When I was recovering from minor surgery(relatively, they still cut a hole in my abdomen), the nurse said something like "If you don't pee soon we are going to have to use a catheter". I stood up and peed. Just a little, but damn it, I peed.
Maybe being 15 had something to do with it, but the idea of a catheter seemed really really bad.
Certainly with open source you need to understand who is providing what, but the open source part isn't the problem, the who is the problem, just like with anything else.
How does the world "commercial" do anything to ensure a higher level of quality control than the word "open". Here's a hint, it doesn't.
I certainly trust IBM and Sun (wearing their closed source hat) and Microsoft and Intel to have a certain level of quality control, but I don't really expect Redhat or Sun (wearing their open source hat) to have any lower level of quality control, so to some extent, it's a false dichotomy.
It goes further than that though, I don't really expect anything of a company that I have never heard of or dealt with, they need to demonstrate that they have some level of quality control, not say "we're commercial" in order to gain any trust.
China isn't a military dictatorship. My impression is that the government is rather authoritarian, but power is too spread out to really call it a dictatorship(both in the personal sense and in the sense that the military doesn't seem to have the mandate to act unilaterally).
You are awfully confused about how GPS works. The GPS location finding device would need a transmitter in order for the system to be able to track it.
If the Chinese only build devices with built in transmitters, there is a good chance that successful dissidents would use a device based on the US or European systems.
Look up the launch mass of small satellite. Bringing it up 1 mile with a balloon would be a non trivial endeavor, and then you are a whole 0.0045% closer to geosynchronous orbit.
Honestly, I haven't played a game that was so engrossing that I could possibly want to spend 2 hours a day playing it for an entire year. I can see a few hours a day for several weeks on a game that I really like, but those don't come up 10-15 times a year, they come up a couple of times a year.
Buying Timesplitters II for the Gamecube was enlightening for me, in 8 months, I pretty much only played that game(when I played mind you, 4-5 times a month), and I "racked up" about 30 hours of playtime. I had an easy time not buying a new system knowing that I was only playing that much.
Not really. I realized from reading another comment in the thread that you use language in an exceptionally narrow fashion and that this was the cause for the thread going sideways.
Look back at my original comment. It doesn't say much more than "There are documented instances of SWAT teams killing innocent people". That's not an argument. I was being sloppy and not carefully reading every word of the thread and just pointing out that SWAT teams do make horrible mistakes. That said, if you look at the map and search on non violent warrants that resulted in death, there is a situation described where a county uses their SWAT team to serve warrants for files.
Also, "lose", not "loose". One means the opposite of victory, and the other means the opposite of tight.
So has the version of the Excel files that the system outputs changed in 10 years?
I figured it had to be something like that, but it is always amazing how far people will push things to avoid learning something new(in your case, either the vendor didn't want to support better output or it wasn't worth changing, I'm not trying to pick it apart here).
Your initial statement was that SWAT teams are not used to serve warrants against non violent people. This is generally true and I should have phrased my response better. I should have said that even though warrants against non violent people are generally not served by SWAT teams, the actual execution of warrants by SWAT still can go wrong and end with the killing of innocent people, indicating a problem with the warrant process.
Note that my point was not to quibble over who the warrants were served against, but to point out that the execution of warrants by SWAT teams does go wrong, with consequences for innocents. Each time this happens, it means that the pendulum has swung too far to the police, because the warrant should not have been issued (especially in cases where an incorrect location is named on the warrant, this is incompetence at best, probably even dereliction).
If the violent offender is not at a location, the warrant cannot be served against them at that location. This is the correct interpretation, not a lie. "Serving" a warrant requires the presence of the person named on the warrant.
Anyway, you think it is okay for police to make mistakes in warrants that are intended to be served with lethal force?
The point isn't who they intended to serve the warrants on, it is that they failed to execute the warrant properly and killed innocent people.
The warrants were issued against the violent offenders, but they were served against innocent people. You said that warrants don't get served against innocent people, and that isn't true.
Busting into the house of an innocent person with a warrant to arrest a violent person is not serving the warrant against the violent person, it is improperly serving it against the innocent person.
Slashdot Mirror
You are very proud of being yourself.
Neener neener neener.
Get over it, they post about 1 story per hour and things get thin more often than not at this point.
Is it a great way to pass time in the same way that your urethra is a great way to pass a kidney stone?
Just wondering. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
"Wax the Buick" sticks you no later than 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk.dr-laura/browse_frm/thread/ab112de73338da18/43d9ad600053fef8?lnk=st&q=%22Wax+the+Buick%22#43d9ad600053fef8
There are variants of "Shake hands..." and "Grease the..." in there also. Everything new is old again.
Slightly?
I think, as you have alluded to, that the putting of it in was the primary concern.
When I was recovering from minor surgery(relatively, they still cut a hole in my abdomen), the nurse said something like "If you don't pee soon we are going to have to use a catheter". I stood up and peed. Just a little, but damn it, I peed.
