Without knowing exactly what was in the offending posts, how can we possibly know what to think? Somehow I doubt it's that easy to find hardcore child abuse images on facebook, so these might be almost innocent - it wouldn't surprise me if most of them are just swimsuit images from someone's family holiday, or screencaps from Toddlers and Tiaras or some other TV program.
It reminds me of certain very socially-conservative news sites I've seen decrying something or other as an affront to all that is good in the world, but never describing clearly what they are so upset about because to even describe the material would violate the conscience of their editors - but in that case it's easy to see the material and find that it's not the assault on decency that they claim.
Because you can't just burn a vegetable oil in an engine. Few are flammable enough, they burn at the wrong speed, and they produce some pretty nasty deposits that will gunk up precision parts. They need to be processed first, a process involving catalised reactions with alcohols. It's a rather slow process, which translates to a rather expensive process - plus the cost of growing the vegetable feed, and the cost of not growing something more profitable on that land. If growing fuel were cost-effective, we wouldn't still be running cars on dino-juice.
It might be practical were you able to build on a naturally occuring hill. It's just a matter then of digging a big hole, putting down a liner, and adding a pipe for getting the water out again. Unfortunately, this is Queensland. In the ranking of famously flat places, it's not quite Kansas but it tries.
The EU was seriously entertaining the idea, but recent political shifts in Turkey have greatly diminished the possibility of achieving EU membership in the foreseeable future.
The search of the country post-invasion didn't find any recent WMDs, but did find a few stores full of old gas shells from the Iraq-Iran war. Shells past their use-by date.
If Saddam did have WMDs, why didn't he use them when his country was being invaded?
One thing seems to hold true in every country, from the strictest police state to the most liberal of democracies: Law enforcement always hate to see their authority challenged, and will take action against anyone they believe is doing so.
In any encounter with the police, unless you have actually done something criminal it's probably better to act subservient and do as they say - because if they decide they want to punish you for speaking back, they will always be able to find something to arrest you for.
But police do request warrants, and almost all are granted. Partially because police do know enough law that they make sure everything is in order and the warrant is reasonable on almost every occasion, but also partially because they know enough to play the system on any occasion they do feel the rules need to be bent, how to make sure they get a sympathetic judge, and what key phrases tick the legal boxes.
The police might just have a policy against letting people film car accidents - it's embarassing when that stuff ends up on youtube, and the number plates and faces are sensitive information. The officer wasn't going to let someone film police at work just because he was a journalist, and when a non-police-person ignored his polite request resorted to the default police tactic of heavy-handed intimidation.
"Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It’s quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police."
The photographers need to be seen as impartial observers, not collectors of evidence that can be used against people. That means they never hand anything over to the police without a proper warrant. The police could have gotten that warrant, but they chose instead to play the legal system so they could threaten to destroy his career if he didn't cooperate 'voluntarily.'
It seems very much as if someone wanted to teach this journalist a lesson: We can destroy you on a whim, so do as we tell you.
In theory, yes. But police and prosecutors know which judge will be most sympathetic to them, and how to play the game of timings and procedures to make sure their warrant goes up before the right one.
Don't blame Intel for the constant problems of ACPI. It was a good design, as initially envisioned.
Blame Microsoft. The Windows ACPI support is really, really awful, but every non-server motherboard is designed and tested for windows - linux testing is an afterthought, if at all. Same for laptops. An ACPI implementation designed and tested for Windows is likely to go very wrong if confronted with an OS that actually does ACPI properly. A common problem is invalid values in those ACPI tables (Probably why the above poster was fiddling with them) - Windows ignores a few values, and just assumes defaults, so some mainboards and laptops pass testing on Windows even though the wrong values or just all-zeros are written in. When linux reads and tries to act on those tables, it usually hangs the system.
My own desktop has an issue something like that, which I got around by just putting 'acpi=off' on the kernel options.
Republicans tend to be authoritarian in different areas, and they constantly strive to deny it. But deny all they want, they have those social conservatives to appease.
Don't be so sure. Bernie would have suffered seriously from corporate opposition crippling his fundraising efforts, and the attack ads for an admitted socialist practically write themselves.
Remember that Hillary nearly won - she actually did win the popular vote. Trump only won because the somewhat strange rules of the electoral collage gave him an advantage.
Because the rank and file voter doesn't care at all about internet regulation.
What they care about is the fear that if they don't vote republican, a transgender pervert is going to rape their daughter in the restroom, and a gun-toting illegal will shoot their son in a gang war,
Do not underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
I've never used Tor, but I used to use Freenet, and the bulk of it consisted of the following: 1. Piracy. Music, movies, anime, the usual. 2. Porn! Of course. Surprisingly, not much really bizarre and kinky stuff. 3. Crypto-anarchist enthusiasts and free-speech advocates. 4. Paranoid political nutters describing how the UN is going to use FEMA camps to incarcerate gun owners. 5. Paranoid religious nutters describing how the Beast will take over the government and force Christians to have gay sex.
