I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused
I agree. Serving up pieces of children is not only immoral, it's also impossible.
But we're talking about photos, here. Pictures. Bits. Since when did bits hurt anyone? Sure, *creating* those bits may hurt someone, but that's why such acts are illegal and should be discovered and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It only matters because, normally, a dark surface transforms the light into infrared, instead of simply reflecting it, which causes the energy to be trapped in the atmosphere. But the whole point of these things is to absorb some significant percentage of the heat and convert it into electricity, and so that energy is never re-radiated into the atmosphere.
Now, according to this, sand reflects roughly 40% of the light which strikes it. So, as long as these converters are somewhere around 50% efficient (from what I've read on Slashdot, the theoretical max is 60%), the overall effect will probably be negligable. And that's assuming you build over sand, and not a surface that has an even lower albedo.
'course, eventually, that energy must be converted to heat here on earth (stupid thermodynamics). But that's a problem of all technologies, not just this one.
No, actually it's not like that at all. Or do you believe governments shouldn't be allowed to build roads? Or to operate fire or police services? Or to protect national borders?
Silly libertarians. Take your meds, you really need to come back to reality.
However, I gotta admit, the.NET language has some very nice features that are only now making it to Java (and this is coming from someone who, traditionally, has been a pretty heavy Java programmer). The syntactic sugar, while just sugar, for accessors/mutators is really nice. And Java is just now moving toward supporting proper lexical closures (a feature I love to use when it's available), which.NET has supported for quite a while now (and, no, anonymous inner classes *don't* count).
All that said, at least Java is finally moving to pick up these features (eg, generics), and we can thank.NET for that.
; Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it
No, the Windows implementation of these things is why people want something else. The features themselves aren't necessarily a bad idea.
Meanwhile, things like VBA support are *vital* for migration away from Microsoft products. Without them, people will continue to be locked in to MS solutions. So quite complaining. This is a good thing.
Re:Widgets in QGraphicsView look *really* promisin
on
In-Depth With Qt 4.4
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but this time it's implemented in something that people will actually use
I can't disagree with this. There are a number of places in the.NET APIs where things seem half finished or just poorly implemented (it took them until.NET *3.5* before they had support for handling time zones other than UTC and local, if you can believe that... I know I couldn't) And, as sad and pathetic as this is, already,.NET has a large number of bugs that Microsoft won't fix. Why? Because applications depend on the behaviour! Sound familiar?
That said, I don't think anyone will argue that.NET is anything but a major step forward in Windows application development.
OTOH, I suppose that's just an excellent example of damning with faint praise.
Just because it's not being done for the _good_ of the workers doesn't mean it can't be socialist/communist.
Well, given that, in communism, the workers are the ones running things, it does make it exceedingly unlikely.
Maybe it's the logical end-state of communism?
Or maybe it just proves that communism, as a pure idiology, doesn't work in the real world (kinda like pure, free-market capitalism), devolving into *other* forms of government, such as fascism or totalitarianism. But that doesn't change the fact that China is *not* a communist state, based on the definition of the term "communism".
So, 70% "tell someone about their plans or give warning signs". And how many don't talk about it? Now how many miss the warning signs, or misunderstand them?
My point is, just because they didn't recognize the signs, doesn't mean they weren't there. And if he genuinely gave no signs, doesn't mean it didn't happen. So to assume something mysterious and sinister is going on is silly, wishful thinking. Not to mention incredibly arrogant, given it involves questioning the conclusions of the ME.
It would serve ALL open OSes to have open source, because people could just read the damn source code, which is effectively a working, functional spec. Hell, I don't care if the drivers are for Linux or not, as long as they're open and work (ie, if the drivers were FreeBSD-only, I'd be making the same comments).
Well now you're just making cynical, baseless assumptions in order to support the GGPs point.
Look, if they don't provide the source, feel free to bitch. But, until then, I'm gonna assume that when they say "open source drivers", they really mean drivers with source code available. And that's *far* better than what we have today, which is exactly *nothing* (and, IMHO, source is better than a spec, in any case, so it sounds to me like simply pointless whining).
You mean the whining about open specs? Yeah, I read it. And I don't care. If you have the source, you have all you need. Basically, Dell, et al, are pushing for a major improvement in the current situation vis a vis driver support of OSS products, and the GP decided that, nah, that ain't good enough, because they aren't requiring documentation, too.
The point is that without leaving a suicide note or having confessed earlier to thoughts of suicide then it is LESS LIKELY that he actually committed suicide.
