Animals do have some concept of time, as they have the concept of both position and velocity, and can extrapolate the relation between the two over time. For example, a dog can instinctively judge its jump so that it intercepts a thrown frisbee, likewise birds of prey hunting birds or fish. They may not be able to cogitate over the concepts they use, unlike us humans, but they can certainly put them into use.
> It's becoming increasingly annoying to use NoScript. Some sites have so many transitive JavaScript dependencies that you have to click "temporarily allow all this page" a dozen times before the site works.
What you *meant* was:
It's becoming increasingly annoying to use websites which have so many transitive JavaScript dependencies that you'd have to click "temporarily allow all this page" a dozen times before the site works.
Unless that site is paying you, or otherwise giving you some significant value, I'd say it wasn't worth your time. If the smart people migrate away from stupid sites en masse, they all lose their value, and noone will miss them.
Doh, what a fuckup. "I don't see it" should have read "I don't see its true source being identified". The word is in quotes in that article, but that's a quote of Roth. Roth is claiming that he's being called that by wikipedia, yet there's no quote to support that precise verbiage. The trail to the root of that accusation just runs dry.
> authors of books had their remarks removed because they were not considered a credible source
Where did the word "credible" come from? I don't see it in either the linked article or the thence-linked Roth letter itself. The actual quote from wikipedia maintainers is "we require secondary sources", which I think is perfectly valid.
An author should not source of information on himself for an encyclopaedic work. It's not that he *can't* be believed (i.e. that he is not credible), it's that he *shouldn't* be believed.
Nokia was in bed with MS in the early days of the N9.
The N9 is a painfully locked-down system, not a proper linux computer. Sure, they'll let you have have a root shell if you beg for it and pledge your first-born to them, but even when you've got it, you can't run "dmesg", as you don't have the POSIX capabilities necessary for that. Why's your WiFi flakey? We won't let you see the kernel log messages to find out - screw you!
There is a connection between those 2 paragraphs I'd love to explain, but I'm alas under NDA.
Being, gramattically, an absolute, the first clause provides reason when or why the second clause holds. In latin it would have been an ablative absolute, but English doens't have the ablative case.
In your example, there is a direct implication that the arms borne are intended to be used to protect us from purple giraffes.
Here's another example: The student being stupid, the teacher explained things veeeery sloooowly.
There's no support for that claim in anything I've seen in this thread so far, and is in fact in direct contradiction to the earlier quote from Virginia's declaration above:
"Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms..."
There would be no need to mention training at all were training to be implied by "regulated".
Also, looking at the use of the term "regulate" in the constitution as a whole I am lead to conclude that it only meant "bound by rules", which should have been the null hypothesis anyway.
If you wish to present a hypothesis that differs from the null hypothesis, please provide supporting evidence.
> no person religiously scrupulous... > no person religiously scrupulous... > no one religiously scrupulous... > no one religiously scrupulous...
Very interesting, so it was considered that only religious people could be consciencious objectors. Presumably atheists don't have consciences? (Which reminds of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSe83qc8Ngg )
I'm guessing (and this is truly a wild-arse guess) the "person" to "one" change was because negroes weren't persons, and someone felt a little bit guilty that their god-fearing negro wasn't extended the same right to object to bearing arms that they were, so wanted them included in that exclusion. That was nice of him (conditional upon my WAG being correct).
It's strange how romantic, and apparently rose-tinted, the modern images of how right-thinking were those who forged the nation are.
> Vote him out, and vote in a different, more savvy judge next time
I know bugger all about how the US system works, but that wikipedia page implies that he was simply appointed by an Arkansan sitting in an office in Washington DC, not voted in by anyone in his district who might have an interest in whom presides over that district's judicial affairs.
Your estimation of the power, or even relevance, of the almighty "vote" seems massively over-inflated.
