It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~
Yeah... just FYI, but accidentally deleting your home directory isn't exactly the same thing as flying a hundred miles off course and not paying attention to ground control, thus potentially endangering the lives of a hundred or more people.
For one, believe it or not, you can't restore people from backups.
You certainly do have a point, though I question the merits of a study like this one.
You don't question it based on the fact that it might have been set up wrong. Or that they interpreted the results correctly. You don't attack the science based on facts and reason. No. You decide the study is without merit because, apparently, it doesn't fit with your worldview. That's irrational. It's also an excellent example of one of the true ills of society today: The unwillingness of people to see the world for what it is, instead preferring to filter and bend fact to fit their own ideas of how the world actually works.
You certainly do have a point, though I question the merits of a study like this one. If scent made such a noticable difference, then you can safely say that these folks were not terribly committed to doing the Right Thing. They needed an external motivation. That's hardly as good as doing the best you can, all the time, because you seriously believe in and want to adhere to sound, timeless principles that have a solid ethical or moral foundation.
So, what, you're going to assume the study is invalid and/or useless because it doesn't fit with your naively rosy view of human behaviour? Well, no offense, but tough shit.
For that reason, I take this to be further evidence that most people operate on a sort of auto-pilot.
And I take it as further evidence that humans are, despite our fancy intellect, often little more than opportunistic animals. And personally, I'd rather we just admit that fact and use it as the starting point for improving ourselves, rather than living with the delusion that we're somehow inherently noble creatures. 'course, we should already realize this... if the Milgram experiment taught us anything, it's that human morals are things easily set aside given the right circumstances.
No, it wasn't. Unlike what was intended with ANDF binaries, USCD p-code was never compiled down to native machine code. Instead, you used a p-code interpreter to run it (the very wikipedia article you cite talks about p-code's speed penalty due to it being intepreted).
Uhh, how is a platform neutral bytecode format that's then compiled to native code at all similar to fat binaries? Oh right. It's not. It's a completely different solution to what is, admittedly, the same problem.
So, no they didn't "[try] it"... they tried something else entirely. OTOH, good job finding an excuse to show your geek creds by bringing up this little piece of esoterica.
A survey of GPs published on Healthcare Republic, the website of GP magazine, found that up to 60% of GPs may decline vaccination. Although the numbers who responded were small - 216 GPs
That's a laughably tiny sample. Hell, for all we know, it's self-selected, which would almost certainly introduce bias. But then they says this:
they are in line with a much bigger survey of nurses published a week ago by Nursing Times, which found that a third of 1,500 nurses would refuse vaccination.
How the fuck is 60% "in line" with 30%?? But then you look closer, and you actually see this:
Among the GPs who responded to the survey published by Healthcare Republic, 29% said they would not choose to have the vaccine and 29% said they were unsure whether or not they would.
Ohhh... so now it's actually 30% (of 219 people) who said they wouldn't, and 30% who weren't sure. Great headline, assholes.
Yeah, sorry bub, you're gonna have to do better than that.
Really. And who are these "large number of doctors and nurses"? Do you have a number, preferably as a percentage of total doctor/nurse count? A citation?
Many naturally wonder how real the threat is considering how many months we've been told the sky is falling.
Umm, dude, we haven't even entered the northern hemisphere flu season, yet, and we've already hit the average number of pediatric flu deaths for a normal year. Is the sky falling? No (you can blame the media, as always for perpetuating that idea). But there most definitely is cause for concern.
Unlock the panel widgets and drag all widgets from the top panel to the bottom panel (yes, it's more cramped than Windows because there are three start menus in GNOME)
There's only three if you use the "Menu Bar" widget. If you use the "Main Menu" applet, it's just a single icon, which opens out to provide the applications, as well as the places and system menus.
I love Ubuntu and have it on my desktop and netbook. I don't put it on my main laptop because, as I understand, it's had issues with killing the hard drive in laptops.
Say what? I've never heard of this. I've been running Ubuntu on my laptop (a T61) since Feisty, and I've never had my harddrive "[killed]". Do you have any citation for this claim?
I threw the release onto my T61 recently, and compared to Jaunty, it's certainly an evolutionary release. I'm sure Upstart is very cool, but I haven't seen any improvements in boot time. Nor are the HAL changes that impressive. And on my laptop, power consumption is worse by at least a few watts for reasons I have yet to fully explain (this is with all unnecessary modules disabled, wireless turned off, and X configured exactly the same as Jaunty, AFAICT). Meanwhile, NetworkManager seems to randomly forget my preferred AP and chooses to connect to a local, unlocked WAP... *really* annoying.
