Exactly, and the farmer applies the water. It's kind of depressing to consider this when looking at how much plant food costs, though I guess compared to bottled water, it's not so bad.
I doubt that even a car a high-speed chase could maintain that long enough to escape the surveillance envelope and not get into an accident.
Minor quibble on terminology: I'd hardly call a wreck due to a car chase an accident. An accident is where a law-abiding driver runs into something while driving at normal speeds in a safe manner.
Did you know that the very first 6502 layout had an unused space reserved for an electrical outlet? No, not an electrical outlet on the chip, silly! An electrical outlet on the wall of the designer.
So in this case, the map really was the territory, in a sense.:)
Yes, it's idiotic. The summary acknowledges that it's an unrecognized problem, and spends several sentences dramatizing it, but fails to devote even a single sentence to describing what the hell it is. The best I could guess was that with lots of RAM in machines, they use large buffers, so that they preload lots of content, and thus put spikes in bandwidth usage, and also waste it when the user decides he doesn't want to view the entire clip after all. If they used smaller buffers, they wouldn't spike usage as much, yet still avoid underruns. Just a guess.
If you want to know what to measure, ask them why they believe the house is haunted, and then confirm that whatever they experienced is the definition of a ghost.
Comments by users are great, because they're feedback. But the insights to have aren't what the users are saying, but what is motivating them to say it. They may suggest feature X, but you have to get behind that and figure out why they're suggesting it; that is the useful feedback. You know that users are encountering some issue when using the software, and you use what they say as a clue as to what the issue really is, and then you think up ways of addressing it (if you deem it a significant issue).
If you can sense it, isn't it by definition part of your perception? Sounds like the issue with alternative and mainstream medicine: the moment it's accepted, it's not altenrative anymore, and then loses its special status.
People who are offended to this degree by certain sounds and combinations of letters would be much better off in a nice white padded cell. They aren't even offended by particular uses of these words, rather the words themselves. So they are fine with books describing violence and murder, but not ones that have words like nigger in them, regardless of the context.
[the publisher] will be editing and censoring the book so that so that schools and parents might provide their children the ability to study the classic
This is an informal working group devoted to the advancement of technology for the recovery of PAL colour information embedded within B&W film telerecordings
In other words, they are just doing a software decoder of a composite PAL signal (which has been encoded on monochrome film).
Sorry, my post you responded to was meant sarcastically (I guess I should be sad that it wasn't obviously so). I agree with you, the main issue is truth-in-advertising. If I am sold X but delivered Y, I have been defrauded. Otherwise, as long as the company has built the connection with its own resources (i.e. no government funding), then it can deliver however shitty service it wants, as long as it makes it clear how terrible it is.
Newsflash: The Internet is a series of (mostly) privately-owned and privately-operated tubes. Keep your regulations off my tubes. If I want to purchase services from a provider available to me that prioritizes YouTube and Netflix over Torrent traffic, why the heck shouldn't I be able to?
Because then I might have to pay more to get an unprioritized Internet connection, as the market for it would be smaller. I might even have to get something satellite-based. This is a violation of my rights, quite simply.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, and the farmer applies the water. It's kind of depressing to consider this when looking at how much plant food costs, though I guess compared to bottled water, it's not so bad.
I think you mean computer science, you know, the class where you learn to type.
Well, for one, isn't most plant weight due to water? Farmers certainly put millions of tons of water on their farms every year.
Minor quibble on terminology: I'd hardly call a wreck due to a car chase an accident. An accident is where a law-abiding driver runs into something while driving at normal speeds in a safe manner.
Avoid words like protection, rights when talking about DRM. It's about restriction, limitations, disabling. Those words capture what it actually does.
So in this case, the map really was the territory, in a sense. :)
Yes, it's idiotic. The summary acknowledges that it's an unrecognized problem, and spends several sentences dramatizing it, but fails to devote even a single sentence to describing what the hell it is. The best I could guess was that with lots of RAM in machines, they use large buffers, so that they preload lots of content, and thus put spikes in bandwidth usage, and also waste it when the user decides he doesn't want to view the entire clip after all. If they used smaller buffers, they wouldn't spike usage as much, yet still avoid underruns. Just a guess.
If you want to know what to measure, ask them why they believe the house is haunted, and then confirm that whatever they experienced is the definition of a ghost.
firemen moving the car out of the way of a fire: they moved it; they didn't take it
a repo: the repo is the owner
parents surreptitiously retrieving their car from an out of bounds kid: it's the parents' car, not the kid's
Yeah right. Next thing you'll be telling me is that they didn't speak modern English 2000 years ago.
If only we had a word that meant taking something without the owner's permission...
Hahaha, I like your way of saying "learn to use paragraphs, man!"
Let's just hope these things are made by some other company than one known for colored screens of death.
Comments by users are great, because they're feedback. But the insights to have aren't what the users are saying, but what is motivating them to say it. They may suggest feature X, but you have to get behind that and figure out why they're suggesting it; that is the useful feedback. You know that users are encountering some issue when using the software, and you use what they say as a clue as to what the issue really is, and then you think up ways of addressing it (if you deem it a significant issue).
If you can sense it, isn't it by definition part of your perception? Sounds like the issue with alternative and mainstream medicine: the moment it's accepted, it's not altenrative anymore, and then loses its special status.
People who are offended to this degree by certain sounds and combinations of letters would be much better off in a nice white padded cell. They aren't even offended by particular uses of these words, rather the words themselves. So they are fine with books describing violence and murder, but not ones that have words like nigger in them, regardless of the context.
It's not the classic if it's been changed.
Grandparent wasn't arguing that they should be free, but using that as a rhetorical device to show that the article's conclusion is erroneous.
Inconceivable! There's no way one could sell an app before the App Store. Thus, this app store opening is a huge thing. Huge!
This is the same sort of thing the NTSC video filters for game console emulators do internally to get the same picture you'd get on a TV.
In other words, they are just doing a software decoder of a composite PAL signal (which has been encoded on monochrome film).
At least the assassins are nice enough to hit Submit for you after they fire the fatal shot.
Sorry, my post you responded to was meant sarcastically (I guess I should be sad that it wasn't obviously so). I agree with you, the main issue is truth-in-advertising. If I am sold X but delivered Y, I have been defrauded. Otherwise, as long as the company has built the connection with its own resources (i.e. no government funding), then it can deliver however shitty service it wants, as long as it makes it clear how terrible it is.
Because then I might have to pay more to get an unprioritized Internet connection, as the market for it would be smaller. I might even have to get something satellite-based. This is a violation of my rights, quite simply.
You, sir, are a genius. I dub this Verdatum's Law.