Yes, well, that would be less people than are being ingored now. In regions where there are vast swathes of land and relatively few people they might not get as much attention as under the current system. But that is, as stated, relatively few people. It may sound cold, but consider how many are similarly marginalized for living in a 'safe' state.
Jet injectors are fairly commonplace. My dad said they used them on new recruits in Basic, back in the day. He said it was a big thing that you had to lean in to and had a strong kick. Military issue. What's special here is the virus itself, I guess. Maybe use gold particles to carry it and using helium to power it is also new. I don't know.
I encourage you to research the terms 'XML', 'programming language', and 'oxymoron' so that you may learn to combine them more correctly. Unless, of course, you were trying to be funny. If you were, I'd say you were too close to the edge to tell.
If you Google a bit you'll see that Gosling does know how it works and that this is by no means a new conversation. Saying that it is based on the Windows API has a grain of truth to it in that while it uses a number of APIs on different platforms, the most work has been done on the Windows API version and (this is just hearsay) that may have influenced the overall development as well.
Here's a good overview that I should have put in my original post:
The Eclipse endorsement of the Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) destroyed that organization's interoperability story, according to Gosling. "It's a toolkit based on the Windows API and getting it to run on other platforms is problematic," he said.
An Eclipse spokesman disagreed with Gosling's assertions about Eclipse and SWT.
"I don't believe James really understands how Eclipse works," said Ian Skerrett, Eclipse marketing director. The Eclipse platform works well on Linux, Solaris, Macintosh, and Windows, and the SWT API is independent of the deployment platform, he said.
"The strength of SWT is that it actually uses the native APIs of the platform," Skerrett said.
Particularly:
"I don't believe James really understands how Eclipse works," said Ian Skerrett, Eclipse marketing director.
So is Skerrett being disengenous when he says that and, if he is, is he just getting back at Gosling for over simplifying?
Somehow I really doubt that Gosling doesn't understand how Eclipse works in the context and I doubt that Skerrett is dumb enough to think that he does, though I'm less sure of the second point as I don't know anything about him.
You can make an argument that SWT leveraging OS-specific APIs is a strength, although I don't really like Eclipse under GTK (need to try it with Motif), but I would have preferred it if he had just rebutted the point directly without stooping to slurs.
Actually, I have no earthly idea where I got these expectations all of a sudden. It's like I relapsed into freshman naiveté. "All debates should be logical and factual. Then the Internet will be one big Web of Peace."
The tone of those comments are hilarious. For example, here's the begining of the first post.
This is dispicable behaviour from the BBC. I don't think people are realising the issue here. They are undermining the cost of design. To redesign something as popular as the BBC page requires an intricate knowledge of SO many web design and usabilty fundamentals. Simply coaxing a designer with £2k worth of product and a blue peter badge is not my idea of reward....
It reminds me of this thread a while back dissing Scott Kurtz for his plans to offer his strip to newspapers for free as advertising.
Although this is just a single contest and Kurtz was an entire strip (or just a single strip, if you like), it's fun to watch peoples' panic turn to vitriol.
'OMG! A different way of doing things! Die in a fire, you disrespectful bastards!"
Regarding the third point, "well-regulated" in this specific context means like a well-regulated clock: the firearm is clean, working, well oiled, etc.
I couldn't tell you definitively what it does mean in this context, but I strongly doubt it is refering to the state of the firearm. That would be a very, um, poetic, reading of the sentence.
That phrase is the most debated part of the ammendment for good reason. If the aim is to secure "the security of a free state" and the threat is perceived as an internal threat to freedom it seems a little problematic to have that state do the regulating. But if the threat to the security of the state itself is seen to come from outside, then there is no immediate problem with the state regulating the militia. In the latter case, the internal freedom of the state would (hopefully) be safeguarded by the other ammendents, the original constitution, and other institutions.
I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers and what they wrought, but at the end of the day I believe we have to use our own discrimination to choose what we believe is right. Conclusively knowing the intent behind the words of the second ammendment only goes so far.
Not many people these days would make the argument that we need armed militia to protect us from foreign powers. More would, however, agree that we need a militia to safeguard our internal freedoms. I don't think this is actually the majority view, but it is defintely a vocal minority.