Maybe being 15 had something to do with it, but the idea of a catheter seemed really really bad.
Opera sidesteps the problem of QAing their Vietnamese language pack by not having one:
http://www.opera.com/download/languagefiles/
(I'm not trying to slam Opera here)
Certainly with open source you need to understand who is providing what, but the open source part isn't the problem, the who is the problem, just like with anything else.
How does the world "commercial" do anything to ensure a higher level of quality control than the word "open". Here's a hint, it doesn't.
I certainly trust IBM and Sun (wearing their closed source hat) and Microsoft and Intel to have a certain level of quality control, but I don't really expect Redhat or Sun (wearing their open source hat) to have any lower level of quality control, so to some extent, it's a false dichotomy.
It goes further than that though, I don't really expect anything of a company that I have never heard of or dealt with, they need to demonstrate that they have some level of quality control, not say "we're commercial" in order to gain any trust.
Meh, language is language.
If it was posted to the internet in 1993, it seems pretty likely that it has been in use for quite a while at that point.
Hopefully they eject people from the study as they start to develop such conditions(or become at risk for developing them, etc).
I don't know if it is the latest. I heard it at least 5 years ago. It's been in the urban dictionary that long also:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rub+one+out
I imagine that it was first said decades ago.
Are you American? If you aren't, realize that we're an apathetic lot right up until we aren't anymore. This is similar to most people.
The election will complete regularly this fall, and Bush will walk into history.
If you don't think that, lay off the Fruit Loops, the sugar is affecting your brain.
I imagine you might get to choose how you pee, but you aren't going to poop into a catheter.
China isn't a military dictatorship. My impression is that the government is rather authoritarian, but power is too spread out to really call it a dictatorship(both in the personal sense and in the sense that the military doesn't seem to have the mandate to act unilaterally).
You are awfully confused about how GPS works. The GPS location finding device would need a transmitter in order for the system to be able to track it.
If the Chinese only build devices with built in transmitters, there is a good chance that successful dissidents would use a device based on the US or European systems.
Look up the launch mass of small satellite. Bringing it up 1 mile with a balloon would be a non trivial endeavor, and then you are a whole 0.0045% closer to geosynchronous orbit.
There would be a rebellion.
I would guess that at least 1/3 of the military would end up as rebels.
It won't happen.
He had the good sense to say "I".
Honestly, I haven't played a game that was so engrossing that I could possibly want to spend 2 hours a day playing it for an entire year. I can see a few hours a day for several weeks on a game that I really like, but those don't come up 10-15 times a year, they come up a couple of times a year.
Buying Timesplitters II for the Gamecube was enlightening for me, in 8 months, I pretty much only played that game(when I played mind you, 4-5 times a month), and I "racked up" about 30 hours of playtime. I had an easy time not buying a new system knowing that I was only playing that much.
Not really. I realized from reading another comment in the thread that you use language in an exceptionally narrow fashion and that this was the cause for the thread going sideways.
Look back at my original comment. It doesn't say much more than "There are documented instances of SWAT teams killing innocent people". That's not an argument. I was being sloppy and not carefully reading every word of the thread and just pointing out that SWAT teams do make horrible mistakes. That said, if you look at the map and search on non violent warrants that resulted in death, there is a situation described where a county uses their SWAT team to serve warrants for files.
Also, "lose", not "loose". One means the opposite of victory, and the other means the opposite of tight.
So has the version of the Excel files that the system outputs changed in 10 years?
I figured it had to be something like that, but it is always amazing how far people will push things to avoid learning something new(in your case, either the vendor didn't want to support better output or it wasn't worth changing, I'm not trying to pick it apart here).
No, warrants should be served.
Your initial statement was that SWAT teams are not used to serve warrants against non violent people. This is generally true and I should have phrased my response better. I should have said that even though warrants against non violent people are generally not served by SWAT teams, the actual execution of warrants by SWAT still can go wrong and end with the killing of innocent people, indicating a problem with the warrant process.
Note that my point was not to quibble over who the warrants were served against, but to point out that the execution of warrants by SWAT teams does go wrong, with consequences for innocents. Each time this happens, it means that the pendulum has swung too far to the police, because the warrant should not have been issued (especially in cases where an incorrect location is named on the warrant, this is incompetence at best, probably even dereliction).
If the violent offender is not at a location, the warrant cannot be served against them at that location. This is the correct interpretation, not a lie. "Serving" a warrant requires the presence of the person named on the warrant.
Anyway, you think it is okay for police to make mistakes in warrants that are intended to be served with lethal force?
I think we'd have to ask him.
The point isn't who they intended to serve the warrants on, it is that they failed to execute the warrant properly and killed innocent people.
The warrants were issued against the violent offenders, but they were served against innocent people. You said that warrants don't get served against innocent people, and that isn't true.
Busting into the house of an innocent person with a warrant to arrest a violent person is not serving the warrant against the violent person, it is improperly serving it against the innocent person.
Try to relax a little, it's just the internet.