I love it when people do this: click through to read articles they claim they're not interested it, apparently unaware of how websites track reader interests. Every click on an article, going in to read it in full, is literally a vote for more articles like it. It's your way of saying, "Hey, I love these kinds of articles -- they interest me -- please post more like this one!" Of course, if you're afraid one click isn't enough, there's a way to totally trump that and magnify your vote for more articles of the sort: actually post a comment! That indicates a level of interest above and beyond, and adds more content to the site, which sites crave. The more discussion an article generates, the more sites love it.
If your idea here was to indicate how much you really want to see more articles on this topic, you've done good. OTOH, if you would rather not see more articles on this topic, you've just done the most stupid thing you could do to try to indicate that. The bean-counters don't take time to actually read every comment, they just count the votes, so what exactly you post, what you say in the post, is irrelevant. All that matters is that you posted, and people responded, generating even more content for them.
Star Trek incorrectly explained that by referring to 'inertia dampers' when they should have said 'inertia negation'. Inertia dampers are real devices but they have a completely different purpose.
This would not be the first time in human history that the same phrase was used to describe something entirely different over the span of a few centuries.
This is not faith. This is a reasonable conclusion based on extensive observation.
This is begging the question. Basing your confidence in this principle on extensive observation is not logical unless you first accept the premise, as it's this very premise that makes it reasonable to expect observation to yield meaningful data. This is a circular argument you're making. Note, it's absolutely true, I don't doubt it for a minute. But it is in fact a circular argument, and thus, ultimately there's a bit of faith involved in accepting it. To state it most plainly, you're using the scientific method to validate the scientific method. If you already accept the scientific method as true a priori, then the conclusion follows, but... you see the problem.
Let me guess, this isn't "earth-shattering" news simply because it didn't happen in the US? Whether you like it or not, this is the greatest scientific discovery in the last 20 years, and it happened in europe. And the best thing is that it's july 4th, haha!
The parent said nothing to suggest that, but it's interesting you're so defensive that you read that into it. Is this a general feeling of inadequacy, or a manifestation of something more specific and personal?
This is why a lot of people are rooting for a Higgs Boson that does not match what has been predicted.
Indeed, because the elephant in the room is, we know our most successful theories still don't quite add up. There are incompatibilities, missing pieces, things that don't add up. We know we're still missing something, we just don't know what. We've got a bunch of alternate theories that try to unify the mess and fill in the holes, but no way to choose between them. We want something unexpected to show up and point the way forward, or at least cull the herd of theories somewhat.
Which wasn't as far fetched as some people act like it was, it just happened to be wrong. The main difference between aether theory and the Higgs field is that when we hypothesized the former and went looking for it, we found out it didn't work that way. When we looked for the Higgs particle, we found it. This is, ultimately, not at all disturbingly like all the fundamental forces and particles we've hypothesized over the years.
Correction: It doesn't even necessarily depend on the memory model. ptrdiff_t need only be large enough to hold any valid pointer offset, which on some architectures could be smaller than all of memory, even without a segmented memory model.
In other words, the difference between two pointers should never require more bits than the pointers themselves. However, depending on the memory model, it may require less (pointer comparisons being only valid between objects in the same segment), making ptrdiff_t smaller than intptr_t.
Apparently when they said "Atari" turns 40, they're referring to the trademark, not the company that originally owned it, which is, as noted, long dead...
More than that, it is a gas giant. I can't imagine there being much water there that could be easily gotten even if it did exist. I would think that the moons would be a much more interesting and useful place to probe.
Um... what? TFA:
The spacecraft will focus on exploring the inner workings of Jupiter. "We're sending Juno out there to try to understand the origin and evolution of Jupiter,... to explain how much water there is, what it's like inside, what the atmosphere is like," Fran Bagenela of the University of Colorado told a group of scientists at the recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Anchorage, Alaska.
Looking for water on Jupiter's moons will not in any way answer the question of how wet is Jupiter. Considering we don't know if they formed in the same place and out of the same material or not, it'd actually be a pretty useless place to probe. Might be interesting in and of itself, but not very useful for answering the question.
Indeed, there's nothing to argue with. He said he can't see it. Presumably, he's being honest about his lack of vision. The fact that this does clearly lead in that direction doesn't alter the fact that he can't see it, so his statement is accurate.;)
I am unaware if they can or cannot cross-breed and produce fertile offspring, which is what many use to differentiate what is a "species" and what is not.
Probably not if they're professional biologists, who understand that this is a gross oversimplification of the problem.
For the record, lions and tigers can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Expect to be laughed out of the room if you suggest this means they're the same species.:p
Not sure if you're really bad at math, or just really bad at reading, but the math works. 20% chance per robbery, two robberies per year, does indeed lead to a greater than 50% chance of being incarcerated in just two years, as the summary correctly states.
