They don't just throw them out in the road. They move them to a safe facility. I think you're just building a straw man because you have a grudge against people who take safety measures.
Why not just make a weekly TV show that shows pilot episodes? The networks are obviously trying to find cheap ways to fill airtime (google "Jay Leno" for more information), so why couldn't they create a one hour slot at some point in the week, when they display either two half-hour pilots or one hour long pilot. . They could measure the success of the show by checking nielson ratings, and by asking audience members to vote by texting, the way they do in American Idol.
Agnosticism is a stand against arrogance and self-delusion and for rationality. Not only do we not know, but the question is simply not answerable in any rational way.
But we do answer the question in how we live our lives. We can choose whether to work on Saturdays or Sundays, and whether to follow dietary guidelines, or to perform sacrificial offerings to the Roman Gods (and to the god of the old Testament, just in case they were only until they stopped making animal sacrifices).
So is it rational to be agnostic in regards to unicorns, fairies, Roman mythology, or the existence of Santa Clause? You can avoid ever making an incorrect assertion, if you answer every question by saying "I don't know", but is it really "rational" to apply this level of ambiguity to every aspect of your life?
If you assume omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, all bets are off. They/It can make us believe anything. You can't know that any of your beliefs are certain and/or yours.
This is known as universal skepticism. How do we know that we aren't living in the Matrix? how do we know that food won't kill us, but poison will? In the face of uncertainty, do we forget everything we ever knew and give up on any possibility of ever learning or knowing anything, or do we take a chance on being wrong, and try to learn from our experiences?
If there are no omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, you can't absolutely prove the negative, you can only accumulate increasing amounts of evidence.
And this is exactly why atheists often argue that the burden of proof must lie on the person making a claim, as there is an unlimited number of possible claims, and no possible way to disprove those that are not self-contradictory. . A Pompous Atheist
Seriously is anyone besides me sick and tired of the music industry begging and asking for money from everyone. I swear they would want a cut of a homeless guy's shopping cart full of cans if they found out he downloaded a song before he was homeless.
Then it would be more accurate to say "American politicians" are in the pocket of the RIAA, as that statement does not imply that there is a difference between one party and the other, on this issue.
Wouldn't the diff patch make the code more portable? IANA open source hacker, so this is an honest question. . Let say you are using the example you gave. All the addresses are referencing memory locations that may change based on the distribution being used (although that wouldn't be a factor for Google). You might have #ifdef statements in the code that include one set of files if compiled under BSD, as an example, and another set if compiled under GNU/Linux, and your memory locations may vary based on the system architecture, optimization methods in use, and platform. . Under these circumstances, each patch would have to be tailored to the specific platform used. There would be no portability between patches. But, if the compilers are similar enough to create the same pseudocode/bytecode/ASM, or smart enough to save the source code, and use it for future comparisons, then wouldn't one patch be just as portable as the original source code?
I don't like the car analogy. How about this one? An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter. However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are. If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.
How about if a plane removes it's seats and says ok, we have 300 square feet of space. Since we estimate that a person takes up 3 square feet, then we will sell 100 tickets. . Then they find that most of the people are obese, and there simply isn't enough room for them all, so they look through the over weight people and tell the most unpopular ones that they have to leave the plane. Your are being kicked off because you hit your wife. You smell funny! And there's something oozing on your face. All of you had better leave to make room for us good people.
I think that if you compare the versions of windows, you will find that they have made progress. Try comparing Vista to Windows 95, and tell me they haven't made the OS more reliable and secure. . Of course, they have had setbacks, like ME, and Vista, but in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, I have found that 95982000XP where ME and Vista are best left out of the equation. So, yeah, for people who use Windows, this may be a better version of it.
A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157.
How many of us really need that? To use the obligatory car analogy, Macs are like the Tesla Roadster. They may be great for what they do, but they're just not made for everybody.
(Disclosure: I work for a traditional news source) . It's not that they're firing more reporters and buying more AP stories. They pay AP a flat rate. They're firing reporters because they aren't bringing in enough money to cover their expenses (and labor is a big one). . The dilemma they are facing is that banner ads do not pay well enough to cover the costs of a significantly sized team of reporters, that charging for access is typically the kiss of death for a site, and the only successful way they have to pay today's bills is through yesterday's business model. . But the question is, what would a forward-thinking businessman do to pay the bills? As the internet will likely assimilate all older media (including television and radio), the solution is going to have to be one that is completely online, cannot be blocked by an ad-blocker, and doesn't cost the end-user any money.