And they seem to have made some weird choices, too. The version of the iwlagn wifi driver (a driver for a number of very common Intel wifi chipsets on various laptops) included in Karmic doesn't include support for power management. And, oddly, they've included MythTV 0.22, which hasn't gone gold yet, without any official method for moving back to 0.21 (you can use the Mythbuntu repositories, but who knows how well that will work with upgrades, etc).
On the flipside, there are some nice fixes and feature additions (bluetooth support looks *much* better, the power manager properly supports multiple batteries, etc), but I'm just not sure it's worth the update.
whenever an RIAA story comes out, that the artists (read: Labels) have a right to their property, both real and intellectual
Again, you're presupposing that "intellectual property" is actually property. A true libertarian would acknowledge that this isn't the case, as intellectual property is purely a government contrivance. ie, without the government, the idea of IP simply doesn't work in practice, as you need the government to enforce artificial scarcity in order for that "property" to be of any true value.
"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory."
I like libertarian philiosophy myself
That's amusing, given that libertarians hold precisely the opposite view, in that much like communists, they have a cool theory, and have this deluded notion that it would actually work in practice. It'd be funny, it if weren't for the fact that their bizarre notions have been used to drive economic policy...
While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
No. But guess what? The GPL doesn't require that, either.
The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license. ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.
What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in). And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).
Nice, looks like someone's abusing modpoints today. Gotta love the "if I don't agree it's a troll" crowd... here's hoping they get bitchslapped by a metamod.
Nevermind the auto accidents, cancer, and homicide
And that's why I plan to let any infants I come across play with rusty nails and broken glass. Statistically speaking, they're way less likely to die from that than, say, a tumor, right?
The ACIP has recommended that when vaccine becomes available, immunization programs and providers should focus first on vaccinating as many people as possible in the following five groups:
pregnant women,
people who live with or provide care for children younger than 6 months of age,
health care and emergency medical services personnel,
people between six months through 24 years of age, and
people from the ages of 25 through 64 who are at higher risk because of chronic health disorders such as asthma, diabetes, or a weakened immune system.
How have different age groups been affected by novel H1N1 flu in terms of deaths?
CDC studied the hospital records of 268 patients hospitalized with novel H1N1 flu early on during the outbreak. The number of deaths was highest among people 25 to 49 years of age (39%), followed by people 50 to 64 year of age (25%) and people 5 to 24 year of age (16%) This is a very different pattern from what is seen in seasonal influenza, where an estimated 90% of influenza-related deaths occur in people 65 years of age and older.
And finally a graph showing the alarmingly elevated pediatric deaths for this time of year.
'course, I'm sure you'll just dismiss all this data. It is from the CDC, after all, and they're just an evil Big Government organization.
Me. I'm getting a flu shot, both to protect me, as well as to protect anyone I might otherwise infect if I got sick.
Here, you can have mine. I don't want it. I'm not going to get it and neither are my wife or kids. We eat well, exercise, and get enough sleep and none of us has compromised immune systems.
Yeah, pity H1N1 is particularly dangerous to those with nice, strong immune systems because it causes it to overreact to the virus, resulting in severe illness or death. Which is why it's especially dangerous to children, young adults, and pregnant women.
But yeah, you're right. I'm sure your wife and kid will be just fine... maybe. And if they *do* get the virus, I'm sure they won't pass it on to other vulnerable members of society...
Once it's in the main repository you can upgrade using synaptic, else download the tar.gz file and extract to a/tmp location and type the following five lines, at a command prompt:
Or you could just use CheckInstall, thus obviating the need to bypass the package manager.
Yet, I don't support gay marriage. It's really nothing personal. The primary reason I oppose gay marriage is because of the huge body of evidence which suggests that single motherhood produces unfit offspring.
Wait wait... what?
You don't support gay *marriage* because *single parent* households produce "unfit offspring"? Ignoring for the moment your assertion that single parent households are bad (something I suspect is wrong... my guess is that single parent household == "unfit offspring" is a case of correlation without causation), wouldn't allowing gay marriage create more *two-parent* households?
In my view, many of the same issues that plague children that grow up in single parent households, will also plague those that are raised by same-sex couples.
Uhuh. Yeah, that's not bigoted at all.::rollseyes::
I suppose you have some evidence for this utterly absurd notion? Hell, do you even understand what the "issues" are that "plague children that grow up in single parent households"? Because I do, having grown up in one. The biggest are reduced household income and decreased parental involvement because they're busying making ends meet. A dual-parent, same-sex couple, on the other hand, has all the advantages a hetero couple has: either a dual income, or a single income plus a dedicated parent who can stay at home.
