I think if you used IRV, you'd find Fox News one of the first to drop off the polls, since most people would have multiple sources listed ahead of Fox News as compared to the number of people that had Fox News listed first.
No. Consider the way IRV works: the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated in each round. For Fox to be eliminated, it's 11% must be the lowest total. Thus there can be no more than 8 other candidates at that point (because 9*11% = 100%). Yet 11% was the highest proportion of first preferences. That indicates a lot more than 9 initial candidates, probably in excess of 20. The only way Fox would be eliminated early would be if the first preference vote was very evenly distributed, say 10 candidates all polling around 10%, and then Fox failed to pick up any second choice votes.
US's work culture of long working days, unpaid overtime & too few holidays is killing you.
But TFA implies a difference across the board, not just in among workers. If that is what the study shows then it's difficult to see the work culture as the primary cause.
I just love how our legislators feel that video games need to be treated differently than movies, books,
music or any other form of entertainment. Any argument that can be made for taxing games is going to be equally valid to any other entertainment medium.
The difference, at least for movies and music, is the power of the industry lobby groups. You think the RIAA or MPAA would stand for senators proposing taxes on movies or music? No chance. But the video game industry doesn't have so much power. That's why sex and violence in video games is getting so much attention while the same thing in Hollywood or on TV is blithely ignored.
No but these people need to look at the zap2it guide information download terms of use. They can't sell something for profit that downloads from their free service.
Zap2it is irrelevant because they don't provide listings for New Zealand, where this box is being sold. Aside from that, the box is not being sold with Zap2it's data on it, just the ability to use Zap2it's data. I can't see how Zap2it can refuse service just because someone is using a paid-for device to access their feed.
Tivo would be a better option for many people, but it's no available in NZ or any many other countries. And there are other benefits to MythTV - Tivo can't import videos or music, right?
Hint: Volcanoes (and the platonic shifts effecting them), solar flares, et cetera. All of which dwarf ALL human activity into a single fisherman wizzing off the side of a boat into in an ocean full of causality.
Secondly, I challenge you to explain what effect solar flares have on atmospheric CO2 levels. You call me naive yet you can't even form a coherent argument.
The problem with Kyoto is that many in the US saw it as unfair.
I'd take the US and Australia's claims that Kyoto is not fair a lot more seriously if they had proposed an alternative. But they haven't, and they haven't done a great deal to reduce their emissions in isolation either. So to me it just looks like an excuse to continue to ignore the problem. That is reinforced by the US government's reluctance to even admit that global climate change is occurring.
The fact is that the US is far better equiped to make the cuts than countries such as India and China. The US has also contributed far more to the problem so far. Why should India and China be asked to contribute equally in mitigating further damage? The US argument is essentially that we (the first world countries) caused the problem, but everyone should be equally responsible for cleaning it up. Is that fair?
Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No.
It certainly matters to us (humanity). Climate change has the potential to cause massive economic damage in my lifetime. I don't really want to experience that. And I don't want my children to experience it either.
Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.
You don't yet believe human activity is a major factor? There is irrefutable evidence from ice cores that atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they've been in at least 100,000 years, by a large margin. Where do you think that CO2 is comming from? Or do you doubt the greenhouse warming mechanism?
What's next, the home cataract removal kit? "Gutcrafters: Kidney transplants in about an hour"?
I was thinking "Lipo@home": a cheap, compact kit consisting of some anesthetic, a sharpie marker to plot out the cut, a scalpel, an adapter for your home vacuum cleaner, and a bandaid for afterwards. That should put an end to the "obesity epidemic"!
However, the power from a domestic light bulb in that band is? and the SUn's radiation is massively greeater
Can you provide some references for the claims you're making here (that incandescent light bulbs and the sun both output significant amounts of radiation on the same frequencies as cell phones)? It's seems unlikely - neither cause obvious interferrence with cell phones, which I'd expect if the power levels are remotely similar.
80GB drives are stupidly cheap these days. If he isn't prepared to spend what is well under $100 to recover his data then he obviously doesn't value it much.
If you're talking about backing up the *encrypted* data, then it's all moot since it would not have helped me anyway.
What sholden is saying is that if you have a backup (encrypted or not) then you have room to put the data while you upgrade. Why could you not have done:
Revert upgrade of kernel
Copy encrypted data to backup, unecrypting as you go (i.e. back it up unencrypted)
Upgrade kernel
Trash old encrypted partition and replace with whatever you want to use now
Restore backup, encrypting as you go
Back it up again, this time encrypted
For that matter, why could you not have just downgraded the kernel and stayed on the old version?
There's a fundamental difference between Shakespear and GTA: one was on paper, one is digital.
That's a difference, but it's not the fundamental one. The fundamental one is that one is passive and the other is interactive. According to Ebert, interactive media cannot be considered art in terms of narrative. You can read his entire comment (about half way down), but the critical bit (and not quoted in TFA) is:
I [do] indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
So Ebert's position is that a game can only be considered art in terms of it's visual (or aural) components. I.e. games are artistically comparable to paintings or music but that are not comparable to literature or movies.
I don't agree with Ebert. I believe that by giving a player choices you can make a point even more strongly than you can in a passive or narrative medium. This seems obvious to me: choices mean a player can explore consequences of different actions in a way that is much more natural than attempting to do so in a narrative. But then I play games and I suspect Ebert doesn't. So why do we care about his opinion?
As for the first I think that compiling from source may well give you a speedup.
