Please, please, if you can't be bothered to write your own summary, at least make sure that the paragraphs you copy and paste make sense by themselves.
Did you even read what you submitted?
Editors: at least try to look like you're doing your job.
Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
Yes
Actually no. Not that this adds anything to the discussion since the practical situation is effectively the same, and it's a useful colloquial phrase, but an embassy in the UK is still technically "UK soil."
So Assange is in no way "in Ecuador," but the Vienna Convention means the UK has no right of access to him while he's inside the embassy.
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede, but it's also said to have been "gifted back" to the UK, so I don't really know what it counts as.
This Isn't the First Time Microsoft's Been Accused of Bing Censorship
This is the sort of thing you'd expect as a footer to an article on the current accusation. It's not really news in itself, unless it went unreported at the time (which it didn't).
And Can We Drop the Gratuitous and Arbitrary Capitalisation?
I'm a staunch rationalist - as, I suspect, are an unrepresentatively high number of people reading this post - and believe that astrology, like homeopathy and the rest, is a load of old bobbins. But if you were to ask me "are they sort-of scientific?", without further qualification, could I honestly answer with a 100% "no"? Astrologers do sums and homeopaths use test tubes in the course of their work. The frameworks of both are based on faulty, if not downright bonkers, assumptions and perpetuated by the unwavering belief of their adherents, but that doesn't mean they can't be "scientific" in part.
Have a decent sample size of people try to match up the signs.
By "people" do you mean astrologers? Even if astrology worked I wouldn't expect a significant result if you just asked random joes.
The other old standby (one I got to run once) is to have an astrologer create horoscopes for a group of people, then ask the group to pick their own horoscope out. It's not perfect - if the astrologer has the birth years of the group, they could slip things like "you get crotchety with modern technology and enjoy Diagnosis Murder" into the old geezer's chart to give themselves a head start - but needless to say, the one I ran was a complete wash-out for the horoscope writer (who was only a hobbyist and didn't really have any expectations of success, but was interested to apply a scientific test to their work).
If "people might be hurt when there's an accident" was a reason not to do something we wouldn't have cars in the first place.
It's a laser illuminating a phosphor. First guess is that the laser is not designed to/doesn't have to stay in a tight beam for more than a few milli- or centimetres.
What if that nice bright laser hits a reflective object and then points toward a plane?
That same thing that happens when light from a normal (okay, a bit brighter) headlight points towards a plane.
I'm not sure whether you're imagining a couple of laser pointers taped to the front of the car projecting two coherent sub-centimetre dots onto the road 600m ahead, but... that's not what's happening. At all.
Yes, it is really a problem. Why are you focusing on the red laser pointers when you acknowledge that the green ones are a problem? Seems a bit like asking if there's really a problem with gun crime because NERF doesn't hurt (if NERF and real guns were on a continuum, which they aren't really).
But to say that an el-cheapo red light wielded with harmless intent should be subject to the same penalties...
It seems like a perennial question: 'How do we get more women involved in tech?'
No, it seems like the kind of question you make up when you haven't got anything better to write an article about.
We don't have to get more women involved in tech, specifically. There's no magic target number that'll be "right," no 50-50 split to be fought for. Just make sure that women (or less specifically, that everyone) is treated fairly and equally, and those who want to get into tech will.
The difference with Bohr/Einstein was probably something to do with the fact that nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Inside the memory card in the cat's collar
What cat?!
Please, please, if you can't be bothered to write your own summary, at least make sure that the paragraphs you copy and paste make sense by themselves.
Did you even read what you submitted?
Editors: at least try to look like you're doing your job.
For a single-core system, this will make things *slower*.
Unless Chrome checks how many cores/threads are available and acts accordingly.
can be used to map crime scenes, including in areas where there is no GPS reception.
How much use would GPS be when you're mapping a crime scene? Wouldn't you be better off with a camera and a tape measure?
it signed off at the end of January with a poignant message: "Goodnight humanity."
No it didn't. Some guy in a press office wrote it.
Can we please stop anthropomorphising rovers? They hate that.
Isn't he on Ecuadorian soil, that happens to be located in the UK?