Therefore, given that marriage is designed to encourage family life,
It is, is it! Well, shit, I better tell my wife... we don't plan to have kids, but we're married. I guess we better get divorced as, evidently, our marriage isn't meeting the design requirements.
I do not support gay marriage as I feel it would be unfair to the child
Uh, what child? The child who lives in a two-parent household where the parents aren't allowed to formalize their relationship? Yeah... good job defending that poor, innocent child.
Anyone can disagree with me who will, but we're arguing about the legal meaning of a word, not the equal rights or entitlements that would through any registered arrangement or union.
Wrong. There is no legal meaning of the word marriage, save for the "rights and entitlements" that are implied. ie, from the standpoint of law, a marriage is specifically a) a civil contract, and b) a set of rights and entitlements. Period.
You, on the other hand, are talking about the religious/cultural meaning of the word "marriage". And that's a whole other ball of wax.
Which is why I happen to believe *no one* should be able to get a state-recognized "marriage". All unions, between a man and a woman, or a (wo)man and a (wo)man should be labeled "civil unions", and all the same rights and privileges should apply, regardless of the gender of the individuals entering the contract. What you call that union in the privacy of your own home or church is your own business.
The gay community and racial minorities have absolutely nothing in common besides the belief that they have been shortchanged.
Shortchanged? You call being oppressed by the majority and denied rights "shortchanged"? Jebus...
I suppose the Jews were just inconvenienced by Hitler?
And yes, I just went Godwin on your ass.
While they have a "common enemy", there is no reason for them to be friends
Perhaps not. But it *is* pretty ironic that African Americans, that deeply oppressed group that're still climbing out of the hole dug by slavery, are now using their newly won rights to vote and participate in the public discourse to oppress another minority.
No, wait, strike that. Not ironic. Unbelievably disgusting and hypocritical.
ESPECIALLY when resources are viewed as a zero sum game. In that situation, everyone but your own group is a competitor, and the more they get, the less you have.
And that's utterly absurd. What, you're telling me the black community secretly opposes gay marriage because they're afraid that if gays get rights, then blacks will lose theirs? Please.
Frankly, your entire post is borderline bigoted. The idea that members of an oppressed minority who choose to band together and work as a group to win their rights are participating in "identity politics" is ridiculous, although it's certainly an effective way to trivialize the struggles and efforts of those groups.
Let me guess: you're part of that nice, safe, white majority, aren't you?
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos
So, what... blacks and latinos can't hate gays? Interesting, given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals (which is sadly ironic):
Latinos do not differ from Whites and are more tolerant thati Blacks on the morality dimension of attitudes toward homosexuality but are less tolerant than either of the other groups on the dimension measuring approval of civil liberties for homosexuals.
In fact, even after homosexuals emerged, like Blacks a generation earlier, as an offi- cial "minority" (Barron 1975), research has shown that African Americans possess disproportionately negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Lorde 1978; Staples 1981).
So all you've illustrated is that those who hate gays aren't "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals"... rather, they're "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals", and/or black/latino. They, nevertheless, still hate gays, and their opposition to same-sex marriage is simply a symptom of that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~
Yeah... just FYI, but accidentally deleting your home directory isn't exactly the same thing as flying a hundred miles off course and not paying attention to ground control, thus potentially endangering the lives of a hundred or more people.
For one, believe it or not, you can't restore people from backups.
No. What bothers me is this exact phrase:
You don't question it based on the fact that it might have been set up wrong. Or that they interpreted the results correctly. You don't attack the science based on facts and reason. No. You decide the study is without merit because, apparently, it doesn't fit with your worldview. That's irrational. It's also an excellent example of one of the true ills of society today: The unwillingness of people to see the world for what it is, instead preferring to filter and bend fact to fit their own ideas of how the world actually works.
So, what, you're going to assume the study is invalid and/or useless because it doesn't fit with your naively rosy view of human behaviour? Well, no offense, but tough shit.
And I take it as further evidence that humans are, despite our fancy intellect, often little more than opportunistic animals. And personally, I'd rather we just admit that fact and use it as the starting point for improving ourselves, rather than living with the delusion that we're somehow inherently noble creatures. 'course, we should already realize this... if the Milgram experiment taught us anything, it's that human morals are things easily set aside given the right circumstances.
No, it wasn't. Unlike what was intended with ANDF binaries, USCD p-code was never compiled down to native machine code. Instead, you used a p-code interpreter to run it (the very wikipedia article you cite talks about p-code's speed penalty due to it being intepreted).