As armed resistance seems like the last resort, I tend to rank this particular freedom below the others in the Bill of Rights and I'm not sure it isn't an excess we could live without.
The O'Reilly interview that this article references was covered here before and all that this new article and submission do is introduce a little confusion. Not that the proposed provision isn't worth talking about, it is.
The addition would offer protection for developers who choose to include a particular feature in their code whereby that feature would have to be retained in future versions. That feature being the ability of users to download the source. It is completely optional for the original developer.
If it were up to me, I would want entire countries in their own easy to block IP address space. Want to block.br? Here's the single block that does it. Want to block.kr,.cn, and.nz? Go for it. Right now it's entirely too difficult and it requires some real work to do what you need to do.
Sounds like a business opportunity, or if it is too minor, a small public service.
I have to agree, although I am not expert. I got about half way through it before the piled up presumptions bore me down and I could go on no longer. It might be a good place to find some interesting things to research, but only if you can segregate what you learned in the book from what you find out elsewhere so that you remember to disregard it!
While they were working on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors consulted or met with Umberto Eco, who in turn (loosely) based a novel on their actions. Foucault's Pendulum is about a group of editors of a vanity press who decide to start recycling the crap they have to edit and write their own book of mysteries. Things start to spin out of control as some of their clients now see them as holders of mystery.
The book is very good, though probably not the kind of book I make it sound. I've also only read the English translation (the original is Italian).
I've hear the that authors of HBHG were not best pleased with the comparison. Eco claims they just gave him the idea.
It sounds like you misunderstood. The suggestion is that developers would package their _own_ sofware. The distros wouldn't repackage everybody's software in a way that was unique to that distro, which is what happens now.
Whether or not this would be succesful or not is another question.
I keep remembering old favorites. I should have waited and put them in one post...
I wasn't able to find a good link for this one, but here is some info about it. It is a card-based naval battle game. Pretty random, medium strategy, medium negotiation. Good fun. Also out of print, but there might still be copies kicking around...
That link was to a page with Word files presumbably containing images of the original cards. I didn't have time to check.
Re:How can you get tired of Settlers?
on
Fun Tabletop Games?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's random and success isn't very well linked to skill.
It is true there are random elements in the game, but success _is_ well-linked to skill, IMO. But maybe not the skills you think a good board game should require. As another poster mentioned, and I commented on, Seilder is largely about managing your relations with other players.
My main beef with it (the original, non-expanded, version) is that is a little short. It often seems to end towards what should be the end of the middle game.
I've never played Puerto Rico, but Settlers has got to be in my top three to play. And its number one from an aeshetic point of view.
I would say that Puerto Rico is the more balanced of the two; however Settlers relies on some social engineering skills as there is alot of player to player trading nessesary to win.
Heh. One useful tactic or skill in Seidler is stealth. I once won 9 games (over two nights) in a row by being so low key that the two buddies I was playing with didn't notice my streak. Then I didn't bring it up for a month or two and they wouldn't believe me. I guess some people might say that winning without the trash talk isn't worth it, but I mostly play for the actual play. (Not that I don't enjoy talking smack on occaision).
For quick games, Modern Art is exellent. A game takes about 20 minutes, IIRC (it's been a few years). It may not be what you want for your centerpiece game, but it is really good. You're basically buy and selling art pieces (cards) via different auctions. At the end of each round you total the value of the pieces in your collection plus whatever cash you have left over from the buying and selling part of the round. There's more to it than I make out, though, as the value of the work of each artist is based on the average value of all of the artist's pieces sold during the first half of the round. It's a subtle, well-balanced game, and unlike most of the big games, it is quick to play.
I was wondering the same thing. How clean could you get a lander? You could carry the lander inside the craft proper, in a 'sealed' chamber. The chamber and the lander would have been as sterilized as possible. And then, if the lander was well-equiped enough, you could warm the sample up and study it right on the Martian surface.
Is anyone here qualified to say how clean we could guarantee the lander and its chamber would be? Disregard the technical complexities of the rest of the mission.
You've found the solution to this whole mess! Quick! Somebody file a patent on the business process of filing bad patent applications. Then they can sue anyone else who tries it.
