a*k+d (k varying) that are smaller than n, it's asymptotically the same for any difference d that is relatively prime to a (this condition is necessary for there to be more than a finite number of such primes).
Uh, I think you need to check up on a few economic principles, specifically those relating to trade. The goal of the market economy, in so far as it has one, is not to increase skilled labor or wealth, it is to consume. In so far as you send refined products out of your country, it isn't beneficial in any direct way, the only reason you would do it is because you are forced to swap your refined products for what you want. In other words, the goal of trade is not to increase exports, it is to increase imports - exports rise only because you have to pay for those imports. The reason why developing countries like India and China export so many t-shirts is because they want to be able to buy electronics (say) in exchange, which they are comparatively worse at.
The last statement is completely dumb. What on earth would you do with all those raw materials and all that wealth? You can't drive iron ore, or even milled steel, you know. Nor can you wear dollars or eat gold.
The goal of trade is to get good things to consume, and the only reason to export is because the people who make these good things demand payment. If you can't understand even this, you deserve to lose your job.
Your argument about the US going from a creditor nation to a debtor is rather amusing - that means the US has been living beyond its means for a long time, as anybody with a credit card should know. Cheap Chinese/Asian imports have allowed you a higher standard of living than otherwise possible. Buying at Walmart instead of Neiman-Marcus keeps your bills down.
This is dumb. To decide whether to persist in an activity, you have to weigh the benefits vs the costs. If the cost of sitting in front of the computer is simply the back pain and fatigue that you feel, which you plan to fix by taking that vacation after you finish the current project in record time, you might feel it's ok to do the tradeoff. It's a very different matter if you might suffer a coronary thrombosis.
Similarly, smoking might feel ok if it's not much worse than eating greasy food, but you might have a different view of it if you knew how much it increased your risk of lung cancer/heart disease.
Drinking large quantities of caffeinated fluids is obviously not very good for health, but you can make the tradeoff between being able to stay alert longer, and having to pee every 15 minutes. What if it came out that caffeine chopped your life expectancy by 15yrs (random example)? You would be very stupid if that _didn't_ cause you to cut down your intake.
Not to mention the fact that 40 degree liquids giving you any sort of burn is laughable. Body temperature is already 37, and 40 degrees can be attained if you have a high fever. The air temperature in many parts of the world is above 40 degrees in summer, and the principal problem is heat-stroke, not getting your skin steamed off.
The central tenet of a free-market capitalistic economy is simply that free markets lead automatically to the most efficient utilization of resources, in general, barring some exceptions that are usually described in chapters 1 or 2 of an intro econ textbook.
A natural consequence is that a sustained increase in the standard of living can come only if productivity increases. This is indisputable, as far as it goes. However, the standard of living of Americans does go up if they get cheap immigrant labor to do their dirty work: this is well understood by the construction business, for example.
By your argument, the standard of living of the British should have been falling during the colonial period, since all the Englishmen living in colonies were getting incredibly cheap native labor instead of trying hard to increase their own productivity.
And I can't imagine what you're trying to prove by your Black Death example, of course the status of peasants rose, for those of them left alive. However, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that Europe was better off with the plague than without. Should we leave the Africans to die of AIDS so that their status and wages go up afterwards? Was 9/11 a good thing for New Yorkers' productivity?
What, exactly, runs against the principles of our current economic system?
In a market economy, "what the market will bear" is the price that maximizes profit for the producer. If labor becomes cheaper, but prices are not driven down, that is a market failure, because obviously you can increase sales and profit by lowering your price, because your costs are less. If a business decides to lower prices "when it feels like it", rather than when it would result in increased profits, that business will cease to exist. Market failures of the magnitude that would cause the collapse of the largest and most productive economy in the history of the world are not, contrary to what some closet commies seem to be saying, all that frequent.
My reference to agriculture is quite apt, if you would read the post to which I replied, which was arguing that "family-wage jobs are disappearing, leaving Americans homeless and destitute". Agriculture was how most families used to make a living, and jobs in agriculture have indeed disappeared, it did cause an upheaval in the lives of those who had to live through its disappearance, but we are indeed infinitely better off in spite of that. For another example consider the mechanization of textile production, which threw highly skilled weavers out of work. I'm sure they couldn't imagine what advanced industries would arise to take the place of theirs, either.
Slashdot Mirror
If the guys complaining about google actually clicked through to the cached versions of the two links that _don't_ contain "to be or not to be", they'd notice that google points out that that "to be or not to be" occurs only in pages pointing to these pages.
Google is smart. Smart people do things sometimes that surprise you, while dumb people tend not to. In spite of this, it is better to have smart friends than dumb ones.
