I think you make a great point. That being said, I really doubt that the factors you talk about: death from accidents and fights, caused by someone who is drinking, is anywhere near a small percentage, let alone large percentage, of deaths in developed countries. My guess is less than 0.01% (and I'm sorry for speculating... I'm just on my lunch break here at work, otherwise I'd do some research to pull these numbers out)
For an example comparison, think about the amount of people who die by the use of automobiles and heart failure. Someone getting drunk and shooting someone is pretty damn rare, and someone getting drunk and killing someone behind the wheel is also pretty rare (although you wouldn't know that because of the amount of publicity it gets).
I always get classified as a libertarian right which is in the same quadrant as Milton Friedman. Now the problem is we are stuck with a Two party system where neither party represents me. However if I have to choose a side I lean way more with the GOP. Not all of their candidates are attractive to me but many of them are. Many of them are actually calling for less Government Spending, less needless laws and regulations, but more smart legislation that is well planned and thought out.
I'm also in the same category/quadrant as you. If I may comment on what you just said about the GOP, though... you really seem to have such a bright and cheery attitude about them, with the one-liner: Many of them are actually calling for less Government Spending, less needless laws and regulations, but more smart legislation that is well planned and thought out. That statement was literally a billboard advertisement that could be stuck on a Democrat, Republican, Benevolent Dictator, et. al. Of course I don't know you, but that seems like an incredibly blind statement. I would say the opposite about the GOP, and the same thing about the Democrats. Now, I don't have any evidence linked here for that, which is exactly my point: that statement could be applied, verbatim, to both parties by anyone. Although I'm glad you're in the correct "quadrant of life":) , I hope that you don't always vote for one party because of simple mentalities repeated over and over again to make your brain skip past the logical deductions and straight into the conclusions (which is what happens in advertising: one will purchase the expensive brand over the cheap one because they presume it is of better quality, even though the only reason they think that is because they've seen advertisements).
And let me also say that, if you're not one of those people, then there's no need to be offended by what I've said. I suppose you just didn't bother spending much time on that statement.
In that case, what exactly is "the democratic party"? The implies a singular entity that wins or loses. In fact (sorry to state the obvious), there are over 50 different unique people. How can the Democratic Party purposely "lose the bill", when the Democratic Party doesn't write or pass bills? (BTW, I'm saying the same thing for the Republican party or any other, too) I tend to think lumping people/politicians is both factually incorrect, and on top of that somewhere between silly and dangerous, especially when this discussion is berating herd mentality!
hating his politics should not be about forgetting your humanity. then perhaps you are worse than whatever you ridicule about ted stevens
I, in theory, agree with you. However insensitive it may be, though, politicians generally affect many people's lives (depending on the type of politician). I have seen the same discussions come about when various politicians die. You are right, we should not forget our humanity. On the other hand, people in power who die tend to leave a powerful legacy which can still affect many peoples' lives. Often, being forced to honor the dead and "show sensitivity" leads to acquiescence of said politicians power.
In other words, people still have to continue the arguments after a politician dies. Politicians of the same hue will often take advantage of the death and use the death to their advantage.
I have always used two spaces. But when I started writing a blog, I noticed that where there are two spaces, and that sentence randomly begins on a new line (I say randomly because anyone can change the font size on their browser to have the lines wrap differently), there will be an unwanted space. This is due to the nature of HTML, where two spaces are interpreted as one, so the blog software will change it to a nbsp; (non-breakable space). So, it looks like the Internet is going to eventually determine the answer for me: I'll have to switch to one space! (Disclaimer: I used two spaces when typing this:)
My understanding of video cards is they see changes on the screen and renders the changes. This is why first person shooters, where the entire screen has to be rendered every frame because when you move the entire scene changes, requires a much better video card then a real time strategy like Starcraft, where the entire map would be static except for the few people that are moving around.
Well, you're almost there. First off, redrawing the entire screen or just a part of it is up to the application, not the graphics card. With more modern games and graphics cards, it's a technique that isn't used so much anymore, especially with 3D graphics.
Second, it doesn't matter the size that it's redrawing. What they are saying is that there is no pause in between the drawing, so it's constantly taxing the graphics card. It doesn't matter if it's 20x20 or 2000x2000, because the graphics card never stops.
The whole frame rate cap is what lets the graphics card rest. Only having to draw the screen 30 times a second is much better than drawing it constantly, which on easy to draw screens can be something like 200 times a second.
By the way, in the end, this is NOT BLIZZARD'S FAULT. It's the graphics card fault. Your graphics card is expected to run in full gear for games, and if it overheats after 30 seconds of ANY game screen then something is messed up with your card, not the game.
