Looking at the screenshots here: http://mate-desktop.org/gallery/1.6/ it seems that academic notions of proper UI design are aimed at satisfying those who only ever have 1 or 2 applications open at one time.
And academics wonder why people accuse them of living in ivory towers detached from reality...
(There are more concrete issues visible on http://mate-desktop.org/gallery/1.6/caja.png too, but who am I to argue for or against a particular window manager - I use DWM for pity's sake.)
For extra trollery I even stick up for the idiots who don't know what usenet is when they say "this forum". I've been using usenet since the 80s, and usenet newsgroups also fit the definition. That drives the old timers who've been using usenet since the 90s crazy. Of course, if the newb idiots even hint at mentions of "web", or "page", then I rain down flaming brimstone upon them as they deserve.
When I first moved to linux in the 90s, *only* xmms was able to play skipless, winamp wasn't. (And as one might expect, as every piece of software eventually turns to shit, a feature they added in xmms was to put all the skips back in again - joy. Mpg123 for me now. I manage my audio files myself. My mp3 player does nothing but play mp3 files. And my ears have no need for "visualisations".)
Water's already bubbling. Google "civil forfeiture", and read pretty much any report on it. To save you time, here's one: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman
You're in a tyranny. May the 2nd Amendment help you, as no other part of the constitution seems capable to do so.
The difference is that one of those things is a legal requirement under the law of the land - administered by and in the presence of those state-licenced to perform such acts - as property ownership is entirely governed by such laws, and the other is typically smartarse companies attempting to avoid the law of land (via selling stuff not fit for any particular purpose, or via capturing personal information without telling you everything that they do with it, or...). Last time I bought a house, I even needed to sign a separate attestation that we had declined the solicitor-provided translator as we had provided our own, and were happy with the translation of the contract that he had provided was satisfactory. (Which of course he too had to sign.)
If you are trying to blur the boundaries between one of the most state-managed formal things in the history of mankind (second only to marriage, probably) with shrink-wrap EULAs, then *you are part of the problem*.
Wrong. The fact that you posited your whole statement as a *premise* implies that you see no possibility for any part of it to be false. You were therefore not engaging in inductive reasoning.
Next time... actually, don't bother with a next time.
If you refuse to give it, you can't use the product you shelled out money for. So it's consent *under duress*. Which is not real consent.
Out of *policy*, I never read any EULA for any product ever. To read it would be giving it weight. I will just click on anything that makes the thing work, and the only reason I'm clicking on it is to make the thing work, not because of any consent.
One of the nice things is that many websites are as dumb as fuck, and often ask me to agree to things before they let me have access to their pages - and these agreements are in a foreign language I don't understand. I cannot have consented, as I couldn't have even understood what I would be consenting to. That's not just plausible deniability, it's deniability-as-the-null-hypothesis. I just clicked on the button that then led me to where I was trying to go. If the websites don't like that, they are free to 403 me.
Did you ever do a "countries on springs" analysis such that countries which concur with each other are pulled together, and those that disent are pushed apart? Similar to the 3rd quartile cutoff one, but with all countries, and with distance made more significant.
One way I've done this in the past is to stick all dots on the unit sphere, anneal them into a stable position on that sphere with a suitable repulsion law, and then to squash the sphere. Chose a random point on the surface, conformally map the sphere minus that point onto a unit disc, re-anneal, and chose the outcome with lowest energy. Random point selection will naturally find the biggest open areas, bordered by the most repulsive countries, ones which deserve to be on the peripheries of the flattened diagram.
Hehe, I like the idea of the US being the most repulsive country.;-)
Well, they are demonstrably willing to part with their money, and foolishly at that - what's not to like about a market segment like that? (in the short term, at least)
The simulation makes steps that are 1 day in granularity. They are simulating particles that are travelling 10km/s. Therefore one time step is 10^6 km.
They are asserting that these objects that take million kilometer steps are intersecting with a 3000km target which is also moving a million kilometers per day (relative to jupiter, sometimes twice that, sometimes half that relative to the sun). I would suggest that they are grossly overestimating the probability of collision in that case. I have performed orbital simulations myself, and noticed that anything that involved close approaches required massively higher precision (not just shorter time steps, I had to find significantly more stable algorithms). Every time I increased accuracy, the number of collisions and of slingshots-into-infinity decreased by orders of magnitude.
They should log the initial conditions of one Europa-impinger, and then just re-run the simulation with far smaller time steps (e.g. ones which cause things only to move 1000km, rather than 1000000km per unit time), and with a range of perturbations about that "hit" (which isn't as expensive as it sounds, it's only when div starts to get high that you need to do more than just one simulation plus offsets in 2 dimentions.
According to their table 4, we've received 70000kg of solid matter from mars in the last 35 years. Can they identify any of that matter, I don't remember seeing any stories of such great quantities arriving?
Can't be arsed to work out solid angles in steradians, let's just do things in terms of area, as all that matters is the ratio.
Area of the earth: 5*10^14 m^2 Area of projection of Europa onto earth's surface: 5*10^2 m^2 ( http://xkcd.com/1276/ ) => Ratio of "out there" which is Europa: 10^-12.