Why should either be a declaration of war? And what's with this comment about microsoft hard-coding Windows to not allow people to use Google (what, are they so desperate to get rid of Google that they will block Google's IP addresses, or has Cringely never heard of Firefox?) . This whole thing sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, written by a fifteen year-old schoolgirl who just saw a Veronica Mars marathon.
Something to consider. If you kill another person intentionally, then it is murder. If you kill him "without malice or premeditation", then it is manslaughter, which carries a lesser sentence. If you kill him in self-defense, then it may carry no sentence at all (IANAL, but I assume it would carry a sentence if there were a less harsh alternative, and you chose to kill the other person). . The difference between murder and manslaughter is purely about intention, so is it not thought crime to distinguish between the two? . The difference between murder and self-defense is both one of motive and situation. I have argued with coworkers before about whether it should be legal to shoot a man in the back if you catch him on your property and he runs away. (someone in our area got arrested for "assault" when they did this, and there was outrage that the guy had to spend an entire weekend in jail for it). . Just a little food for thought.
I don't know how Orwelle would view hate crimes legislation, or if it is really relevant, but he was a socialist. His problem with Stalin was the oppessive grab for power (which it would be hard to argue that hate crime legislation is), and his problem with capitalism is that the end result was that people were living in a class-based society (and it drove him nuts how Stalin was able to implement a class-based society, and still get socialists on his side, because of political partisanship). So, my point is that I do not believe he would be the strict small-government libertarian that people make him out to be.
IANAA (Adult, yes) Nuclear is much more efficient when compared to wind farms, but nuclear energy hasn't been developed enough for it to be used as a main energy source.
Well, if the applications use web based technology, then wouldn't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere? . Or maybe they'll come out with Google Registry ( http://google.com/registry ), which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth. It's truly innovative.
... in virtual worlds the rules can be set by the players themselves. The developers in this context are enablers, rather than Gods passing down "rules".
If those user-driven rules are so important for the gameplay, they should just pass them along to the developers so they can add them to the actual rules. That's what we in the real world call "Laws". If they don't like the way things are they should go play somewhere else. Stupid whining babies...
Hold on. If you are playing COH, and you don't like the way everybody else plays, then why don't you go somewhere else? If COH is not your game, then they already ARE playing somewhere else. . The other thing about this is that, yes, the rules allow this guy to be a jackass. They also allow much of what the other players were doing (not counting death threats and trying to get his home address). So why is it ok for a griefer to do anything he can get away with, but wrong for everybody else to treat him like the nuissance he is? Why should everybody else be held to a high standard, while the griefer is held to no standard at all?
So does this mean that, to port OpenOffice, or half the FOSS apps in existence over, they will need to get rid of GTK and QT, and reimplement everything in AJAX? Holy crap, that's scary. I hope that it just marketing run amok, and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications. . But still, I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability. I don't care who's to blame, I just want javascript that doesn't have to be developed twice; once on Firefox, and then "tweaked" to become functional on IE.
I think a good analogy would be if you walked onto a football field where people are playing touch football, and you start tackling people, over and over again, even if the ones who aren't playing, and you insist that you are doing the right thing because tackling is part of the "official rules". What gets me is that he tried to turn this into some whiny rant about tolerance. No, it wasn't about tolerence, it was about being a dick. I have never even played the game and I don't like the guy.
Why the hell have a city full of heroes and villains, if the villains and heroes just idly chat and don't actually fight each other?
It sounds like they made the game about completing missions and defeating computer opponents rather than PVP. I honestly have never player COH, and don't know how their players view PVP, but I think a good analogy would be if you saw several kids playing touch football in a football field. So you join in and start tackling people left and right. They say that this is touch football, and you tackle them anyway. . Eventually, they start getting hateful, and spreading rumors about you, and you comment about how that we are still a prejudiced race, picking on little old you, for being different. How clueless is this guy?
You can hardly call this protecting us from ourselves when everything from employment to apartment rental to cell phone plans to education require SSNs.
Actually you are welcome to refuse to give out your SSN for any of those purposes. Of course the person on the other end of the business arrangement is also welcome to refuse to do business with you.....
So, you're in the clear as long as you don't mind being homeless, unemployed, and uneducated?
Slashdot Mirror
They don't just throw them out in the road. They move them to a safe facility. I think you're just building a straw man because you have a grudge against people who take safety measures.
Why not just make a weekly TV show that shows pilot episodes? The networks are obviously trying to find cheap ways to fill airtime (google "Jay Leno" for more information), so why couldn't they create a one hour slot at some point in the week, when they display either two half-hour pilots or one hour long pilot.
.
They could measure the success of the show by checking nielson ratings, and by asking audience members to vote by texting, the way they do in American Idol.