Yet, did they even study for the cold then? Has it been globally coldest year as well?
No no no, don't even start to think "how can it be coldest when it's hottest?"
Yes, yes they did for the cold.
Well we just had the coldest winter in a veeery long time, most snow since '56, and i think coldest since like 1930s or something like that. Just like now is hottest in 70 years or so here.
So yet, this is the coldest year in ages, while being also the hottest year in ages. How does it average out?
LOL. Ask a 10 year old to explain to you how to average numbers (For example, (20 + 80) / 2 = 50). No humans could detect the gradual temperature change, because we're talking about an increase of 1 degree celcius over decades. But that's great to know dipshits like you noticed that you had a cold winter.
More dramatic change between seasons does not say it's getting warmer, neither does it say it's getting colder, directly. The question is how did they do their study, did they just compare peak hottest months? Did they account for being coldest in ages before saying "it's global warming!".
Yes, they did account for such facts. BTW, you seem like you're real smart!
Did they account for natural cycles?
Yes.
How about what's going at Sun right now? (Lowest activity in solar flares or something like that in ages)
Yep!
and on top of that 10years, even 120 years is very short timeframe in the scale of earth.
You may be surprised to know this, but climate scientists did already know that!
Did they compare how's the heat changed on moon during this time? (ofc measurements for very long don't exist). I read an article sometime ago that not only earth but mars was getting warmer as well.
Oh, awesome, you can read! Congrats! I bet after spending 2 minutes reading an article somewhere online about how the moon's temperature is rising, I'd also realize, as you have, that climate scientists are completely wrong about all of that crap that they say.
You know what they say, liars, liars and statistics. It's all in how they did their research if it's a valid argument for global warming or not. And then there's the factors if this is just a natural cycle.
Wow, maybe climate scientists didn't know about natural cycles! You keep amazing me!
(BTW, who told you about natural cycles in the first place? A doctor? A mathematician? Your preacher? It obviously wasn't a climate scientist, because those guys aren't smart enough to even have a conversation with you, who obviously knows more than they do on the subject without spending half of your life studying such matters like those stupid climate scientists!)
We humans, while we are many and are dominant species on earth, and cause a lot of devastation, might have quite irrelevant effect on global scale. But then again we could be causing it. Bottomline is we simply do not know enough of the natural cycles of earth, sun and all the stars around us.
Oh snap! You know the bottom line? Who are you, because you are fuck-damn amazing! Here I was, thinking that someone who spends half of their life researching climate probably knows more than the rest of us. And hell, there's thousands and thousands of these so-called climate scientists around the world. But you've just come along and proven that they don't actually know more than the rest of us, because you have the bottom line: we just don't know enough about natural cycles of earth, sun, and all the stars around us. We, that is, you and I, just don't know enough! Thank you, sir or madam, I now know what I'm going to tell anyone who spends half of their life researching something that I haven't spent half of my life researching: "No, you can't
You are incorrectly saying that the phrase "C can certainly run on systems" is incorrect. The phrase "run C on a computer" clearly means compile a program written in the C language and execute it.
If an individual writes code that is difficult to read or has seriously obscure logic issues it is not a language specific problem.
I call complete bullshit on that statement. Perl encourages code to be difficult to read. I'm not just talking about regexps, either, nor the variable $_. It has semantics that are not as close to natural languages as other programming languages, has obfuscatedly-named commands, and is full of shortcuts (a super-simple example being elsif instead of elseif).
LOL, I can't believe you're arguing with him that Perl is "obvious" and readable. It's not. I understand Perl, but I sure as hell would never say that Perl is easy to read and maintain. It simply isn't. It, by its very nature, tends to make programmers write obfuscated code. You can have obfuscated code in many languages, but Perl practically encourages it.
The European Union loves taking money from foreign rich corporations. Microsoft, Intel, etc. They'll just come up with a price tag in the billion dollars to help them pay for their austerity bills.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you make a great point. That being said, I really doubt that the factors you talk about: death from accidents and fights, caused by someone who is drinking, is anywhere near a small percentage, let alone large percentage, of deaths in developed countries. My guess is less than 0.01% (and I'm sorry for speculating... I'm just on my lunch break here at work, otherwise I'd do some research to pull these numbers out)
For an example comparison, think about the amount of people who die by the use of automobiles and heart failure. Someone getting drunk and shooting someone is pretty damn rare, and someone getting drunk and killing someone behind the wheel is also pretty rare (although you wouldn't know that because of the amount of publicity it gets).
Not only am I going to live, but I have a 1% better chance of living longer than those idiots who don't drink!