Why? Given that most people *don't* leave notes prior to committing suicide, obviously that plays no part in it. And many (most?) depressed (actually, clinically depressed, not the stereotypical emo-teenager depressed) people spend their lives hiding what's actually going on in their heads from their friends and family (I've known more than one depressed person, and this has invariably been the pattern).
Or do you have numbers to back up your seemingly baseless supposition?
Actually, it's the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies charged with dealing with electronic trespass. It's also the responsibility of those operating these systems to secure them properly. But it's *not* the responsibility of some researchers to run off on a vigilante mission.
None of that should be reason for conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And you believe that was the reason for the conviction, why? Oh, right... because you like the idea of being a socially maladjusted nerd who's been spurned by society just for being different. Ahh, nothing like a martyr complex to keep life interesting, eh?
So they alienated him, found him strange, and thus, were no longer a jury of his peers.
Yes, you're right, this is all about the poor, misunderstood geek, once again excluded from society. Oh, poor poor nerds, so sad and downtrodden. Woe! Woe to the nerds!
FFS, the guy took out the seat of his car before hosing the interior down and said he did it because he likes to *sleep* there! And then they found *blood* in the damned car! Sorry, but there's no way anyone would by that sorry excuse, regardless of who it came from. It's fucking ridiculous, and you know it.
Sorry, allow me to rephrase, "close it and commercialize it" (given Redhat makes money on OSS, it's pretty obvious that money can be made with GPL software, specifically by providing value-added services). Regardless, my point still stands.
Slashdot Mirror
I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused
I agree. Serving up pieces of children is not only immoral, it's also impossible.
But we're talking about photos, here. Pictures. Bits. Since when did bits hurt anyone? Sure, *creating* those bits may hurt someone, but that's why such acts are illegal and should be discovered and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
This sounds pretty exact-opposite of what the greenpeace hippy terro... activists are saying.
Hey, you know how people are getting sick of the government throwing around the term terrorist? Yeah... you're doing the same damn thing, asshole.
Albedo. This matters.
It only matters because, normally, a dark surface transforms the light into infrared, instead of simply reflecting it, which causes the energy to be trapped in the atmosphere. But the whole point of these things is to absorb some significant percentage of the heat and convert it into electricity, and so that energy is never re-radiated into the atmosphere.
Now, according to this, sand reflects roughly 40% of the light which strikes it. So, as long as these converters are somewhere around 50% efficient (from what I've read on Slashdot, the theoretical max is 60%), the overall effect will probably be negligable. And that's assuming you build over sand, and not a surface that has an even lower albedo.
'course, eventually, that energy must be converted to heat here on earth (stupid thermodynamics). But that's a problem of all technologies, not just this one.
We wouldn't even have this problem if the very same people hadn't killed the nuclear industry through scaremongering and excessive litigation.
Absolutely! Instead, we'd be going back and forth on where to bury the nuclear waste.
No, actually it's not like that at all. Or do you believe governments shouldn't be allowed to build roads? Or to operate fire or police services? Or to protect national borders?
Silly libertarians. Take your meds, you really need to come back to reality.
This is yet another example of why it is ridiculous to say it is better to "just let the government handle it"
You are correct. In some cases. But only a blind fool would believe that's universally true.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that.
.NET language has some very nice features that are only now making it to Java (and this is coming from someone who, traditionally, has been a pretty heavy Java programmer). The syntactic sugar, while just sugar, for accessors/mutators is really nice. And Java is just now moving toward supporting proper lexical closures (a feature I love to use when it's available), which .NET has supported for quite a while now (and, no, anonymous inner classes *don't* count).
.NET for that.
However, I gotta admit, the
All that said, at least Java is finally moving to pick up these features (eg, generics), and we can thank
; Windows is the reason we want something else, so why are you copying it
No, the Windows implementation of these things is why people want something else. The features themselves aren't necessarily a bad idea.
Meanwhile, things like VBA support are *vital* for migration away from Microsoft products. Without them, people will continue to be locked in to MS solutions. So quite complaining. This is a good thing.
Yes, but this time it's implemented in something that people will actually use
You mean like this?
I can't disagree with this. There are a number of places in the .NET APIs where things seem half finished or just poorly implemented (it took them until .NET *3.5* before they had support for handling time zones other than UTC and local, if you can believe that... I know I couldn't) And, as sad and pathetic as this is, already, .NET has a large number of bugs that Microsoft won't fix. Why? Because applications depend on the behaviour! Sound familiar?