I never saw why God dammit is considered blasphemous...It is a request for the guy everybody believes in to do what he's best known for doing.
Agnosticism is a stand against arrogance and self-delusion and for rationality. Not only do we not know, but the question is simply not answerable in any rational way.
But we do answer the question in how we live our lives. We can choose whether to work on Saturdays or Sundays, and whether to follow dietary guidelines, or to perform sacrificial offerings to the Roman Gods (and to the god of the old Testament, just in case they were only until they stopped making animal sacrifices).
So is it rational to be agnostic in regards to unicorns, fairies, Roman mythology, or the existence of Santa Clause? You can avoid ever making an incorrect assertion, if you answer every question by saying "I don't know", but is it really "rational" to apply this level of ambiguity to every aspect of your life?
If you assume omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, all bets are off. They/It can make us believe anything. You can't know that any of your beliefs are certain and/or yours.
This is known as universal skepticism. How do we know that we aren't living in the Matrix? how do we know that food won't kill us, but poison will? In the face of uncertainty, do we forget everything we ever knew and give up on any possibility of ever learning or knowing anything, or do we take a chance on being wrong, and try to learn from our experiences?
If there are no omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, you can't absolutely prove the negative, you can only accumulate increasing amounts of evidence.
And this is exactly why atheists often argue that the burden of proof must lie on the person making a claim, as there is an unlimited number of possible claims, and no possible way to disprove those that are not self-contradictory.
.
A Pompous Atheist
Exactly. If this were cops watching 'Amos & Andy" and making "Mammy" references on duty, it would be no different.
Seriously is anyone besides me sick and tired of the music industry begging and asking for money from everyone. I swear they would want a cut of a homeless guy's shopping cart full of cans if they found out he downloaded a song before he was homeless.
It's not about the cans, it about the fear.
Then it would be more accurate to say "American politicians" are in the pocket of the RIAA, as that statement does not imply that there is a difference between one party and the other, on this issue.
Wouldn't the diff patch make the code more portable? IANA open source hacker, so this is an honest question.
.
Let say you are using the example you gave. All the addresses are referencing memory locations that may change based on the distribution being used (although that wouldn't be a factor for Google). You might have #ifdef statements in the code that include one set of files if compiled under BSD, as an example, and another set if compiled under GNU/Linux, and your memory locations may vary based on the system architecture, optimization methods in use, and platform.
.
Under these circumstances, each patch would have to be tailored to the specific platform used. There would be no portability between patches. But, if the compilers are similar enough to create the same pseudocode/bytecode/ASM, or smart enough to save the source code, and use it for future comparisons, then wouldn't one patch be just as portable as the original source code?
I don't like the car analogy. How about this one? An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter. However, they do propose a solution, noble and helpful businesspeople that they are. If everyone pays a little more they'll scrap the whole airplane idea and hire a couple of charter buses to get everyone where they need to go.
How about if a plane removes it's seats and says ok, we have 300 square feet of space. Since we estimate that a person takes up 3 square feet, then we will sell 100 tickets.
.
Then they find that most of the people are obese, and there simply isn't enough room for them all, so they look through the over weight people and tell the most unpopular ones that they have to leave the plane. Your are being kicked off because you hit your wife. You smell funny! And there's something oozing on your face. All of you had better leave to make room for us good people.
I think that if you compare the versions of windows, you will find that they have made progress. Try comparing Vista to Windows 95, and tell me they haven't made the OS more reliable and secure.
.
Of course, they have had setbacks, like ME, and Vista, but in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, I have found that 95982000XP where ME and Vista are best left out of the equation. So, yeah, for people who use Windows, this may be a better version of it.
A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157.
How many of us really need that? To use the obligatory car analogy, Macs are like the Tesla Roadster. They may be great for what they do, but they're just not made for everybody.
(Disclosure: I work for a traditional news source)
.
It's not that they're firing more reporters and buying more AP stories. They pay AP a flat rate. They're firing reporters because they aren't bringing in enough money to cover their expenses (and labor is a big one).
.
The dilemma they are facing is that banner ads do not pay well enough to cover the costs of a significantly sized team of reporters, that charging for access is typically the kiss of death for a site, and the only successful way they have to pay today's bills is through yesterday's business model.
.
But the question is, what would a forward-thinking businessman do to pay the bills? As the internet will likely assimilate all older media (including television and radio), the solution is going to have to be one that is completely online, cannot be blocked by an ad-blocker, and doesn't cost the end-user any money.
And by that logic, you shouldn't get vaccinated, because vaccines are ineffective against stabbings, shootings, heart disease, or drug overdoses.
