I'm three links deep and I've yet to find anything really notable. But fine, I'm an idiot in need of explanation. Tell me what I missed.
Yes, these days it's tons of bullshit until you get to the real thing. Everything above the actual study is going to be full of infantile jokes and idiotic observations, as you've noted (personally it makes me sick to read any modern news articles, or much of anything, due to this). Here's the path I followed to get to the actual study:
In the study, they use the detailed interaction data to try various infection parameters, to see how it spreads. There are many interesting graphs, showing how it spreads in the various scenarios, and where there are sudden changes in how it spreads. They look at different vaccination strategies to see which are most effective.
Can you give an example of an article that was deleted? Otherwise, it's hard to compare it to the inane one you cited. And why would an article's resource usage be the main consideration for whether to delete? I'd think its relevance to the site's goal would be the prime consideration.
Yeah, the summary is pure flamebait. Open source is about both using open things, and making one's changes to them available. It's not about supporting a particular platform even though it's (apparently) not (yet) economically viable to do so. What next, calling them hypocrites because they dont' support every open-source OS out there? I guess it was too much for the summarizer to simply accept that he was annoyed at them for not supporting Linux, and had to project it on them.
The externally-imposed schedule is what killed TV for me years ago. When they set the schedule, and you keep track of what they're showing, you feel like you're missing things if you don't stay glued to the TV every day. When you set the schedule, you know that whether you watch it today, a week from now, or whenever you happen to feel like it, it will still be around. You also quickly see that there is thousands of times more material than you could ever watch in a lifetime, and thus accept that you will be missing 99% of everything no matter what you do. So you don't even start the game of trying to watch all these things you must watch. It becomes simply watching when you feel like watching a movie/TV show would be beneficial (I watch after I've been working for 10 hours straight, and need some relaxation, but sometimes don't watch for weeks, if I don't feel worn out).
What, take a cool-headed approach that may well lead to finding nothing, when we could get all emotional and anxious over the mere mention of the possibility? You must be great at parties.
This whole thing is basically like this: Back in the 1990s, a say 200 MHz computer was fast. So when people saw 200 MHz, they thought "fast". Now, a 200 MHz computer isn't fast, but they want to believe that one advertised at that speed is fast, so they think they can get a really good deal on a fast computer. So they complain that it's false advertising, that this 200 MHz computer isn't fast, and had the FCC redefine 200 MHz to mean a modern fast computer. Of course if you actually incorporated terms like fast, then you'd end up with the USB situation, where you have low speed, full speed, high speed (shouldn't full speed be the highest possible?), and SuperSpeed (what next, SuperUltraSpeed, ReallySuperSpeed?).
Lets face it, nature has a far more powerful computer than we do.
Sure, it's got billions of them loosely networked, and they've been running for billions of years. You'd expect some impressive results to be accumulated.
7. Allow me to calculate the shipping and handling costs WITHOUT going through a registration process and entering my credit card number first. You can do this, trust me.
How dare you argue that you have a right to know what you're being subjected to. We know what's healthy for you, and you don't need to worry yourself about the details.
And no, I'm not talking about restrictions on smoking in public spaces where the smoke affects others; I'm talking about restrictions/taxes on smoking on private property where the smoke doesn't drift on to neighboring property and the property owner is OK with smoking.
How about the increase in the cost of my healthcare due to people with tobacco induced illnesses who can't pay their medical bills?
Simple: don't give medical care to people who can't pay. Just like you don't give a car to someone who can't pay. Why should responsible smokers pay for irresponsible people?
It's really quite simple. There are people who create and sell an addictive product which kills people.
Where does it end? Fatty foods? Salty foods? Foods with sugar? I wish I were simply engaging in hyperbole here, but news stories tell otherwise.
When that happens, go ahead, knock yourself out. Literally.
Like I said, I don't smoke. I do value my freedom, and know the behavior of people who are always looking for some new reason to encroach on it. It's ironic that you describe how smokers impose on you, but fail to see how you want to impose your restriction of freedom on everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, these days it's tons of bullshit until you get to the real thing. Everything above the actual study is going to be full of infantile jokes and idiotic observations, as you've noted (personally it makes me sick to read any modern news articles, or much of anything, due to this). Here's the path I followed to get to the actual study:
Slashdot summary -> Hot Hardware version -> Stanford's news release about study -> Abstract of study -> Study itself (PDF).