I'm sure much more illegal stuff could be found if you looked hard enough, but I never found it in the public indexes.
1. Add lots of redundancy in the form of PAR2 files. 2. Store the whole lot as a tar format, dumped to the drive as a block device. This format is so simple that a future programmer will have no trouble reverse-engineering it, even if all documentation has somehow been lost, and there are no key structures which will render the whole thing impossible to read if lost. Just to be sure, the first thing going on there is a copy of the tar format specification. 3. Include also a copy of the par2 software for several operating systems, source code, mathematical explanation and format specification. 4. dd copy the drive to as many other drives as your budget allows. 5. Distribute the drives.
This approach should do for the next forty years or so. After that point it might get difficult for people to source a SATA controller, so you will have to migrate to new media.
There's another consequence of the stability of surpreme court decisions too: It leads to a lot of indirect laws, where legislators try to find creative ways to achieve indirectly things that they cannot achieve directly under the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court. This often leads to some really strange and convoluted laws, including laws that are intentionally impossible to comply with.
The US uses a precedent-based court system. It's a pretty good system in most aspects, but one drawback is that it tends to polarise political issues because of a fear of incrimentalism. The NRA is obliged to oppose any form of gun control, no matter how reasonable, because once courts say that much gun control is allowable it becomes a great deal easier to then pass stricter gun control, and even stricter after that. The same thing goes on regarding abortion: Even pro-choice activists rarely support full abortion on demand under all circumstances, but they know that if ever they give even a little ground on that issue and the Supreme court says that restricting abortion is ok, the more conservative states will immediately run with it to the opposite extreme.
It's one of several reasons that US political cultures is so often dominated by the extremes, and compromise poses such difficulty.
I think that humans are just inherently a little crazy. They have to be, or else they would just freeze up or throw themselves off the nearest bridge when confronted with reality.
It can also be seen as a quicksort with a very inflexible choice of pivot, but it has certain very useful advantages. It sorts in place, and it's a stable sort.
Almost no. There is one tiny, tiny niche in which bubble sort might be a good choice: If the data is very close to being sorted already. Especially if memory is tight. I've never actually encountered that situation, but it could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Without knowing exactly what was in the offending posts, how can we possibly know what to think? Somehow I doubt it's that easy to find hardcore child abuse images on facebook, so these might be almost innocent - it wouldn't surprise me if most of them are just swimsuit images from someone's family holiday, or screencaps from Toddlers and Tiaras or some other TV program.
It reminds me of certain very socially-conservative news sites I've seen decrying something or other as an affront to all that is good in the world, but never describing clearly what they are so upset about because to even describe the material would violate the conscience of their editors - but in that case it's easy to see the material and find that it's not the assault on decency that they claim.
Construction looks like a pretty safe bet. People will always need buildings. You just have to be prepared to relocate a lot, following the work.
Because you can't just burn a vegetable oil in an engine. Few are flammable enough, they burn at the wrong speed, and they produce some pretty nasty deposits that will gunk up precision parts. They need to be processed first, a process involving catalised reactions with alcohols. It's a rather slow process, which translates to a rather expensive process - plus the cost of growing the vegetable feed, and the cost of not growing something more profitable on that land. If growing fuel were cost-effective, we wouldn't still be running cars on dino-juice.
It might be practical were you able to build on a naturally occuring hill. It's just a matter then of digging a big hole, putting down a liner, and adding a pipe for getting the water out again. Unfortunately, this is Queensland. In the ranking of famously flat places, it's not quite Kansas but it tries.
The EU was seriously entertaining the idea, but recent political shifts in Turkey have greatly diminished the possibility of achieving EU membership in the foreseeable future.
The search of the country post-invasion didn't find any recent WMDs, but did find a few stores full of old gas shells from the Iraq-Iran war. Shells past their use-by date.
If Saddam did have WMDs, why didn't he use them when his country was being invaded?
One thing seems to hold true in every country, from the strictest police state to the most liberal of democracies: Law enforcement always hate to see their authority challenged, and will take action against anyone they believe is doing so.
In any encounter with the police, unless you have actually done something criminal it's probably better to act subservient and do as they say - because if they decide they want to punish you for speaking back, they will always be able to find something to arrest you for.
But police do request warrants, and almost all are granted. Partially because police do know enough law that they make sure everything is in order and the warrant is reasonable on almost every occasion, but also partially because they know enough to play the system on any occasion they do feel the rules need to be bent, how to make sure they get a sympathetic judge, and what key phrases tick the legal boxes.
The police might just have a policy against letting people film car accidents - it's embarassing when that stuff ends up on youtube, and the number plates and faces are sensitive information. The officer wasn't going to let someone film police at work just because he was a journalist, and when a non-police-person ignored his polite request resorted to the default police tactic of heavy-handed intimidation.