What, exactly, is your point? In case it escaped your attention in grade school, the English language is not known for consistent or logical grammar. Replacing adjectives by other adjectives need not make any kind of sense. Your first headline could have two different interpretations - either someone (presumably MS) is saying that India is welcome to take advantage of the source code offer, or India is welcoming the offer. The 'welcome' in the two interpretations actually mean slightly different things. The same headline with 'cool' in place of 'welcome' _is_ unambiguously saying that India is not responding positively to the offer.
You, sir, are full of s**t.
If an F-16 is so fragile that nicked nut can cause it to explode in mid-air, how does it handle combat?
Why is it confusing? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the English language can see that 'cool' applies to India - hence it can only mean not interested. If you wanted to say it was "agreeable to", you would have something like "India thinks MS source code offer [is] cool".
If MS Source code offer had been anthropomorphic, of course the headline might mean that the offer thought India was cool...
The outer rim of the hard drive (the faster part) is usually at the logical beginning of the drive, not the end. Also, a large portion of the time required to load things, especially small executables, is seek time, not read. Putting things at the beginning of the drive improves disk throughput for those files, but if they are small, that is irrelevant. Frequently accessed files should be closer to the center of the drive to minimize seeks (of course, if they're small and frequently accessed, they're probably sitting in RAM anyway, so this won't apply). For the same reason, it may be better to keep your swap (if you actually ever hit it) in the middle of the drive.
You didn't have to write your own script: sysvinit has a concept of runlevels with 1 for single-user, 2 for multi-user without net, 3 for multi-user net and 5 for X. Gentoo linux takes this even further: you could have an arbitrary number of runlevels with mnemonic names.
The OP didn't say she was too poor to afford stuff or was having a hard time making ends meet: he said she was too poor to afford an attorney, which is a very different proposition from being able to afford broadband: internet access over ADSL from Verizon is only $35/month here, but that wouldn't buy you more than a half-hour of an attorney's time, if that.
What I wonder is why a video card can't do the same thing to show more fluid motion. For ex, suppose your card is only capable of 30fps. Why can't it just add motion blur in each frame based on what the previous one was so it looks fluid instead of like a high-speed slide-show?
AFAIK your explanation of TV is backwards. NTSC is 60Hz interlaced. That means there are effectively 30 actual images per second and it draws half an image in 1/60 of a second. The reason TV on a monitor looks weird is because your monitor is usually not running a 60Hz interlaced mode. Thus the app has to fill in the blank lines with something, which can either be just the data from the previous frame, or some sort of filter applied to it.
I suggest you take a thermometer and stick it into that coffee you drink: water at a "mere" 160F (70C) can cause second- and third-degree burns in one second. Which means that if you're really drinking coffee that hot, spilling it down your front will result in a trip to the hospital and a few skin grafts.
According to the Aussie govt (http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/brochures/hot_water.html ), hot water at just 55 deg celcius can scald a child within 10 seconds. 60 deg can cause a scald within 1 second.
I would submit that all the physics buffs showing off that they know water never gets hotter than 100 deg and hence can't do much damage have absolutely no clue how hot 100 deg celcius really is. The friendly Englishman a few posts back sipping his tea at 95 deg C really takes the cake...apparently he doesn't bother to brew it, after which the temperature of a _really_ hot cup would be less than 60 deg.
All the worked-up posters also miss the fundamental good that the McD's case did: McD's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee to a level comparable with home-brewed until they got hit with this judgement. The system actually worked here, folks.
Actually, a significant portion of California's problems is that Enron and it's ilk stole money from the state during the electricity crisis.
But those were private corporations, so they're always good, right?
if you can get a command line version of cdrecord or equiv for windows, and cygwin tar, say: it's quite simple to do a full backup to multiple cd's.
Run tar outputting to a fifo and set it to start a new "tape" (man tar) at around 700Mb, and cdrecord the fifo.
Dunno how this works for incremental backups, and I've only done this under linux, so YMMV.
Uh, beggin' pardon for being so obtuse, but wtf is wrong with a "heavily sought-after" coconut picker asking for more money, or sending his kids to whatever school he wants? Or do you think that just because you are "upper-caste" and a coconut picker is "lower-caste" you have a God-given right to his labour?
The way I understood the choice was that either Neo can go to the Source, destroy the matrix, which will kill everyone plugged into it at the time, while the machines destroy Zion, thus exterminating all of humanity, or go through the other door back into the matrix, but it will be too late to save Zion anyway. That's why the architect talks about hope: all the other Neo's hoped to prevent the destruction of Zion, planning to come back and fight the Source another day, but this one went back into the matrix to save Trinity alone.
Actually, in a perfect world, the poster is actually correct: the free-market produces goods at cost. That's why economists love it: it gives you the most efficient way of production and the lowest prices.
The cost here, however, is not just the cost of packaging: it includes the costs of labor, of marketing, of the risk that the record won't sell, the market interest rate (nobody would sell CD's if they could make more money from a savings account), and just enough profit on top to allow the marginal firm to enter the market. These costs are presumably different for CD's and cassettes - or else there's price fixing.