.NET is anything but a major step forward in Windows application development.
That said, I don't think anyone will argue that
OTOH, I suppose that's just an excellent example of damning with faint praise.
Just because it's not being done for the _good_ of the workers doesn't mean it can't be socialist/communist.
Well, given that, in communism, the workers are the ones running things, it does make it exceedingly unlikely.
Maybe it's the logical end-state of communism?
Or maybe it just proves that communism, as a pure idiology, doesn't work in the real world (kinda like pure, free-market capitalism), devolving into *other* forms of government, such as fascism or totalitarianism. But that doesn't change the fact that China is *not* a communist state, based on the definition of the term "communism".
Yes, I bet you're right... I'm sure the Twitter people have never heard of profiling before.
if you think you could be a better driver in real life from driving in a video game using a thumbstick...well, you deserve to die in a fiery crash.
I would agree with you, save for the unfortunate fact that these devolved jackasses often take innocent lives with them.
So, 70% "tell someone about their plans or give warning signs". And how many don't talk about it? Now how many miss the warning signs, or misunderstand them?
My point is, just because they didn't recognize the signs, doesn't mean they weren't there. And if he genuinely gave no signs, doesn't mean it didn't happen. So to assume something mysterious and sinister is going on is silly, wishful thinking. Not to mention incredibly arrogant, given it involves questioning the conclusions of the ME.
It would serve ALL open OSes to have open source, because people could just read the damn source code, which is effectively a working, functional spec. Hell, I don't care if the drivers are for Linux or not, as long as they're open and work (ie, if the drivers were FreeBSD-only, I'd be making the same comments).
Well now you're just making cynical, baseless assumptions in order to support the GGPs point.
Look, if they don't provide the source, feel free to bitch. But, until then, I'm gonna assume that when they say "open source drivers", they really mean drivers with source code available. And that's *far* better than what we have today, which is exactly *nothing* (and, IMHO, source is better than a spec, in any case, so it sounds to me like simply pointless whining).
You mean the whining about open specs? Yeah, I read it. And I don't care. If you have the source, you have all you need. Basically, Dell, et al, are pushing for a major improvement in the current situation vis a vis driver support of OSS products, and the GP decided that, nah, that ain't good enough, because they aren't requiring documentation, too.
The point is that without leaving a suicide note or having confessed earlier to thoughts of suicide then it is LESS LIKELY that he actually committed suicide.
Why? Given that most people *don't* leave notes prior to committing suicide, obviously that plays no part in it. And many (most?) depressed (actually, clinically depressed, not the stereotypical emo-teenager depressed) people spend their lives hiding what's actually going on in their heads from their friends and family (I've known more than one depressed person, and this has invariably been the pattern).
Or do you have numbers to back up your seemingly baseless supposition?
I guess one could examine the Linux drivers to figure out what they're doing and then port it over to [insert your flavour of OS here].
Exactly. So what was the problem, again? Or are you just pouting because your pet Unix isn't getting the attention you believe it so rightly deserves?
Actually, it's the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies charged with dealing with electronic trespass. It's also the responsibility of those operating these systems to secure them properly. But it's *not* the responsibility of some researchers to run off on a vigilante mission.
I say vigilante action is okay, to protect ourselves
I said the same thing to the cops as I was vburning down the house of some local drug dealers. Oddly, they didn't buy it, either.
Ooooh, so you where karma whoring! Yes... that's much better.
None of that should be reason for conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And you believe that was the reason for the conviction, why? Oh, right... because you like the idea of being a socially maladjusted nerd who's been spurned by society just for being different. Ahh, nothing like a martyr complex to keep life interesting, eh?
So they alienated him, found him strange, and thus, were no longer a jury of his peers.
Yes, you're right, this is all about the poor, misunderstood geek, once again excluded from society. Oh, poor poor nerds, so sad and downtrodden. Woe! Woe to the nerds!
FFS, the guy took out the seat of his car before hosing the interior down and said he did it because he likes to *sleep* there! And then they found *blood* in the damned car! Sorry, but there's no way anyone would by that sorry excuse, regardless of who it came from. It's fucking ridiculous, and you know it.
Sorry, allow me to rephrase, "close it and commercialize it" (given Redhat makes money on OSS, it's pretty obvious that money can be made with GPL software, specifically by providing value-added services). Regardless, my point still stands.