This thing is essentially a new way of networking. There's no particular reason to expect the interface to be better than Bluetooth's, unless you think that Bluetooth's is below average.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, well, that would be less people than are being ingored now. In regions where there are vast swathes of land and relatively few people they might not get as much attention as under the current system. But that is, as stated, relatively few people. It may sound cold, but consider how many are similarly marginalized for living in a 'safe' state.
Yeah, I doubt the Feds are that speedy. Probably something that happened months ago.
Jet injectors are fairly commonplace. My dad said they used them on new recruits in Basic, back in the day. He said it was a big thing that you had to lean in to and had a strong kick. Military issue. What's special here is the virus itself, I guess. Maybe use gold particles to carry it and using helium to power it is also new. I don't know.
I encourage you to research the terms 'XML', 'programming language', and 'oxymoron' so that you may learn to combine them more correctly. Unless, of course, you were trying to be funny. If you were, I'd say you were too close to the edge to tell.
If you Google a bit you'll see that Gosling does know how it works and that this is by no means a new conversation. Saying that it is based on the Windows API has a grain of truth to it in that while it uses a number of APIs on different platforms, the most work has been done on the Windows API version and (this is just hearsay) that may have influenced the overall development as well.
Here's a good overview that I should have put in my original post:
SWT on Wikipedia
Particularly:
So is Skerrett being disengenous when he says that and, if he is, is he just getting back at Gosling for over simplifying?
Somehow I really doubt that Gosling doesn't understand how Eclipse works in the context and I doubt that Skerrett is dumb enough to think that he does, though I'm less sure of the second point as I don't know anything about him.
You can make an argument that SWT leveraging OS-specific APIs is a strength, although I don't really like Eclipse under GTK (need to try it with Motif), but I would have preferred it if he had just rebutted the point directly without stooping to slurs.
Actually, I have no earthly idea where I got these expectations all of a sudden. It's like I relapsed into freshman naiveté. "All debates should be logical and factual. Then the Internet will be one big Web of Peace."
It reminds me of this thread a while back dissing Scott Kurtz for his plans to offer his strip to newspapers for free as advertising.
Although this is just a single contest and Kurtz was an entire strip (or just a single strip, if you like), it's fun to watch peoples' panic turn to vitriol.
'OMG! A different way of doing things! Die in a fire, you disrespectful bastards!"
Regarding the third point, "well-regulated" in this specific context means like a well-regulated clock: the firearm is clean, working, well oiled, etc.
I couldn't tell you definitively what it does mean in this context, but I strongly doubt it is refering to the state of the firearm. That would be a very, um, poetic, reading of the sentence.
That phrase is the most debated part of the ammendment for good reason. If the aim is to secure "the security of a free state" and the threat is perceived as an internal threat to freedom it seems a little problematic to have that state do the regulating. But if the threat to the security of the state itself is seen to come from outside, then there is no immediate problem with the state regulating the militia. In the latter case, the internal freedom of the state would (hopefully) be safeguarded by the other ammendents, the original constitution, and other institutions.
I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers and what they wrought, but at the end of the day I believe we have to use our own discrimination to choose what we believe is right. Conclusively knowing the intent behind the words of the second ammendment only goes so far.
Not many people these days would make the argument that we need armed militia to protect us from foreign powers. More would, however, agree that we need a militia to safeguard our internal freedoms. I don't think this is actually the majority view, but it is defintely a vocal minority.
As armed resistance seems like the last resort, I tend to rank this particular freedom below the others in the Bill of Rights and I'm not sure it isn't an excess we could live without.
Coming at it from another direction ...
.1m * 9.8 / s^2
It looks like it is about 10 cm high. So for a 1 ton (metric) car, that's
1000 kg *
or, if we allow just over 10 cm, approximately
1000 m^2 / s^2 or 1 kJ of _potential_ energy.
That's actually 500 kg, twice, if only one axle goes over at a time.
Math aside, it's just a tax in energy form, but it would be interesting to explore the economics in highway offramps.
The O'Reilly interview that this article references was covered here before and all that this new article and submission do is introduce a little confusion. Not that the proposed provision isn't worth talking about, it is.