You should remember that Hitler started small: the first thing that he did was to make Jews carry ID papers, then wear little thingummies that identified them as Jews and so on down the line till he was shovelling them into gas chambers.
The Bush admin has already started making Muslims (well, it's based on country of origin, but look at the countries on the list...) register and show up for interviews and stuff - if Rumsfeld gets his way and escalates the war to Syria/Iran etc, how long do you think it will be before Muslims start carrying ID, or being put in camps? And if you think Americans will never stand for this, you haven't seen `Das Experiment'.
Actually, it's known that if you take the number of primes in the sequence a*k+d (k varying) that are smaller than n, it's asymptotically the same for any difference d that is relatively prime to a (this condition is necessary for there to be more than a finite number of such primes).
Uh, I think you need to check up on a few economic principles, specifically those relating to trade. The goal of the market economy, in so far as it has one, is not to increase skilled labor or wealth, it is to consume. In so far as you send refined products out of your country, it isn't beneficial in any direct way, the only reason you would do it is because you are forced to swap your refined products for what you want. In other words, the goal of trade is not to increase exports, it is to increase imports - exports rise only because you have to pay for those imports. The reason why developing countries like India and China export so many t-shirts is because they want to be able to buy electronics (say) in exchange, which they are comparatively worse at.
The last statement is completely dumb. What on earth would you do with all those raw materials and all that wealth? You can't drive iron ore, or even milled steel, you know. Nor can you wear dollars or eat gold.
The goal of trade is to get good things to consume, and the only reason to export is because the people who make these good things demand payment. If you can't understand even this, you deserve to lose your job.
Your argument about the US going from a creditor nation to a debtor is rather amusing - that means the US has been living beyond its means for a long time, as anybody with a credit card should know. Cheap Chinese/Asian imports have allowed you a higher standard of living than otherwise possible. Buying at Walmart instead of Neiman-Marcus keeps your bills down.
This is dumb. To decide whether to persist in an activity, you have to weigh the benefits vs the costs. If the cost of sitting in front of the computer is simply the back pain and fatigue that you feel, which you plan to fix by taking that vacation after you finish the current project in record time, you might feel it's ok to do the tradeoff. It's a very different matter if you might suffer a coronary thrombosis.
Similarly, smoking might feel ok if it's not much worse than eating greasy food, but you might have a different view of it if you knew how much it increased your risk of lung cancer/heart disease.
Drinking large quantities of caffeinated fluids is obviously not very good for health, but you can make the tradeoff between being able to stay alert longer, and having to pee every 15 minutes. What if it came out that caffeine chopped your life expectancy by 15yrs (random example)? You would be very stupid if that _didn't_ cause you to cut down your intake.
Not to mention the fact that 40 degree liquids giving you any sort of burn is laughable. Body temperature is already 37, and 40 degrees can be attained if you have a high fever. The air temperature in many parts of the world is above 40 degrees in summer, and the principal problem is heat-stroke, not getting your skin steamed off.
The central tenet of a free-market capitalistic economy is simply that free markets lead automatically to the most efficient utilization of resources, in general, barring some exceptions that are usually described in chapters 1 or 2 of an intro econ textbook.
A natural consequence is that a sustained increase in the standard of living can come only if productivity increases. This is indisputable, as far as it goes. However, the standard of living of Americans does go up if they get cheap immigrant labor to do their dirty work: this is well understood by the construction business, for example.
By your argument, the standard of living of the British should have been falling during the colonial period, since all the Englishmen living in colonies were getting incredibly cheap native labor instead of trying hard to increase their own productivity.
And I can't imagine what you're trying to prove by your Black Death example, of course the status of peasants rose, for those of them left alive. However, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that Europe was better off with the plague than without. Should we leave the Africans to die of AIDS so that their status and wages go up afterwards? Was 9/11 a good thing for New Yorkers' productivity?
In a market economy, "what the market will bear" is the price that maximizes profit for the producer. If labor becomes cheaper, but prices are not driven down, that is a market failure, because obviously you can increase sales and profit by lowering your price, because your costs are less. If a business decides to lower prices "when it feels like it", rather than when it would result in increased profits, that business will cease to exist. Market failures of the magnitude that would cause the collapse of the largest and most productive economy in the history of the world are not, contrary to what some closet commies seem to be saying, all that frequent.
My reference to agriculture is quite apt, if you would read the post to which I replied, which was arguing that "family-wage jobs are disappearing, leaving Americans homeless and destitute". Agriculture was how most families used to make a living, and jobs in agriculture have indeed disappeared, it did cause an upheaval in the lives of those who had to live through its disappearance, but we are indeed infinitely better off in spite of that. For another example consider the mechanization of textile production, which threw highly skilled weavers out of work. I'm sure they couldn't imagine what advanced industries would arise to take the place of theirs, either.