Forget performance, it's a red herring. If you're considering looking at Gentoo for performance reasons you'll probably be disapointed. Increased performance is a minor side effect at best and more likely to be completely undetectable. Gentoo is about configurability and control, not performance.
Next we have USE flags. These do strike me as an insanely useful thing. But I have one niggling little doubt: I suspect they only work for code that supports it. e.g. project foo has optional support for libbar. If the upstream/original code doesn't have a feature marked as optional I don't imagine the Gentoo people would rework it to strip it out.
So the ability to remove things from the source must be neutered, right?
You are right - generally USE flags rely on the upstream source having optional support for various features. So in theory it might be that very little can be removed from a given package. But in practice most OSS software is highly configurable at the source level, particularly if it is portable rather than Linux specific. The number of USE flags recognised by each package is highly variable. For example, mplayer recognises over 70 USE flags, while Firefox recognises 11.
Finally the merging of configuration files in/etc seems useful. But I wonder if this is the correct approach. My distribution of choice, Debian, already does its utmost to preserve all configuration file changes automagically. I find it hard to understand what Gentoo does differently which makes it better.
It puts control back into the hands of the user (which is basically the fundamental point of Gentoo). Consider a package that is adding a new config option. The Debian way will be to ignore that option, set a default for the option, and/or at best log a message that is easily missed (I don't know Debian so any inaccuracies are unintentional). Gentoo provides a complete default config that can be compared to the existing config. It allows the user to decide what changes should be made to the config. This is particularly important for packages which have extremely complex configurations (e.g. apache). There is often no way to automatically translate configuration between versions. The user really needs to look at it.
Worker:
You were cooking the books and killed my pension! You stole all the money I was going to retire on!
CEO:
No no no, that's FRAUD. Although I may have taken something that belongs to you, because you used the wrong term I can laugh at you and pretend it's something different.
If the CEO in your example was charged with theft, they would (should) be found not guilty. They didn't commit theft. We have different crimes with different definitions because those crimes have different effects and warrant different punishments. One of the ironies of this debate is that according to the law copyright infringement is already considered to be much more serious than theft. If I steal a DVD from a store I am likely to get banned from the store and perhaps a minimal fine. If I make a copy of the same DVD I could be fined $50,000 and go to jail.
why the hell do people need to focus on the hair splitting rather than the crux of the argument?
Because it is the crux of the matter. Theft is clearly morally and ethically wrong. If you accept that copyright infringement is theft then what argument remains?
By conflating theft and copyright infringement groups with vested interests seek to take advantage of the public view of the effects of theft, i.e. the obvious loss of something tangible, so that copyright infringement is seen the same way even though there is no obvious loss with copyright infringement. They want people who copy movies and songs to be branded criminals in the minds of the people. They are trying to change the public perception of copyright infringement via the use of emotive terms rather than logical argument. That sort of underhanded tactic deserves active resistance IMHO. Also, to accept the conflation of theft and copyright infringement as you apparently do is to accept the argument that an unauthorised copy represents the loss of revenue equal to the retail price of the original. The groups in question want you believe that, but it is still very debatable.
Slashdot Mirror
Along similar lines, MythTV is also involved.
Look at the dates on the files: 1992. It's hardly definitive, but I can't see why they'd lie about the dates.
Tivo would be a better option for many people, but it's no available in NZ or any many other countries. And there are other benefits to MythTV - Tivo can't import videos or music, right?
So starting at 11am and finishing at 2pm was considered ok? Good job...
Secondly, I challenge you to explain what effect solar flares have on atmospheric CO2 levels. You call me naive yet you can't even form a coherent argument.
The fact is that the US is far better equiped to make the cuts than countries such as India and China. The US has also contributed far more to the problem so far. Why should India and China be asked to contribute equally in mitigating further damage? The US argument is essentially that we (the first world countries) caused the problem, but everyone should be equally responsible for cleaning it up. Is that fair?
I love the "don't blink" warning.
Article does not beg the question.
80GB drives are stupidly cheap these days. If he isn't prepared to spend what is well under $100 to recover his data then he obviously doesn't value it much.
- Revert upgrade of kernel
- Copy encrypted data to backup, unecrypting as you go (i.e. back it up unencrypted)
- Upgrade kernel
- Trash old encrypted partition and replace with whatever you want to use now
- Restore backup, encrypting as you go
- Back it up again, this time encrypted
For that matter, why could you not have just downgraded the kernel and stayed on the old version?I don't agree with Ebert. I believe that by giving a player choices you can make a point even more strongly than you can in a passive or narrative medium. This seems obvious to me: choices mean a player can explore consequences of different actions in a way that is much more natural than attempting to do so in a narrative. But then I play games and I suspect Ebert doesn't. So why do we care about his opinion?
Yeah, that sounds pretty much the same as Gentoo.
By conflating theft and copyright infringement groups with vested interests seek to take advantage of the public view of the effects of theft, i.e. the obvious loss of something tangible, so that copyright infringement is seen the same way even though there is no obvious loss with copyright infringement. They want people who copy movies and songs to be branded criminals in the minds of the people. They are trying to change the public perception of copyright infringement via the use of emotive terms rather than logical argument. That sort of underhanded tactic deserves active resistance IMHO. Also, to accept the conflation of theft and copyright infringement as you apparently do is to accept the argument that an unauthorised copy represents the loss of revenue equal to the retail price of the original. The groups in question want you believe that, but it is still very debatable.