The addition would offer protection for developers who choose to include a particular feature in their code whereby that feature would have to be retained in future versions. That feature being the ability of users to download the source. It is completely optional for the original developer.
Your argument would be better if you could do the math. Look at the sibling posts to get a clue.
.999 uptime = .001 downtime
.00001 downtime
.864 seconds a day, respectively.
99.9% uptime =
Similarly,
99.999% uptime =
Or, 86.4 and
Sounds like a business opportunity, or if it is too minor, a small public service.
I have to agree, although I am not expert. I got about half way through it before the piled up presumptions bore me down and I could go on no longer. It might be a good place to find some interesting things to research, but only if you can segregate what you learned in the book from what you find out elsewhere so that you remember to disregard it!
While they were working on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors consulted or met with Umberto Eco, who in turn (loosely) based a novel on their actions. Foucault's Pendulum is about a group of editors of a vanity press who decide to start recycling the crap they have to edit and write their own book of mysteries. Things start to spin out of control as some of their clients now see them as holders of mystery.
The book is very good, though probably not the kind of book I make it sound. I've also only read the English translation (the original is Italian).
I've hear the that authors of HBHG were not best pleased with the comparison. Eco claims they just gave him the idea.
More accurate than what? The mean? No, wait... doesn't work. I know! More accurate than the ones that aren't very accurate!
Words bad! Numbers good! Except some of the numbers! Thog take average, find good numbers.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
It sounds like you misunderstood. The suggestion is that developers would package their _own_ sofware. The distros wouldn't repackage everybody's software in a way that was unique to that distro, which is what happens now.
Whether or not this would be succesful or not is another question.
I keep remembering old favorites. I should have waited and put them in one post...
I wasn't able to find a good link for this one, but here is some info about it. It is a card-based naval battle game. Pretty random, medium strategy, medium negotiation. Good fun. Also out of print, but there might still be copies kicking around...
That link was to a page with Word files presumbably containing images of the original cards. I didn't have time to check.
It is true there are random elements in the game, but success _is_ well-linked to skill, IMO. But maybe not the skills you think a good board game should require. As another poster mentioned, and I commented on, Seilder is largely about managing your relations with other players.
My main beef with it (the original, non-expanded, version) is that is a little short. It often seems to end towards what should be the end of the middle game.
Heh. One useful tactic or skill in Seidler is stealth. I once won 9 games (over two nights) in a row by being so low key that the two buddies I was playing with didn't notice my streak. Then I didn't bring it up for a month or two and they wouldn't believe me. I guess some people might say that winning without the trash talk isn't worth it, but I mostly play for the actual play. (Not that I don't enjoy talking smack on occaision).
Acquire is another simple, but well-balanced strategy game. It's somewhat as if a game theorist made Monopoly. (It's nothing like Monopoly). Very fun.
For quick games, Modern Art is exellent. A game takes about 20 minutes, IIRC (it's been a few years). It may not be what you want for your centerpiece game, but it is really good. You're basically buy and selling art pieces (cards) via different auctions. At the end of each round you total the value of the pieces in your collection plus whatever cash you have left over from the buying and selling part of the round. There's more to it than I make out, though, as the value of the work of each artist is based on the average value of all of the artist's pieces sold during the first half of the round. It's a subtle, well-balanced game, and unlike most of the big games, it is quick to play.
I was wondering the same thing. How clean could you get a lander? You could carry the lander inside the craft proper, in a 'sealed' chamber. The chamber and the lander would have been as sterilized as possible. And then, if the lander was well-equiped enough, you could warm the sample up and study it right on the Martian surface.
Is anyone here qualified to say how clean we could guarantee the lander and its chamber would be? Disregard the technical complexities of the rest of the mission.
You've found the solution to this whole mess! Quick! Somebody file a patent on the business process of filing bad patent applications. Then they can sue anyone else who tries it.
No "Step 3: ???" here, baby. It's pure PROFIT!!
This thing is essentially a new way of networking. There's no particular reason to expect the interface to be better than Bluetooth's, unless you think that Bluetooth's is below average.
Garbage in, garbage out. The poster wasn't quoting the article, he or she was quoting the grandparent post.
You missed the most important and easily-offended one of all... ... you insensitive clod!