Oh, the fact that the router is a refurb Microsoft and the network card is an old b adapter certainly contribute to the problem. That said, it's really quite remarkable watching the video die the moment someone gets up.
I'm not convinced that people are exaggerating. If we walk between our TV computer and our wireless router, the video gets choppy. God forbid someone decides they want to microwave some popcorn..
I don't know about that. My microwave has all the normal buttons, as well as an "instant minute" button. Basically I just jam it enough times to cook the food, and if I think it's too long, I stop it early. Much less effort.
What's the typical jail sentence for stealing an exam key in a school? Hell, when was the last time someone got convicted for cheating during during a school test?
Yup. It all depends on what you look at as the objectives. I'm under the impression that no land changed hands, so you could look at the US, as the aggressors, as the losers. On the other hand, you're right about the US' goals, in which case they won.
or cause evolution to change slightly to fit the new data. That's the scientific method at work. In light of new facts, a theory is either discarded or improved.
That said, the entropy argument against evolution is a new one to me. On the surface, it's neat. Any reference for a more in-depth study of it?
You've been pretty debunked by this whole thread, but I feel like chipping in. At the risk of being marginalized by quoting wikipedia;
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
Now, there we have it. Bacteries changing = evolution.
Forking duplicates the running process and continues executing from the next instruction. Returns the pid of the child to the "real" process, and 0 to the dup. You end up with two processes, each with its own (identical to the other) address space and data.
Not only is there a standard way in the English language to do this (using parenthesis after spelling it out), there's an HTML way to do it. Tada, the <acronym> tag.
Part of the problem is that the idea of an interpretation of a work is iteself vague. The are many aspects to an interpretation. Some readers might find that a book gives them insight into their own lives. That's an important effect of the book to study. The author might claim he had no such intention. That's also an important angle to study; however, rather than proving the first interpretation wrong, it merely makes the whole thing that much more interesting.
I love learning what an author intended with a work, how they wrote it, the things they hate that the critics say. That said, the work doesn't exist in a vacuum. The author (and work) will be, by necessity, a product of their time. The work is read and studied by people, all of whom it will have some effect on. Treating the author's word as canon is as unfaithful to a work as making up a random interpretation.
Actually, I ran into Information last week, and, funny story, turns out she's a submissive. Who knew? But that's not all of it. Apparently want she really wants from life is to be a firefighter. Go figure.
But a story isn't a physical thing. A book is physical. A story is just words. If I read your book, the story is now in my head. The only thing preventing me from retelling it is my limited recall. You don't have any inherent right to prevent me from retelling the story in any way I like.
"I may decide to sell to a publisher the exclusive right to make and market copies of that book."
You are claiming that by writing a book, you inherently (natually?) have the right to decide who can make copies. Where does that so-called right come from?
In the US anyway, that right comes from the Constitution, where it is explicitly stated that it is NOT at natural right, rather it is a granted specifically "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It is not a function of ownership of private property. It is a government granted monopoly.
Why can't I make copies? Not because you are magically entitled to be the only one who can. I have a copy of the book, I'm sure there are shops that can cut it down and run new copies for very little money. The reason I can't make copies is because we (the public) decided it was in our own (the public's) interest to restrict copying, in order to encourage new creativity to take place. That's all there is to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, the fact that the router is a refurb Microsoft and the network card is an old b adapter certainly contribute to the problem. That said, it's really quite remarkable watching the video die the moment someone gets up.
I'm not convinced that people are exaggerating. If we walk between our TV computer and our wireless router, the video gets choppy. God forbid someone decides they want to microwave some popcorn..
Although we like to make fun... I picked up a general relativity textbook earlier this year that decided to measure time in metres.
I don't know about that. My microwave has all the normal buttons, as well as an "instant minute" button. Basically I just jam it enough times to cook the food, and if I think it's too long, I stop it early. Much less effort.
What's the typical jail sentence for stealing an exam key in a school? Hell, when was the last time someone got convicted for cheating during during a school test?
Did you not read his post? Why can't I take a picture of your painting?
mkdir RCS
touch foo.c
ci -l -m'initial revision' -t-'the program foo' foo.c
emacs foo.c
Hours?
Yup. It all depends on what you look at as the objectives. I'm under the impression that no land changed hands, so you could look at the US, as the aggressors, as the losers. On the other hand, you're right about the US' goals, in which case they won.
Now I'm as Canadian as the next Canadian, but let's not be misleading here. Britain won.
Golfing english. Like perl golf, with less punctuation. I like it.
So now a prereq to be a doctor is to give up one's ability to go out and enjoy a movie? I hope your doctor doesn't read your posts...
or cause evolution to change slightly to fit the new data.
That's the scientific method at work. In light of new facts, a theory is either discarded or improved.
That said, the entropy argument against evolution is a new one to me. On the surface, it's neat. Any reference for a more in-depth study of it?
Now, there we have it. Bacteries changing = evolution.
Forking duplicates the running process and continues executing from the next instruction. Returns the pid of the child to the "real" process, and 0 to the dup. You end up with two processes, each with its own (identical to the other) address space and data.
Not only is there a standard way in the English language to do this (using parenthesis after spelling it out), there's an HTML way to do it. Tada, the <acronym> tag.
MP3 is also crufted with patent issues. Ogg is certainly one of few truly open audio codecs.
wow, you're right. Do you have any idea what it is about your page that IE has fubar?
I was going to correct you, because most of those duties sound lika IANA jobs. Turns out we're both right. ICANN controls IANA.
Part of the problem is that the idea of an interpretation of a work is iteself vague. The are many aspects to an interpretation. Some readers might find that a book gives them insight into their own lives. That's an important effect of the book to study. The author might claim he had no such intention. That's also an important angle to study; however, rather than proving the first interpretation wrong, it merely makes the whole thing that much more interesting.
I love learning what an author intended with a work, how they wrote it, the things they hate that the critics say. That said, the work doesn't exist in a vacuum. The author (and work) will be, by necessity, a product of their time. The work is read and studied by people, all of whom it will have some effect on. Treating the author's word as canon is as unfaithful to a work as making up a random interpretation.
Actually, I ran into Information last week, and, funny story, turns out she's a submissive. Who knew? But that's not all of it. Apparently want she really wants from life is to be a firefighter. Go figure.
But a story isn't a physical thing. A book is physical. A story is just words. If I read your book, the story is now in my head. The only thing preventing me from retelling it is my limited recall. You don't have any inherent right to prevent me from retelling the story in any way I like.
Mmmm least-squares news.
How has your brain not exploded? I cannot copy your idea, because it's yours; yet at the same time, no one can own an idea? Make up your mind.
What if I read your story, and then re-type it from memory? Is that ok?
There, you just did it again!
"I may decide to sell to a publisher the exclusive right to make and market copies of that book."
You are claiming that by writing a book, you inherently (natually?) have the right to decide who can make copies. Where does that so-called right come from?
In the US anyway, that right comes from the Constitution, where it is explicitly stated that it is NOT at natural right, rather it is a granted specifically "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It is not a function of ownership of private property. It is a government granted monopoly.
Why can't I make copies? Not because you are magically entitled to be the only one who can. I have a copy of the book, I'm sure there are shops that can cut it down and run new copies for very little money. The reason I can't make copies is because we (the public) decided it was in our own (the public's) interest to restrict copying, in order to encourage new creativity to take place. That's all there is to it.
Good eye. Although it did have one hell of an IDE for making simple windowed apps.