Uhh, how is a platform neutral bytecode format that's then compiled to native code at all similar to fat binaries? Oh right. It's not. It's a completely different solution to what is, admittedly, the same problem.
So, no they didn't "[try] it"... they tried something else entirely. OTOH, good job finding an excuse to show your geek creds by bringing up this little piece of esoterica.
What the hell. The article says this:
That's a laughably tiny sample. Hell, for all we know, it's self-selected, which would almost certainly introduce bias. But then they says this:
How the fuck is 60% "in line" with 30%?? But then you look closer, and you actually see this:
Ohhh... so now it's actually 30% (of 219 people) who said they wouldn't, and 30% who weren't sure. Great headline, assholes.
Yeah, sorry bub, you're gonna have to do better than that.
Really. And who are these "large number of doctors and nurses"? Do you have a number, preferably as a percentage of total doctor/nurse count? A citation?
Many naturally wonder how real the threat is considering how many months we've been told the sky is falling.
Umm, dude, we haven't even entered the northern hemisphere flu season, yet, and we've already hit the average number of pediatric flu deaths for a normal year. Is the sky falling? No (you can blame the media, as always for perpetuating that idea). But there most definitely is cause for concern.
Unlock the panel widgets and drag all widgets from the top panel to the bottom panel (yes, it's more cramped than Windows because there are three start menus in GNOME)
There's only three if you use the "Menu Bar" widget. If you use the "Main Menu" applet, it's just a single icon, which opens out to provide the applications, as well as the places and system menus.
Say what? I've never heard of this. I've been running Ubuntu on my laptop (a T61) since Feisty, and I've never had my harddrive "[killed]". Do you have any citation for this claim?
I threw the release onto my T61 recently, and compared to Jaunty, it's certainly an evolutionary release. I'm sure Upstart is very cool, but I haven't seen any improvements in boot time. Nor are the HAL changes that impressive. And on my laptop, power consumption is worse by at least a few watts for reasons I have yet to fully explain (this is with all unnecessary modules disabled, wireless turned off, and X configured exactly the same as Jaunty, AFAICT). Meanwhile, NetworkManager seems to randomly forget my preferred AP and chooses to connect to a local, unlocked WAP... *really* annoying.
And they seem to have made some weird choices, too. The version of the iwlagn wifi driver (a driver for a number of very common Intel wifi chipsets on various laptops) included in Karmic doesn't include support for power management. And, oddly, they've included MythTV 0.22, which hasn't gone gold yet, without any official method for moving back to 0.21 (you can use the Mythbuntu repositories, but who knows how well that will work with upgrades, etc).
On the flipside, there are some nice fixes and feature additions (bluetooth support looks *much* better, the power manager properly supports multiple batteries, etc), but I'm just not sure it's worth the update.
whenever an RIAA story comes out, that the artists (read: Labels) have a right to their property, both real and intellectual
Again, you're presupposing that "intellectual property" is actually property. A true libertarian would acknowledge that this isn't the case, as intellectual property is purely a government contrivance. ie, without the government, the idea of IP simply doesn't work in practice, as you need the government to enforce artificial scarcity in order for that "property" to be of any true value.
That's amusing, given that libertarians hold precisely the opposite view, in that much like communists, they have a cool theory, and have this deluded notion that it would actually work in practice. It'd be funny, it if weren't for the fact that their bizarre notions have been used to drive economic policy...
While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
No. But guess what? The GPL doesn't require that, either.
The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license. ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.
What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in). And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).
Nice, looks like someone's abusing modpoints today. Gotta love the "if I don't agree it's a troll" crowd... here's hoping they get bitchslapped by a metamod.
It provides a nice readable display
Ha ha ha ha! Oh god, that's good... yeah, a tiny little backlit colour screen. That's *way* more readable than a page-sized e-ink display.
Nevermind the auto accidents, cancer, and homicide
And that's why I plan to let any infants I come across play with rusty nails and broken glass. Statistically speaking, they're way less likely to die from that than, say, a tumor, right?
Twat.
Citation for the lazy:
Further citation:
And finally a graph showing the alarmingly elevated pediatric deaths for this time of year.
'course, I'm sure you'll just dismiss all this data. It is from the CDC, after all, and they're just an evil Big Government organization.
Me. I'm getting a flu shot, both to protect me, as well as to protect anyone I might otherwise infect if I got sick.
Here, you can have mine. I don't want it. I'm not going to get it and neither are my wife or kids.
We eat well, exercise, and get enough sleep and none of us has compromised immune systems.