Now I'm waiting for the study that tells me playing World of Warcraft for 8 hours a day is beneficial to my longevity as well! :)
Actually, he had $250,000 stashed in boxes. But for some reason, the feds only reported $150,000... :)
I always get classified as a libertarian right which is in the same quadrant as Milton Friedman. Now the problem is we are stuck with a Two party system where neither party represents me. However if I have to choose a side I lean way more with the GOP. Not all of their candidates are attractive to me but many of them are. Many of them are actually calling for less Government Spending, less needless laws and regulations, but more smart legislation that is well planned and thought out.
I'm also in the same category/quadrant as you. If I may comment on what you just said about the GOP, though... you really seem to have such a bright and cheery attitude about them, with the one-liner: Many of them are actually calling for less Government Spending, less needless laws and regulations, but more smart legislation that is well planned and thought out. That statement was literally a billboard advertisement that could be stuck on a Democrat, Republican, Benevolent Dictator, et. al. Of course I don't know you, but that seems like an incredibly blind statement. I would say the opposite about the GOP, and the same thing about the Democrats. Now, I don't have any evidence linked here for that, which is exactly my point: that statement could be applied, verbatim, to both parties by anyone. Although I'm glad you're in the correct "quadrant of life" :) , I hope that you don't always vote for one party because of simple mentalities repeated over and over again to make your brain skip past the logical deductions and straight into the conclusions (which is what happens in advertising: one will purchase the expensive brand over the cheap one because they presume it is of better quality, even though the only reason they think that is because they've seen advertisements).
And let me also say that, if you're not one of those people, then there's no need to be offended by what I've said. I suppose you just didn't bother spending much time on that statement.
In that case, what exactly is "the democratic party"? The implies a singular entity that wins or loses. In fact (sorry to state the obvious), there are over 50 different unique people. How can the Democratic Party purposely "lose the bill", when the Democratic Party doesn't write or pass bills? (BTW, I'm saying the same thing for the Republican party or any other, too) I tend to think lumping people/politicians is both factually incorrect, and on top of that somewhere between silly and dangerous, especially when this discussion is berating herd mentality!
Just wanted you to know that I think this a well thought out and well-spoken viewpoint.
LOL
They CAN'T lose anything in the Senate without purposely losing it.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Lots of factors influence elections.
I love it when "righties" consider themselves persecuted.
Remember when everyone was scared that cell phones would give you cancer?
The guy says it was open sourced... where is the source code?
the guy's dead, show some sensitivity
hating his politics should not be about forgetting your humanity. then perhaps you are worse than whatever you ridicule about ted stevens
I, in theory, agree with you. However insensitive it may be, though, politicians generally affect many people's lives (depending on the type of politician). I have seen the same discussions come about when various politicians die. You are right, we should not forget our humanity. On the other hand, people in power who die tend to leave a powerful legacy which can still affect many peoples' lives. Often, being forced to honor the dead and "show sensitivity" leads to acquiescence of said politicians power.
In other words, people still have to continue the arguments after a politician dies. Politicians of the same hue will often take advantage of the death and use the death to their advantage.
why the hell is this news in the slashdot?? how is this WORLD (not USA) news worthy?
This is NOT a WORLD news website. This is an American website. RTFM: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850
Slashdot is a very strange place. I don't know how half of the shit here works, either.
I have always used two spaces. But when I started writing a blog, I noticed that where there are two spaces, and that sentence randomly begins on a new line (I say randomly because anyone can change the font size on their browser to have the lines wrap differently), there will be an unwanted space. This is due to the nature of HTML, where two spaces are interpreted as one, so the blog software will change it to a nbsp; (non-breakable space). So, it looks like the Internet is going to eventually determine the answer for me: I'll have to switch to one space! (Disclaimer: I used two spaces when typing this :)
It just does not make sense to be smoking on spaceships, or in your spacesuit.
LOL, lots of this game doesn't make sense... space travel, aliens, psionic powers, warping, the list goes on and on...
My understanding of video cards is they see changes on the screen and renders the changes. This is why first person shooters, where the entire screen has to be rendered every frame because when you move the entire scene changes, requires a much better video card then a real time strategy like Starcraft, where the entire map would be static except for the few people that are moving around.
Well, you're almost there. First off, redrawing the entire screen or just a part of it is up to the application, not the graphics card. With more modern games and graphics cards, it's a technique that isn't used so much anymore, especially with 3D graphics.
Second, it doesn't matter the size that it's redrawing. What they are saying is that there is no pause in between the drawing, so it's constantly taxing the graphics card. It doesn't matter if it's 20x20 or 2000x2000, because the graphics card never stops.