Why should either be a declaration of war? And what's with this comment about microsoft hard-coding Windows to not allow people to use Google (what, are they so desperate to get rid of Google that they will block Google's IP addresses, or has Cringely never heard of Firefox?)
.
This whole thing sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, written by a fifteen year-old schoolgirl who just saw a Veronica Mars marathon.
Something to consider. If you kill another person intentionally, then it is murder. If you kill him "without malice or premeditation", then it is manslaughter, which carries a lesser sentence. If you kill him in self-defense, then it may carry no sentence at all (IANAL, but I assume it would carry a sentence if there were a less harsh alternative, and you chose to kill the other person).
.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is purely about intention, so is it not thought crime to distinguish between the two?
.
The difference between murder and self-defense is both one of motive and situation. I have argued with coworkers before about whether it should be legal to shoot a man in the back if you catch him on your property and he runs away. (someone in our area got arrested for "assault" when they did this, and there was outrage that the guy had to spend an entire weekend in jail for it).
.
Just a little food for thought.
I don't know how Orwelle would view hate crimes legislation, or if it is really relevant, but he was a socialist. His problem with Stalin was the oppessive grab for power (which it would be hard to argue that hate crime legislation is), and his problem with capitalism is that the end result was that people were living in a class-based society (and it drove him nuts how Stalin was able to implement a class-based society, and still get socialists on his side, because of political partisanship). So, my point is that I do not believe he would be the strict small-government libertarian that people make him out to be.
I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.
And they also seem to believe that the two are morally comparable.
By then their AARP crowd will be dead and they'll be more "relaxed". I need to watch more British movies...
IANAA (Adult, yes) Nuclear is much more efficient when compared to wind farms, but nuclear energy hasn't been developed enough for it to be used as a main energy source.
Someone should tell that to the French. Nuclear reactors provide more than 75% of France's power requirements..
Ah ha! So you admit it is less than 100%, then!
Well, if the applications use web based technology, then wouldn't it make sense to include a php interpreter in there somewhere?
.
Or maybe they'll come out with Google Registry ( http://google.com/registry ), which will allow you to flub up your system or add spyware from anywhere one earth. It's truly innovative.
... in virtual worlds the rules can be set by the players themselves. The developers in this context are enablers, rather than Gods passing down "rules".
If those user-driven rules are so important for the gameplay, they should just pass them along to the developers so they can add them to the actual rules. That's what we in the real world call "Laws". If they don't like the way things are they should go play somewhere else. Stupid whining babies...
Hold on. If you are playing COH, and you don't like the way everybody else plays, then why don't you go somewhere else? If COH is not your game, then they already ARE playing somewhere else.
.
The other thing about this is that, yes, the rules allow this guy to be a jackass. They also allow much of what the other players were doing (not counting death threats and trying to get his home address). So why is it ok for a griefer to do anything he can get away with, but wrong for everybody else to treat him like the nuissance he is? Why should everybody else be held to a high standard, while the griefer is held to no standard at all?
So does this mean that, to port OpenOffice, or half the FOSS apps in existence over, they will need to get rid of GTK and QT, and reimplement everything in AJAX? Holy crap, that's scary. I hope that it just marketing run amok, and that they will confirm compatibility with existing GUI applications.
.
But still, I wonder if this would promote better AJAX interoperability. I don't care who's to blame, I just want javascript that doesn't have to be developed twice; once on Firefox, and then "tweaked" to become functional on IE.
I think a good analogy would be if you walked onto a football field where people are playing touch football, and you start tackling people, over and over again, even if the ones who aren't playing, and you insist that you are doing the right thing because tackling is part of the "official rules". What gets me is that he tried to turn this into some whiny rant about tolerance. No, it wasn't about tolerence, it was about being a dick. I have never even played the game and I don't like the guy.
Why the hell have a city full of heroes and villains, if the villains and heroes just idly chat and don't actually fight each other?
It sounds like they made the game about completing missions and defeating computer opponents rather than PVP. I honestly have never player COH, and don't know how their players view PVP, but I think a good analogy would be if you saw several kids playing touch football in a football field. So you join in and start tackling people left and right. They say that this is touch football, and you tackle them anyway.
.
Eventually, they start getting hateful, and spreading rumors about you, and you comment about how that we are still a prejudiced race, picking on little old you, for being different. How clueless is this guy?
You can hardly call this protecting us from ourselves when everything from employment to apartment rental to cell phone plans to education require SSNs.
Actually you are welcome to refuse to give out your SSN for any of those purposes. Of course the person on the other end of the business arrangement is also welcome to refuse to do business with you.....
So, you're in the clear as long as you don't mind being homeless, unemployed, and uneducated?