As someone who was a god-botherer in his fucked-up youth (I'm now an igtheist that considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be moderates who are soft on theists), the stance that the fairly modern church I went to drilled into me was that wherever the new testament contradicts the old testament, the NT takes precedence. For example Matthew 5:38-48 (the "turn the other cheek" passage) basically wipes out all excuses for revenge. Gone. Kaput. And sure enough, there's almost no reference to revenge or vengeance in the new testament compared to the OT or the Apocrypha: $ zgrep -c -i '^..O.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz 62 $ zgrep -c -i '^..N.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz 12 $ zgrep -c -i '^..A.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz 38
Delving into those 12 NT quotes, many of them are telling stories referencing OT times, and many others about how god himself will be vengeful. One's good old-fashioned drug-induced gibbering (Revelation). However, one is borderline (Romans, surprise, surprise), it does imply that a just theocracy may take vengeance upon evil as an agent of god.
So I would say that "according to [my christian] beliefs", the christians were not "equally as bad". I can't think off the top of my head think of any gospel passages that "could be interpreted to also mean that followers of it should murder non-Christians". The only NT thing that comes to mind would be in Paul's letters (surprise, surprise again, he indeed is the loose cannon), Romans 1:24-32 (the "gays deserve to die" passage) but that's worded as a "historical" OT recollection of god smiting the evil poofs complete, admittedly with perverted approval, rather than an order for humans to do the smiting henceforth and forthwith.
So I do think that I can drive a tram sideways between the christian scriptures and instructions to kill people, but I can't even get a cigarette paper between the hebrew or muslim scriptures and direct orders to kill people. I.e. I do consider it a "particularly larger leap".
Of course, these are matters of opinion. Opinion in a subject I do like to discuss, for further historical, literary, cultural, and even personal, enlightenment (hence accedentally nearly getting killed by a workmate). I could happily chat about this with you down the pub for hours!
OT - regarding your homepage link, just today in the pub at lunch a good friend of mine said "Phil, don't ever do acid". Oddly enough, the topic of conversation at the time was that of my *ig*theism and how it deviated from his atheism.
The story is to do with Verizon and their compentencies.
One of the things Verizon's competence has just been specifically sought after for is Obamacare - that's in the news, at least here in Europe. Do you not have newspapers where you're from?
But how could it possibly be hacked, they put client-side javascript code in to ensure that the hidden field containing the account number couldn't be modified!?!?!?
I was expecting your post to veer in this direction:
This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will just give up on using facebook, and it will be forgotten about and disappear. Turns out the government is actually useful for something.
I had an easy-going moderate muslim workmate, fairly intelligent, and a hard worker who had the project's best interests in mind at all times. Well, I say moderate, as he appeared that way until the topic of religion came up in conversation one day, which was an interesting discussion until he basically interrupted me and said "don't end that sentence or I will have to kill you", and I could tell from the look on his face that he was serious.
Whackjobbery abounds.
Any religion which encourages its followers to murder people simply for expressing opposing opinions *is* worse than any religion that doesn't do that. So I think you're wrong - there is something inherent in 21st century Islam that makes it worse than many other 21st century religions.
Ny nokia n900 and n9 linux phones have on average fewer than 6 wakeups of any kind per second when idle (the best development release got this down to under 5), but more importantly, as about 90% of those wakeups were i2c interrupts caused by two batched sequences of battery monitoring commands every 12s, the processor was able to maintain an average residency in OFF mode (i.e. consuming no amps at all) of 2.5s. If those MS Windows devices have a timer interrupt (which they will), then the processors are probably not able to reach OFF mode at all, as you can't reach such a deep sleep state if you know you're going to have to wake up in 1/100th of a second.
"The operating systems were not designed with energy efficiency in mind." If you mean the kernel, then that's not been true since tickless mode was introduced a long time back. And if you do mean the whole GUI platform too, then I can assure you there was a massive drive to combat unnecessary wakeups in maemo and harmattan. I know this, as I was driving it - I was the guy who knew how to squeeze the most information out of powertop, and file unassailable bug reports.
Or do it more clumpily, for want of a better word.