In the study, they use the detailed interaction data to try various infection parameters, to see how it spreads. There are many interesting graphs, showing how it spreads in the various scenarios, and where there are sudden changes in how it spreads. They look at different vaccination strategies to see which are most effective.
Spacehasafunctiontoo,evenlargespaces.
Care to state that in English?
Can you give an example of an article that was deleted? Otherwise, it's hard to compare it to the inane one you cited. And why would an article's resource usage be the main consideration for whether to delete? I'd think its relevance to the site's goal would be the prime consideration.
Not much. Did you think the entire result of the study was just that number, and not simply one simple value to throw into the summary?
Yeah, the summary is pure flamebait. Open source is about both using open things, and making one's changes to them available. It's not about supporting a particular platform even though it's (apparently) not (yet) economically viable to do so. What next, calling them hypocrites because they dont' support every open-source OS out there? I guess it was too much for the summarizer to simply accept that he was annoyed at them for not supporting Linux, and had to project it on them.
The bigger bill to be free of is the 60+ hour bill of your time every month.
The externally-imposed schedule is what killed TV for me years ago. When they set the schedule, and you keep track of what they're showing, you feel like you're missing things if you don't stay glued to the TV every day. When you set the schedule, you know that whether you watch it today, a week from now, or whenever you happen to feel like it, it will still be around. You also quickly see that there is thousands of times more material than you could ever watch in a lifetime, and thus accept that you will be missing 99% of everything no matter what you do. So you don't even start the game of trying to watch all these things you must watch. It becomes simply watching when you feel like watching a movie/TV show would be beneficial (I watch after I've been working for 10 hours straight, and need some relaxation, but sometimes don't watch for weeks, if I don't feel worn out).
Since it's only appled to goods made in the US, wouldn't it have been simpler for them to just list them? As in: {} (the null set)
Wow, you Americans now have one-dimensional cubicles now? Well, if they fit...
What, take a cool-headed approach that may well lead to finding nothing, when we could get all emotional and anxious over the mere mention of the possibility? You must be great at parties.
And even if you use no extra pesticides, plants are full of them.
Let's see, someone calling for caution, or someone putting someone else down as being a greenie. Which one to give more weight, hmmm...
This whole thing is basically like this: Back in the 1990s, a say 200 MHz computer was fast. So when people saw 200 MHz, they thought "fast". Now, a 200 MHz computer isn't fast, but they want to believe that one advertised at that speed is fast, so they think they can get a really good deal on a fast computer. So they complain that it's false advertising, that this 200 MHz computer isn't fast, and had the FCC redefine 200 MHz to mean a modern fast computer. Of course if you actually incorporated terms like fast, then you'd end up with the USB situation, where you have low speed, full speed, high speed (shouldn't full speed be the highest possible?), and SuperSpeed (what next, SuperUltraSpeed, ReallySuperSpeed?).
Broadband doesn't mean "faster than what I currently have". It refers to the portion of the frequency spectrum (bandwidth) used.
...and instead use Facebook to protect my privacy. Wait, why are you laughing?
Sure, it's got billions of them loosely networked, and they've been running for billions of years. You'd expect some impressive results to be accumulated.
7. Allow me to calculate the shipping and handling costs WITHOUT going through a registration process and entering my credit card number first. You can do this, trust me.
But it's easier to just blame it on the computer. They can't defend thems%#*&#(&$ NO CARRIER
I guess the webserver also is running on an all-analog server, which is now in a "halt and catch fire" state.
How dare you argue that you have a right to know what you're being subjected to. We know what's healthy for you, and you don't need to worry yourself about the details.
Since this post mentions the Library of Congress, it publishes it. 140 characters IS enough for anybody, apparently.
Simple: don't give medical care to people who can't pay. Just like you don't give a car to someone who can't pay. Why should responsible smokers pay for irresponsible people?
Where does it end? Fatty foods? Salty foods? Foods with sugar? I wish I were simply engaging in hyperbole here, but news stories tell otherwise.
Like I said, I don't smoke. I do value my freedom, and know the behavior of people who are always looking for some new reason to encroach on it. It's ironic that you describe how smokers impose on you, but fail to see how you want to impose your restriction of freedom on everyone.