You stopped reading at the end of that paragraph?
"Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It’s quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police."
The photographers need to be seen as impartial observers, not collectors of evidence that can be used against people. That means they never hand anything over to the police without a proper warrant. The police could have gotten that warrant, but they chose instead to play the legal system so they could threaten to destroy his career if he didn't cooperate 'voluntarily.'
It seems very much as if someone wanted to teach this journalist a lesson: We can destroy you on a whim, so do as we tell you.
In theory, yes. But police and prosecutors know which judge will be most sympathetic to them, and how to play the game of timings and procedures to make sure their warrant goes up before the right one.
Don't blame Intel for the constant problems of ACPI. It was a good design, as initially envisioned.
Blame Microsoft. The Windows ACPI support is really, really awful, but every non-server motherboard is designed and tested for windows - linux testing is an afterthought, if at all. Same for laptops. An ACPI implementation designed and tested for Windows is likely to go very wrong if confronted with an OS that actually does ACPI properly. A common problem is invalid values in those ACPI tables (Probably why the above poster was fiddling with them) - Windows ignores a few values, and just assumes defaults, so some mainboards and laptops pass testing on Windows even though the wrong values or just all-zeros are written in. When linux reads and tries to act on those tables, it usually hangs the system.
My own desktop has an issue something like that, which I got around by just putting 'acpi=off' on the kernel options.
Improved crop yields, milder winters... hurricanes, storms, floods, an influx of starving refugees from Mexico when their farmland turns into desert.
Remember, more heat means more evaporation - and what goes up, must come down.
Republicans tend to be authoritarian in different areas, and they constantly strive to deny it. But deny all they want, they have those social conservatives to appease.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
Don't be so sure. Bernie would have suffered seriously from corporate opposition crippling his fundraising efforts, and the attack ads for an admitted socialist practically write themselves.
Remember that Hillary nearly won - she actually did win the popular vote. Trump only won because the somewhat strange rules of the electoral collage gave him an advantage.
Because the rank and file voter doesn't care at all about internet regulation.
What they care about is the fear that if they don't vote republican, a transgender pervert is going to rape their daughter in the restroom, and a gun-toting illegal will shoot their son in a gang war,
Do not underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
Because politicians are very good at telling people what they want to hear.
I've never used Tor, but I used to use Freenet, and the bulk of it consisted of the following:
1. Piracy. Music, movies, anime, the usual.
2. Porn! Of course. Surprisingly, not much really bizarre and kinky stuff.
3. Crypto-anarchist enthusiasts and free-speech advocates.
4. Paranoid political nutters describing how the UN is going to use FEMA camps to incarcerate gun owners.
5. Paranoid religious nutters describing how the Beast will take over the government and force Christians to have gay sex.
I'm sure much more illegal stuff could be found if you looked hard enough, but I never found it in the public indexes.
1. Add lots of redundancy in the form of PAR2 files.
2. Store the whole lot as a tar format, dumped to the drive as a block device. This format is so simple that a future programmer will have no trouble reverse-engineering it, even if all documentation has somehow been lost, and there are no key structures which will render the whole thing impossible to read if lost. Just to be sure, the first thing going on there is a copy of the tar format specification.
3. Include also a copy of the par2 software for several operating systems, source code, mathematical explanation and format specification.
4. dd copy the drive to as many other drives as your budget allows.
5. Distribute the drives.
This approach should do for the next forty years or so. After that point it might get difficult for people to source a SATA controller, so you will have to migrate to new media.
There's another consequence of the stability of surpreme court decisions too: It leads to a lot of indirect laws, where legislators try to find creative ways to achieve indirectly things that they cannot achieve directly under the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court. This often leads to some really strange and convoluted laws, including laws that are intentionally impossible to comply with.
The US uses a precedent-based court system. It's a pretty good system in most aspects, but one drawback is that it tends to polarise political issues because of a fear of incrimentalism. The NRA is obliged to oppose any form of gun control, no matter how reasonable, because once courts say that much gun control is allowable it becomes a great deal easier to then pass stricter gun control, and even stricter after that. The same thing goes on regarding abortion: Even pro-choice activists rarely support full abortion on demand under all circumstances, but they know that if ever they give even a little ground on that issue and the Supreme court says that restricting abortion is ok, the more conservative states will immediately run with it to the opposite extreme.
It's one of several reasons that US political cultures is so often dominated by the extremes, and compromise poses such difficulty.
I think that humans are just inherently a little crazy. They have to be, or else they would just freeze up or throw themselves off the nearest bridge when confronted with reality.
It can also be seen as a quicksort with a very inflexible choice of pivot, but it has certain very useful advantages. It sorts in place, and it's a stable sort.
Almost no. There is one tiny, tiny niche in which bubble sort might be a good choice: If the data is very close to being sorted already. Especially if memory is tight. I've never actually encountered that situation, but it could happen.