It's generally way better on an embedded device to do 10 things and then sleep for 10 units of time, than to do one thing and sleep one unit of time 10 times, as the latter prevents deeper sleep states being entered in the hardware.
Well-written modern (last 4 years-ish) linux kernel drivers will try to use range timers, to hopefully permit a whole bunch of wakeups being scheduled together.
Are you a mathematical numbnut or something? Multiplication and division are associate operations. Every multiplication (by a non-zero value) is a division (by the reciprocal), and every division (by a non-zero value) is a multiplication (by the reciprocal).
And because of this, to a scientist, units, which is what was being talked about, are dimensioned in multiples of powers of fundamental units. E.g. the units for acceleration = m.s^-2
"It is a valid way of evaluating and comparing the relative financial viability of various technologies."
I.e. it's the correct thing to use in the context of this article. Which is why I used it. This idea of scientific units being multiplied together magically becoming unscientific intrigues me - please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Compare Taleb's "We Can Start Exposing Economists" gauntlet-flinging earlier this year. He's highly mathematical, and he abhors the misuse of mathematics. And what I like about him is that he's prepared to take on big targets, compared with the relatively indignificant target attacked by the TFA.
Any judgement that does not take into account how long the powerplant will run will one time dimension different from a measurement in watts (be they We or Wt, that's the same dimension, just a different scale factor). And any mention of one-time overheads (cost of production, decommissioning, etc.) of the facility only makes sense if you are taking into account how long the powerplant will run.
And one-time overheads *were* mentioned, therefore the more useful metric is the joule-based one, rather than the watt-based one.
I refer back to the example of incredibly high capacity that self-destructs almost immediately. Why does nobody use such mechanisms to add low dollar-per-watt capacity to their grid?
Slashdot Mirror
Animals do have some concept of time, as they have the concept of both position and velocity, and can extrapolate the relation between the two over time. For example, a dog can instinctively judge its jump so that it intercepts a thrown frisbee, likewise birds of prey hunting birds or fish.
They may not be able to cogitate over the concepts they use, unlike us humans, but they can certainly put them into use.
What you *wrote* was:
> It's becoming increasingly annoying to use NoScript. Some sites have so many transitive JavaScript dependencies that you have to click "temporarily allow all this page" a dozen times before the site works.
What you *meant* was:
It's becoming increasingly annoying to use websites which have so many transitive JavaScript dependencies that you'd have to click "temporarily allow all this page" a dozen times before the site works.
Unless that site is paying you, or otherwise giving you some significant value, I'd say it wasn't worth your time. If the smart people migrate away from stupid sites en masse, they all lose their value, and noone will miss them.
Doh, what a fuckup.
"I don't see it" should have read "I don't see its true source being identified". The word is in quotes in that article, but that's a quote of Roth. Roth is claiming that he's being called that by wikipedia, yet there's no quote to support that precise verbiage. The trail to the root of that accusation just runs dry.
> authors of books had their remarks removed because they were not considered a credible source
Where did the word "credible" come from? I don't see it in either the linked article or the thence-linked Roth letter itself. The actual quote from wikipedia maintainers is "we require secondary sources", which I think is perfectly valid.
An author should not source of information on himself for an encyclopaedic work. It's not that he *can't* be believed (i.e. that he is not credible), it's that he *shouldn't* be believed.
Nokia was in bed with MS in the early days of the N9.
The N9 is a painfully locked-down system, not a proper linux computer. Sure, they'll let you have have a root shell if you beg for it and pledge your first-born to them, but even when you've got it, you can't run "dmesg", as you don't have the POSIX capabilities necessary for that. Why's your WiFi flakey? We won't let you see the kernel log messages to find out - screw you!
There is a connection between those 2 paragraphs I'd love to explain, but I'm alas under NDA.
Being, gramattically, an absolute, the first clause provides reason when or why the second clause holds. In latin it would have been an ablative absolute, but English doens't have the ablative case.