Yeah, pity H1N1 is particularly dangerous to those with nice, strong immune systems because it causes it to overreact to the virus, resulting in severe illness or death. Which is why it's especially dangerous to children, young adults, and pregnant women.
But yeah, you're right. I'm sure your wife and kid will be just fine... maybe. And if they *do* get the virus, I'm sure they won't pass it on to other vulnerable members of society...
Once it's in the main repository you can upgrade using synaptic, else download the tar.gz file and extract to a /tmp location and type the following five lines, at a command prompt:
Or you could just use CheckInstall, thus obviating the need to bypass the package manager.
Yet, I don't support gay marriage. It's really nothing personal. The primary reason I oppose gay marriage is because of the huge body of evidence which suggests that single motherhood produces unfit offspring.
Wait wait... what?
You don't support gay *marriage* because *single parent* households produce "unfit offspring"? Ignoring for the moment your assertion that single parent households are bad (something I suspect is wrong... my guess is that single parent household == "unfit offspring" is a case of correlation without causation), wouldn't allowing gay marriage create more *two-parent* households?
In my view, many of the same issues that plague children that grow up in single parent households, will also plague those that are raised by same-sex couples.
Uhuh. Yeah, that's not bigoted at all. ::rollseyes::
I suppose you have some evidence for this utterly absurd notion? Hell, do you even understand what the "issues" are that "plague children that grow up in single parent households"? Because I do, having grown up in one. The biggest are reduced household income and decreased parental involvement because they're busying making ends meet. A dual-parent, same-sex couple, on the other hand, has all the advantages a hetero couple has: either a dual income, or a single income plus a dedicated parent who can stay at home.
Therefore, given that marriage is designed to encourage family life,
It is, is it! Well, shit, I better tell my wife... we don't plan to have kids, but we're married. I guess we better get divorced as, evidently, our marriage isn't meeting the design requirements.
I do not support gay marriage as I feel it would be unfair to the child
Uh, what child? The child who lives in a two-parent household where the parents aren't allowed to formalize their relationship? Yeah... good job defending that poor, innocent child.
Anyone can disagree with me who will, but we're arguing about the legal meaning of a word, not the equal rights or entitlements that would through any registered arrangement or union.
Wrong. There is no legal meaning of the word marriage, save for the "rights and entitlements" that are implied. ie, from the standpoint of law, a marriage is specifically a) a civil contract, and b) a set of rights and entitlements. Period.
You, on the other hand, are talking about the religious/cultural meaning of the word "marriage". And that's a whole other ball of wax.
Which is why I happen to believe *no one* should be able to get a state-recognized "marriage". All unions, between a man and a woman, or a (wo)man and a (wo)man should be labeled "civil unions", and all the same rights and privileges should apply, regardless of the gender of the individuals entering the contract. What you call that union in the privacy of your own home or church is your own business.
It's interesting that the poster was quick to point out that the website is SEO-optimized.
Well, that's easy to explain. Now it's News for Nerds!
The gay community and racial minorities have absolutely nothing in common besides the belief that they have been shortchanged.
Shortchanged? You call being oppressed by the majority and denied rights "shortchanged"? Jebus...
I suppose the Jews were just inconvenienced by Hitler?
And yes, I just went Godwin on your ass.
While they have a "common enemy", there is no reason for them to be friends
Perhaps not. But it *is* pretty ironic that African Americans, that deeply oppressed group that're still climbing out of the hole dug by slavery, are now using their newly won rights to vote and participate in the public discourse to oppress another minority.
No, wait, strike that. Not ironic. Unbelievably disgusting and hypocritical.
ESPECIALLY when resources are viewed as a zero sum game. In that situation, everyone but your own group is a competitor, and the more they get, the less you have.
And that's utterly absurd. What, you're telling me the black community secretly opposes gay marriage because they're afraid that if gays get rights, then blacks will lose theirs? Please.
Frankly, your entire post is borderline bigoted. The idea that members of an oppressed minority who choose to band together and work as a group to win their rights are participating in "identity politics" is ridiculous, although it's certainly an effective way to trivialize the struggles and efforts of those groups.
Let me guess: you're part of that nice, safe, white majority, aren't you?
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos
So, what... blacks and latinos can't hate gays? Interesting, given both communities are known for being deeply intolerant toward homosexuals (which is sadly ironic):
Citation:
Citation:
So all you've illustrated is that those who hate gays aren't "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals"... rather, they're "no-necked, knuckle-dragging, fag-bashing, Republican-voting, Judy-Garland-hating neanderthals", and/or black/latino. They, nevertheless, still hate gays, and their opposition to same-sex marriage is simply a symptom of that fact.