I would therefore claim that unless there's a bloody good reason for things to be 30000 times larger, the probability of ejecta reaching Europa should be more like 0.0000000001%
And that presumes nothing in between us and Europa sweeps it up (such as a gravitational well such as the sun, or jupiter).
""" Putting it in to "logic book" form: Premise 1: As there are many guns, banning guns is unlikely to eliminate a significant number of guns from society. [...] """
That's not just a premise, there's a deduction too.
""" Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand. """
Sites that discuss contentious issues often get dragged down by the same net.
There was a Finnish site called lapsiporno.info (= "kiddieporn") which was an freedom-of-speech advocate's site who was complaining about excessively wide (and anti-constitutional) governmental blocking of things which weren't actually the distribution of child pornography. His reward for his actions - being added to the blocked list himself. http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2008-02-18.html
But it's a small price to pay, because think of the chiiiiildren!
Where
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/content/pictures/family/HomerStranglesBart1.gif is blocked, while
http://www.manowar-collection.de/Manowar1984Poster.jpg is considered safe.
No. In every European country where I've lived (3 of them) essential public healthcare is free. Non-essential healthcare (e.g. having a wart removed, 4 15 minute slots, say) costs almost nothing, and everyone is treated equally. Different countries cost different levels, but they're roughly on a par PPP-wise. There is also the option of private health care, and you'll be treated by the same doctors, just queue less.
The centre of mass of the fragments will continue in the same path initially. However, the smaller the fragment, the more the solar wind will affect it. Some groups of comets that appear at about to have a very similar path have been conjectured to be just components of much larger comets that have fragmented (e.g. the Kreutz group).
Your date or your name seem fucked up - are you referring to the comet about which NASA said: "In hindsight Comet LINEAR began falling apart in June when the comet unexpectedly brightened, indicating an outburst of dust. Powerful gas jets nudged the comet along a chaotic path, another indication of a very volatile activity." At that point, note that the comet had a very visible tail - it was being pounded constantly by the solar wind.
If you think "unexpected" and "spontaneous" mean the same thing, please invest in a dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the screenshots here: http://mate-desktop.org/gallery/1.6/
it seems that academic notions of proper UI design are aimed at satisfying those who only ever have 1 or 2 applications open at one time.
And academics wonder why people accuse them of living in ivory towers detached from reality...
(There are more concrete issues visible on http://mate-desktop.org/gallery/1.6/caja.png too, but who am I to argue for or against a particular window manager - I use DWM for pity's sake.)
Guys, guys, stop arguing - can't we get along?
Let's call Ubuntu the v******ed version of linux?
> The text and images that people post on the internet [are] a carefully crafted
;-p
Lolwut!!!!!
For extra trollery I even stick up for the idiots who don't know what usenet is when they say "this forum". I've been using usenet since the 80s, and usenet newsgroups also fit the definition. That drives the old timers who've been using usenet since the 90s crazy. Of course, if the newb idiots even hint at mentions of "web", or "page", then I rain down flaming brimstone upon them as they deserve.
When I first moved to linux in the 90s, *only* xmms was able to play skipless, winamp wasn't. (And as one might expect, as every piece of software eventually turns to shit, a feature they added in xmms was to put all the skips back in again - joy. Mpg123 for me now. I manage my audio files myself. My mp3 player does nothing but play mp3 files. And my ears have no need for "visualisations".)
Water's already bubbling. Google "civil forfeiture", and read pretty much any report on it. To save you time, here's one:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman
You're in a tyranny. May the 2nd Amendment help you, as no other part of the constitution seems capable to do so.
The difference is that one of those things is a legal requirement under the law of the land - administered by and in the presence of those state-licenced to perform such acts - as property ownership is entirely governed by such laws, and the other is typically smartarse companies attempting to avoid the law of land (via selling stuff not fit for any particular purpose, or via capturing personal information without telling you everything that they do with it, or ...). Last time I bought a house, I even needed to sign a separate attestation that we had declined the solicitor-provided translator as we had provided our own, and were happy with the translation of the contract that he had provided was satisfactory. (Which of course he too had to sign.)
If you are trying to blur the boundaries between one of the most state-managed formal things in the history of mankind (second only to marriage, probably) with shrink-wrap EULAs, then *you are part of the problem*.
Absolutely. And of course, not all 10x returns, or 1x losses, are equal in magnitude, either.
Wrong. The fact that you posited your whole statement as a *premise* implies that you see no possibility for any part of it to be false. You were therefore not engaging in inductive reasoning.
Next time... actually, don't bother with a next time.
If you refuse to give it, you can't use the product you shelled out money for. So it's consent *under duress*. Which is not real consent.
Out of *policy*, I never read any EULA for any product ever. To read it would be giving it weight. I will just click on anything that makes the thing work, and the only reason I'm clicking on it is to make the thing work, not because of any consent.
One of the nice things is that many websites are as dumb as fuck, and often ask me to agree to things before they let me have access to their pages - and these agreements are in a foreign language I don't understand. I cannot have consented, as I couldn't have even understood what I would be consenting to. That's not just plausible deniability, it's deniability-as-the-null-hypothesis. I just clicked on the button that then led me to where I was trying to go. If the websites don't like that, they are free to 403 me.