Yes
Actually no. Not that this adds anything to the discussion since the practical situation is effectively the same, and it's a useful colloquial phrase, but an embassy in the UK is still technically "UK soil."
So Assange is in no way "in Ecuador," but the Vienna Convention means the UK has no right of access to him while he's inside the embassy.
I had heard that the only bit of true foreign soil within England is the JFK memorial at Runnymede, but it's also said to have been "gifted back" to the UK, so I don't really know what it counts as.
This Isn't the First Time Microsoft's Been Accused of Bing Censorship
This is the sort of thing you'd expect as a footer to an article on the current accusation. It's not really news in itself, unless it went unreported at the time (which it didn't).
And Can We Drop the Gratuitous and Arbitrary Capitalisation?
What have we got to lose by acting as if it's true?
That doesn't mean that all geostationary satellites are 36000km away from everybody.
Whoosh. Also, zap.
to...to... to..
...c'mon and do the conga.
"Pseudo-" means "sort of," right?
Any changes to domain IP addresses...
I don't think that's the only thing ICANN does all day, is it?
Anything ICANN does is essentially public.
What about their reasons for doing what they do (do)?
Is the question too loosely worded?
I'm a staunch rationalist - as, I suspect, are an unrepresentatively high number of people reading this post - and believe that astrology, like homeopathy and the rest, is a load of old bobbins. But if you were to ask me "are they sort-of scientific?", without further qualification, could I honestly answer with a 100% "no"? Astrologers do sums and homeopaths use test tubes in the course of their work. The frameworks of both are based on faulty, if not downright bonkers, assumptions and perpetuated by the unwavering belief of their adherents, but that doesn't mean they can't be "scientific" in part.
Have a decent sample size of people try to match up the signs.
By "people" do you mean astrologers? Even if astrology worked I wouldn't expect a significant result if you just asked random joes.
The other old standby (one I got to run once) is to have an astrologer create horoscopes for a group of people, then ask the group to pick their own horoscope out. It's not perfect - if the astrologer has the birth years of the group, they could slip things like "you get crotchety with modern technology and enjoy Diagnosis Murder" into the old geezer's chart to give themselves a head start - but needless to say, the one I ran was a complete wash-out for the horoscope writer (who was only a hobbyist and didn't really have any expectations of success, but was interested to apply a scientific test to their work).
Why the fuck would you expect it not to be still going?
That is not powering it externally. The moment it leaves your hand, no more energy is being input.
If "people might be hurt when there's an accident" was a reason not to do something we wouldn't have cars in the first place.
It's a laser illuminating a phosphor. First guess is that the laser is not designed to/doesn't have to stay in a tight beam for more than a few milli- or centimetres.
What if that nice bright laser hits a reflective object and then points toward a plane?
That same thing that happens when light from a normal (okay, a bit brighter) headlight points towards a plane.
I'm not sure whether you're imagining a couple of laser pointers taped to the front of the car projecting two coherent sub-centimetre dots onto the road 600m ahead, but... that's not what's happening. At all.
How are they not motors, just because they're wirelessly powered?
Yes, it is really a problem. Why are you focusing on the red laser pointers when you acknowledge that the green ones are a problem? Seems a bit like asking if there's really a problem with gun crime because NERF doesn't hurt (if NERF and real guns were on a continuum, which they aren't really).
But to say that an el-cheapo red light wielded with harmless intent should be subject to the same penalties...
Is anyone saying that?
It's "Lego" (or even more strictly, LEGO), dagnabbit. It's a mass noun!
It seems like a perennial question: 'How do we get more women involved in tech?'
No, it seems like the kind of question you make up when you haven't got anything better to write an article about.
We don't have to get more women involved in tech, specifically. There's no magic target number that'll be "right," no 50-50 split to be fought for. Just make sure that women (or less specifically, that everyone) is treated fairly and equally, and those who want to get into tech will.
Maybe the submitter thought he'd made a joke. Y'know - take my wife, please *gitish*
If I was forced to go back in time to the 1500s and could only take one thing, I'd take...
...a time machine.
The difference with Bohr/Einstein was probably something to do with the fact that nobody's multi-billion dollar industry's reputation had potential to be damaged by the results.