In your example, there is a direct implication that the arms borne are intended to be used to protect us from purple giraffes.
Here's another example:
The student being stupid, the teacher explained things veeeery sloooowly.
There's no support for that claim in anything I've seen in this thread so far, and is in fact in direct contradiction to the earlier quote from Virginia's declaration above:
..."
"Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms
There would be no need to mention training at all were training to be implied by "regulated".
Also, looking at the use of the term "regulate" in the constitution as a whole I am lead to conclude that it only meant "bound by rules", which should have been the null hypothesis anyway.
If you wish to present a hypothesis that differs from the null hypothesis, please provide supporting evidence.
> no person religiously scrupulous ... ... ... ...
> no person religiously scrupulous
> no one religiously scrupulous
> no one religiously scrupulous
Very interesting, so it was considered that only religious people could be consciencious objectors. Presumably atheists don't have consciences?
(Which reminds of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSe83qc8Ngg )
I'm guessing (and this is truly a wild-arse guess) the "person" to "one" change was because negroes weren't persons, and someone felt a little bit guilty that their god-fearing negro wasn't extended the same right to object to bearing arms that they were, so wanted them included in that exclusion. That was nice of him (conditional upon my WAG being correct).
It's strange how romantic, and apparently rose-tinted, the modern images of how right-thinking were those who forged the nation are.
For the sake of all that is just and true - mods, please upmod parent!
I knew all women were whores!
:-(, she normally does.)
(My g/f did not give approval for me to post this
> Vote him out, and vote in a different, more savvy judge next time
I know bugger all about how the US system works, but that wikipedia page implies that he was simply appointed by an Arkansan sitting in an office in Washington DC, not voted in by anyone in his district who might have an interest in whom presides over that district's judicial affairs.
Your estimation of the power, or even relevance, of the almighty "vote" seems massively over-inflated.
As someone who was a god-botherer in his fucked-up youth (I'm now an igtheist that considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be moderates who are soft on theists), the stance that the fairly modern church I went to drilled into me was that wherever the new testament contradicts the old testament, the NT takes precedence. For example Matthew 5:38-48 (the "turn the other cheek" passage) basically wipes out all excuses for revenge. Gone. Kaput. And sure enough, there's almost no reference to revenge or vengeance in the new testament compared to the OT or the Apocrypha:
$ zgrep -c -i '^..O.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
62
$ zgrep -c -i '^..N.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
12
$ zgrep -c -i '^..A.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
38
Delving into those 12 NT quotes, many of them are telling stories referencing OT times, and many others about how god himself will be vengeful. One's good old-fashioned drug-induced gibbering (Revelation). However, one is borderline (Romans, surprise, surprise), it does imply that a just theocracy may take vengeance upon evil as an agent of god.
So I would say that "according to [my christian] beliefs", the christians were not "equally as bad". I can't think off the top of my head think of any gospel passages that "could be interpreted to also mean that followers of it should murder non-Christians". The only NT thing that comes to mind would be in Paul's letters (surprise, surprise again, he indeed is the loose cannon), Romans 1:24-32 (the "gays deserve to die" passage) but that's worded as a "historical" OT recollection of god smiting the evil poofs complete, admittedly with perverted approval, rather than an order for humans to do the smiting henceforth and forthwith.
So I do think that I can drive a tram sideways between the christian scriptures and instructions to kill people, but I can't even get a cigarette paper between the hebrew or muslim scriptures and direct orders to kill people. I.e. I do consider it a "particularly larger leap".
Of course, these are matters of opinion. Opinion in a subject I do like to discuss, for further historical, literary, cultural, and even personal, enlightenment (hence accedentally nearly getting killed by a workmate). I could happily chat about this with you down the pub for hours!
OT - regarding your homepage link, just today in the pub at lunch a good friend of mine said "Phil, don't ever do acid". Oddly enough, the topic of conversation at the time was that of my *ig*theism and how it deviated from his atheism.