Did you ever do a "countries on springs" analysis such that countries which concur with each other are pulled together, and those that disent are pushed apart? Similar to the 3rd quartile cutoff one, but with all countries, and with distance made more significant.
;-)
One way I've done this in the past is to stick all dots on the unit sphere, anneal them into a stable position on that sphere with a suitable repulsion law, and then to squash the sphere. Chose a random point on the surface, conformally map the sphere minus that point onto a unit disc, re-anneal, and chose the outcome with lowest energy. Random point selection will naturally find the biggest open areas, bordered by the most repulsive countries, ones which deserve to be on the peripheries of the flattened diagram.
Hehe, I like the idea of the US being the most repulsive country.
Well, they are demonstrably willing to part with their money, and foolishly at that - what's not to like about a market segment like that? (in the short term, at least)
But as someone wants to buy it, it's not a failure. So the failure rate is 0%.
Parity payoff is parity.
OK, now I'll look at the paper....
The simulation makes steps that are 1 day in granularity.
They are simulating particles that are travelling 10km/s.
Therefore one time step is 10^6 km.
They are asserting that these objects that take million kilometer steps are intersecting with a 3000km target which is also moving a million kilometers per day (relative to jupiter, sometimes twice that, sometimes half that relative to the sun). I would suggest that they are grossly overestimating the probability of collision in that case. I have performed orbital simulations myself, and noticed that anything that involved close approaches required massively higher precision (not just shorter time steps, I had to find significantly more stable algorithms). Every time I increased accuracy, the number of collisions and of slingshots-into-infinity decreased by orders of magnitude.
They should log the initial conditions of one Europa-impinger, and then just re-run the simulation with far smaller time steps (e.g. ones which cause things only to move 1000km, rather than 1000000km per unit time), and with a range of perturbations about that "hit" (which isn't as expensive as it sounds, it's only when div starts to get high that you need to do more than just one simulation plus offsets in 2 dimentions.
According to their table 4, we've received 70000kg of solid matter from mars in the last 35 years. Can they identify any of that matter, I don't remember seeing any stories of such great quantities arriving?
I am confused by your inability to see the mistake you made given how clearly I identified it for you. Maybe you're even dumber than I first thought.
Can't be arsed to work out solid angles in steradians, let's just do things in terms of area, as all that matters is the ratio.
Area of the earth: 5*10^14 m^2
Area of projection of Europa onto earth's surface: 5*10^2 m^2 ( http://xkcd.com/1276/ )
=> Ratio of "out there" which is Europa: 10^-12.
I would therefore claim that unless there's a bloody good reason for things to be 30000 times larger, the probability of ejecta reaching Europa should be more like 0.0000000001%
And that presumes nothing in between us and Europa sweeps it up (such as a gravitational well such as the sun, or jupiter).
"""
Putting it in to "logic book" form:
Premise 1: As there are many guns, banning guns is unlikely to eliminate a significant number of guns from society. [...]
"""
That's not just a premise, there's a deduction too.
"""
Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand.
"""
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Sites that discuss contentious issues often get dragged down by the same net.
There was a Finnish site called lapsiporno.info (= "kiddieporn") which was an freedom-of-speech advocate's site who was complaining about excessively wide (and anti-constitutional) governmental blocking of things which weren't actually the distribution of child pornography. His reward for his actions - being added to the blocked list himself.
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2008-02-18.html
But it's a small price to pay, because think of the chiiiiildren!
Where
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/content/pictures/family/HomerStranglesBart1.gif
is blocked, while
http://www.manowar-collection.de/Manowar1984Poster.jpg
is considered safe.
His book on basic statistics is only $15, it's only his book on basic statistics *for business* that is $130.
No. In every European country where I've lived (3 of them) essential public healthcare is free. Non-essential healthcare (e.g. having a wart removed, 4 15 minute slots, say) costs almost nothing, and everyone is treated equally. Different countries cost different levels, but they're roughly on a par PPP-wise. There is also the option of private health care, and you'll be treated by the same doctors, just queue less.
> vote responsibly
Hahahah, great one, I've not heard a joke that funny in years.
If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal.
> I don't see how the government can compel a private employer to compel an employee to continue working
I don't see how the government can compel a private employer to forego their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.
What makes you so sure that your Civil War-era constitutional amendment is more likely to survive in tact than the 1st?
The centre of mass of the fragments will continue in the same path initially. However, the smaller the fragment, the more the solar wind will affect it. Some groups of comets that appear at about to have a very similar path have been conjectured to be just components of much larger comets that have fragmented (e.g. the Kreutz group).
Your date or your name seem fucked up - are you referring to the comet about which NASA said:
"In hindsight Comet LINEAR began falling apart in June when the comet unexpectedly brightened, indicating an outburst of dust. Powerful gas jets nudged the comet along a chaotic path, another indication of a very volatile activity."
At that point, note that the comet had a very visible tail - it was being pounded constantly by the solar wind.
If you think "unexpected" and "spontaneous" mean the same thing, please invest in a dictionary.