Maybe not funny, but it is a play on words, not a troll. Hate religion in *general* vs hate religion in *private*, see, they are both syntactically correct sentences and military ranks.
Is there some sort of economic activity that makes a great deal of sense to do in/on an ocean colony? Otherwise, it more or less looks like a really great way to get rid of money that you decide you don't want anymore.
Or did you mean the Harry Potter kind of utopia where wishes are fishes?
It's at least little bit unfortunate for buyers that worldwide demand is somewhat greater than supply. Even worse, demand is growing and supply is not keeping up (and a lot of the easy oil is starting to dry up, Saudi Arabia's best fields are on the decline, and so on).
It's pretty much an inevitable state of affairs, making unfortunate a fairly pointless description, but it isn't anything that anybody needs to be happy about either.
The moderator pool is only of a certain quality and points don't get applied evenly. I get downmodded for inexplicable reasons fairly often, and much more borderline posts go untouched.
Sure, but you can at least prioritize certain features, which is then essentially a schedule, and you might as well release features once they are ready (because, as you say, they are ready).
The idea of the schedule is not to encourage a premature release, but to encourage a sufficiently attainable definition of "ready" such that a release eventually happens.
The review says that the ending is ludicrous and "Mutt" is a stupid name, so clearly the "Mutt" character is just Indiana Jones after he uses the power of the crystal skull to de-age himself and travel back in time.
Sure, there is a great deal of short term price elasticity in energy demand. It's a lot harder to change your inputs than it is to open your wallet.
That doesn't change the fact that people who pull into a gas station and buy some gas are doing so willingly (unless they are in fact mindless automatons). They are, by their behavior, making a very clear statement that they think they are better off with the gas they buy than they would be with the money they spent.
That they would like to get as much gas as possible for as little money as possible does not need to be pointed out (this would still be true if cars got 1000 miles per gallon and gas cost a nickel), and I don't see what other point you are making.
There is a goal inside of Mozilla not to break extension compatibility for minor releases, and the documentation on their website suggests using maxVersion of the form 2.0.0.* for Firefox 2:
It's semantics. One way of reading "whatever the hell you want with the application, code, whatever" includes being able to distribute changes without distributing the source. That same reading says that if you include a stipulation, you can't do "whatever" anymore.
Why not sqlite? Comes with Python 2.5 on Windows. It adds a relatively weighty 800k or so to my python installation on Windows, but the installation is dozens of megabytes overall, so it doesn't really matter.
It's not naive and obtuse, it an attempt to get people to consider that maybe gas is worth $4 to them if they are buying it. Nothing in your post was something I was unaware of.
I guess one option is to simply try to use as little as is acceptable (I drive wherever I feel like I need to go, but I try to drive with a high mileage foot, to me, acceptable means stuff like that).
Right, I don't have a problem with them making money, I like being able to buy gasoline and don't really think that they are so competent that they could engineer a massive price conspiracy (which would be something to get upset about). It isn't the clearest statement, but I was referring to people being upset with the nominal amounts of their profits, not the actual percentages.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not funny, but it is a play on words, not a troll. Hate religion in *general* vs hate religion in *private*, see, they are both syntactically correct sentences and military ranks.
I hate religion in private.
Is there some sort of economic activity that makes a great deal of sense to do in/on an ocean colony? Otherwise, it more or less looks like a really great way to get rid of money that you decide you don't want anymore.
Or did you mean the Harry Potter kind of utopia where wishes are fishes?
It's at least little bit unfortunate for buyers that worldwide demand is somewhat greater than supply. Even worse, demand is growing and supply is not keeping up (and a lot of the easy oil is starting to dry up, Saudi Arabia's best fields are on the decline, and so on).
It's pretty much an inevitable state of affairs, making unfortunate a fairly pointless description, but it isn't anything that anybody needs to be happy about either.
Virtual darts.
The moderator pool is only of a certain quality and points don't get applied evenly. I get downmodded for inexplicable reasons fairly often, and much more borderline posts go untouched.
Please turn in your pine-needle hat.
Sure, but you can at least prioritize certain features, which is then essentially a schedule, and you might as well release features once they are ready (because, as you say, they are ready).
The idea of the schedule is not to encourage a premature release, but to encourage a sufficiently attainable definition of "ready" such that a release eventually happens.
See, I'm one of the ones who criticizes everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon#Constantine_the_Great
(I'm not citing that as authoritative, just as what I am talking about)
"Wah" would be shorter.
The review says that the ending is ludicrous and "Mutt" is a stupid name, so clearly the "Mutt" character is just Indiana Jones after he uses the power of the crystal skull to de-age himself and travel back in time.
Didn't they still stick pretty close to Constantine?
Presumably, the edits are under someone else's copyright.
Sure, there is a great deal of short term price elasticity in energy demand. It's a lot harder to change your inputs than it is to open your wallet.
That doesn't change the fact that people who pull into a gas station and buy some gas are doing so willingly (unless they are in fact mindless automatons). They are, by their behavior, making a very clear statement that they think they are better off with the gas they buy than they would be with the money they spent.
That they would like to get as much gas as possible for as little money as possible does not need to be pointed out (this would still be true if cars got 1000 miles per gallon and gas cost a nickel), and I don't see what other point you are making.
There is a goal inside of Mozilla not to break extension compatibility for minor releases, and the documentation on their website suggests using maxVersion of the form 2.0.0.* for Firefox 2:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Updating_extensions_for_Firefox_2#Step_1:_Update_the_install_manifest
For Firefox 3, they suggest moving to the form 3.0.*:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Updating_extensions_for_Firefox_3#Step_1:_Update_the_install_manifest
So no, devs aren't breaking any rules when they mark their extension as being forward compatible.
The parent to my post is blurring it more than I am.
It's semantics. One way of reading "whatever the hell you want with the application, code, whatever" includes being able to distribute changes without distributing the source. That same reading says that if you include a stipulation, you can't do "whatever" anymore.
I don't bitch and complain about the price of gasoline or the profits of oil companies.
The good news is that I was making a cheap joke.
I upgrade firmware if I think I need to (Upgrading a cheapo mp3 player I had made it go from 10 freezes a week to a couple a year).
Why not sqlite? Comes with Python 2.5 on Windows. It adds a relatively weighty 800k or so to my python installation on Windows, but the installation is dozens of megabytes overall, so it doesn't really matter.
It's not naive and obtuse, it an attempt to get people to consider that maybe gas is worth $4 to them if they are buying it. Nothing in your post was something I was unaware of.
Yeah, I don't know.
I guess one option is to simply try to use as little as is acceptable (I drive wherever I feel like I need to go, but I try to drive with a high mileage foot, to me, acceptable means stuff like that).
Right, I don't have a problem with them making money, I like being able to buy gasoline and don't really think that they are so competent that they could engineer a massive price conspiracy (which would be something to get upset about). It isn't the clearest statement, but I was referring to people being upset with the nominal amounts of their profits, not the actual percentages.