The story is to do with Verizon and their compentencies.
One of the things Verizon's competence has just been specifically sought after for is Obamacare - that's in the news, at least here in Europe. Do you not have newspapers where you're from?
But how could it possibly be hacked, they put client-side javascript code in to ensure that the hidden field containing the account number couldn't be modified!?!?!?
I was expecting your post to veer in this direction:
This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will just give up on using facebook, and it will be forgotten about and disappear. Turns out the government is actually useful for something.
I had an easy-going moderate muslim workmate, fairly intelligent, and a hard worker who had the project's best interests in mind at all times. Well, I say moderate, as he appeared that way until the topic of religion came up in conversation one day, which was an interesting discussion until he basically interrupted me and said "don't end that sentence or I will have to kill you", and I could tell from the look on his face that he was serious.
Whackjobbery abounds.
Any religion which encourages its followers to murder people simply for expressing opposing opinions *is* worse than any religion that doesn't do that. So I think you're wrong - there is something inherent in 21st century Islam that makes it worse than many other 21st century religions.
Ny nokia n900 and n9 linux phones have on average fewer than 6 wakeups of any kind per second when idle (the best development release got this down to under 5), but more importantly, as about 90% of those wakeups were i2c interrupts caused by two batched sequences of battery monitoring commands every 12s, the processor was able to maintain an average residency in OFF mode (i.e. consuming no amps at all) of 2.5s. If those MS Windows devices have a timer interrupt (which they will), then the processors are probably not able to reach OFF mode at all, as you can't reach such a deep sleep state if you know you're going to have to wake up in 1/100th of a second.
"The operating systems were not designed with energy efficiency in mind."
If you mean the kernel, then that's not been true since tickless mode was introduced a long time back. And if you do mean the whole GUI platform too, then I can assure you there was a massive drive to combat unnecessary wakeups in maemo and harmattan. I know this, as I was driving it - I was the guy who knew how to squeeze the most information out of powertop, and file unassailable bug reports.
Or do it more clumpily, for want of a better word.
It's generally way better on an embedded device to do 10 things and then sleep for 10 units of time, than to do one thing and sleep one unit of time 10 times, as the latter prevents deeper sleep states being entered in the hardware.
Well-written modern (last 4 years-ish) linux kernel drivers will try to use range timers, to hopefully permit a whole bunch of wakeups being scheduled together.
After staring at "loading attack data" for 10 seconds, I decided it was denying my service, and gave it the Ctrl-W.
Re your sig: "The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold."
Are you a mathematical numbnut or something? Multiplication and division are associate operations. Every multiplication (by a non-zero value) is a division (by the reciprocal), and every division (by a non-zero value) is a multiplication (by the reciprocal).
And because of this, to a scientist, units, which is what was being talked about, are dimensioned in multiples of powers of fundamental units. E.g. the units for acceleration = m.s^-2
If you are ignoring how long they will last, then you are not evaluating any useful cost.
"It is a valid way of evaluating and comparing the relative financial viability of various technologies."
I.e. it's the correct thing to use in the context of this article. Which is why I used it. This idea of scientific units being multiplied together magically becoming unscientific intrigues me - please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Compare Taleb's "We Can Start Exposing Economists" gauntlet-flinging earlier this year. He's highly mathematical, and he abhors the misuse of mathematics. And what I like about him is that he's prepared to take on big targets, compared with the relatively indignificant target attacked by the TFA.
Any judgement that does not take into account how long the powerplant will run will one time dimension different from a measurement in watts (be they We or Wt, that's the same dimension, just a different scale factor). And any mention of one-time overheads (cost of production, decommissioning, etc.) of the facility only makes sense if you are taking into account how long the powerplant will run.
And one-time overheads *were* mentioned, therefore the more useful metric is the joule-based one, rather than the watt-based one.
I refer back to the example of incredibly high capacity that self-destructs almost immediately. Why does nobody use such mechanisms to add low dollar-per-watt capacity to their grid?