The whole frame rate cap is what lets the graphics card rest. Only having to draw the screen 30 times a second is much better than drawing it constantly, which on easy to draw screens can be something like 200 times a second.
By the way, in the end, this is NOT BLIZZARD'S FAULT. It's the graphics card fault. Your graphics card is expected to run in full gear for games, and if it overheats after 30 seconds of ANY game screen then something is messed up with your card, not the game.
Yet, did they even study for the cold then? Has it been globally coldest year as well? No no no, don't even start to think "how can it be coldest when it's hottest?"
Yes, yes they did for the cold.
Well we just had the coldest winter in a veeery long time, most snow since '56, and i think coldest since like 1930s or something like that. Just like now is hottest in 70 years or so here. So yet, this is the coldest year in ages, while being also the hottest year in ages. How does it average out?
LOL. Ask a 10 year old to explain to you how to average numbers (For example, (20 + 80) / 2 = 50). No humans could detect the gradual temperature change, because we're talking about an increase of 1 degree celcius over decades. But that's great to know dipshits like you noticed that you had a cold winter.
More dramatic change between seasons does not say it's getting warmer, neither does it say it's getting colder, directly. The question is how did they do their study, did they just compare peak hottest months? Did they account for being coldest in ages before saying "it's global warming!".
Yes, they did account for such facts. BTW, you seem like you're real smart!
Did they account for natural cycles?
Yes.
How about what's going at Sun right now? (Lowest activity in solar flares or something like that in ages)
Yep!
and on top of that 10years, even 120 years is very short timeframe in the scale of earth.
You may be surprised to know this, but climate scientists did already know that!
Did they compare how's the heat changed on moon during this time? (ofc measurements for very long don't exist). I read an article sometime ago that not only earth but mars was getting warmer as well.
Oh, awesome, you can read! Congrats! I bet after spending 2 minutes reading an article somewhere online about how the moon's temperature is rising, I'd also realize, as you have, that climate scientists are completely wrong about all of that crap that they say.
You know what they say, liars, liars and statistics. It's all in how they did their research if it's a valid argument for global warming or not. And then there's the factors if this is just a natural cycle.
Wow, maybe climate scientists didn't know about natural cycles! You keep amazing me!
(BTW, who told you about natural cycles in the first place? A doctor? A mathematician? Your preacher? It obviously wasn't a climate scientist, because those guys aren't smart enough to even have a conversation with you, who obviously knows more than they do on the subject without spending half of your life studying such matters like those stupid climate scientists!)
We humans, while we are many and are dominant species on earth, and cause a lot of devastation, might have quite irrelevant effect on global scale. But then again we could be causing it. Bottomline is we simply do not know enough of the natural cycles of earth, sun and all the stars around us.
Oh snap! You know the bottom line? Who are you, because you are fuck-damn amazing! Here I was, thinking that someone who spends half of their life researching climate probably knows more than the rest of us. And hell, there's thousands and thousands of these so-called climate scientists around the world. But you've just come along and proven that they don't actually know more than the rest of us, because you have the bottom line: we just don't know enough about natural cycles of earth, sun, and all the stars around us. We, that is, you and I, just don't know enough! Thank you, sir or madam, I now know what I'm going to tell anyone who spends half of their life researching something that I haven't spent half of my life researching: "No, you can't
You don't 'run' C, you compile it.
You are incorrectly saying that the phrase "C can certainly run on systems" is incorrect. The phrase "run C on a computer" clearly means compile a program written in the C language and execute it.
If an individual writes code that is difficult to read or has seriously obscure logic issues it is not a language specific problem.
I call complete bullshit on that statement. Perl encourages code to be difficult to read. I'm not just talking about regexps, either, nor the variable $_. It has semantics that are not as close to natural languages as other programming languages, has obfuscatedly-named commands, and is full of shortcuts (a super-simple example being elsif instead of elseif).
LOL, I can't believe you're arguing with him that Perl is "obvious" and readable. It's not. I understand Perl, but I sure as hell would never say that Perl is easy to read and maintain. It simply isn't. It, by its very nature, tends to make programmers write obfuscated code. You can have obfuscated code in many languages, but Perl practically encourages it.
Since they're also a customer, they can finally get some of their wasted money back! Brilliant! Seriously, IBM products are WAY overpriced.
Then don't buy their products. If you think they're way overpriced, what type of crazy says it's OK to steal (fine) one billion dollars from them?
lol...
The European Union loves taking money from foreign rich corporations. Microsoft, Intel, etc. They'll just come up with a price tag in the billion dollars to help them pay for their austerity bills.
How egalitarian :)