Blaming Britain today for the unfortunate event is no different than blaming America today for their support of slavery and then segregation. Cultures change. We're really rather embarassed about it now.
I neither owned slaves nor supported segregation. I have nothing to be embarrassed about on that score. The fact that I was born (due to no conscious decision of my own) geographically near the locations in which other people once did these things seems like a really bizarre thing to be embarrassed about.
The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies.
Yes, and this is the military equivalent of the "commerce clause". Politicians have long since figured out that the Federal government has absolutely no limits at all whatsoever on its power, given that everything that happens inside our borders in some way affects interstate commerce, and anything outside can be justified as "defending American interests".
Slashdot Mirror
I love it when people do this: click through to read articles they claim they're not interested it, apparently unaware of how websites track reader interests. Every click on an article, going in to read it in full, is literally a vote for more articles like it. It's your way of saying, "Hey, I love these kinds of articles -- they interest me -- please post more like this one!" Of course, if you're afraid one click isn't enough, there's a way to totally trump that and magnify your vote for more articles of the sort: actually post a comment! That indicates a level of interest above and beyond, and adds more content to the site, which sites crave. The more discussion an article generates, the more sites love it.
If your idea here was to indicate how much you really want to see more articles on this topic, you've done good. OTOH, if you would rather not see more articles on this topic, you've just done the most stupid thing you could do to try to indicate that. The bean-counters don't take time to actually read every comment, they just count the votes, so what exactly you post, what you say in the post, is irrelevant. All that matters is that you posted, and people responded, generating even more content for them.
You can fudge quite a bit on a receiving antenna, not so much with a transmitting antenna...
None of the uses in the quote you objected to require a transmitting antenna.
Software radio will remain alongside playing the guitar as something cool I wanted to do, but could not squeeze in between /. postings.
Your priorities... need prioritizing. :p
Star Trek incorrectly explained that by referring to 'inertia dampers' when they should have said 'inertia negation'. Inertia dampers are real devices but they have a completely different purpose.
This would not be the first time in human history that the same phrase was used to describe something entirely different over the span of a few centuries.
This is not faith. This is a reasonable conclusion based on extensive observation.
This is begging the question. Basing your confidence in this principle on extensive observation is not logical unless you first accept the premise, as it's this very premise that makes it reasonable to expect observation to yield meaningful data. This is a circular argument you're making. Note, it's absolutely true, I don't doubt it for a minute. But it is in fact a circular argument, and thus, ultimately there's a bit of faith involved in accepting it. To state it most plainly, you're using the scientific method to validate the scientific method. If you already accept the scientific method as true a priori, then the conclusion follows, but... you see the problem.
Let me guess, this isn't "earth-shattering" news simply because it didn't happen in the US? Whether you like it or not, this is the greatest scientific discovery in the last 20 years, and it happened in europe. And the best thing is that it's july 4th, haha!
The parent said nothing to suggest that, but it's interesting you're so defensive that you read that into it. Is this a general feeling of inadequacy, or a manifestation of something more specific and personal?
This is why a lot of people are rooting for a Higgs Boson that does not match what has been predicted.
Indeed, because the elephant in the room is, we know our most successful theories still don't quite add up. There are incompatibilities, missing pieces, things that don't add up. We know we're still missing something, we just don't know what. We've got a bunch of alternate theories that try to unify the mess and fill in the holes, but no way to choose between them. We want something unexpected to show up and point the way forward, or at least cull the herd of theories somewhat.
That sounds disturbingly like aether theory.
Which wasn't as far fetched as some people act like it was, it just happened to be wrong. The main difference between aether theory and the Higgs field is that when we hypothesized the former and went looking for it, we found out it didn't work that way. When we looked for the Higgs particle, we found it. This is, ultimately, not at all disturbingly like all the fundamental forces and particles we've hypothesized over the years.
I love a good tautology. You just can't go wrong with a good tautology...
And the fact that Netvibes also supports RSS feeds makes you not want to use all those other gadgets it has that you said you want?
Correction: It doesn't even necessarily depend on the memory model. ptrdiff_t need only be large enough to hold any valid pointer offset, which on some architectures could be smaller than all of memory, even without a segmented memory model.
In other words, the difference between two pointers should never require more bits than the pointers themselves. However, depending on the memory model, it may require less (pointer comparisons being only valid between objects in the same segment), making ptrdiff_t smaller than intptr_t.
Apparently when they said "Atari" turns 40, they're referring to the trademark, not the company that originally owned it, which is, as noted, long dead...
More than that, it is a gas giant. I can't imagine there being much water there that could be easily gotten even if it did exist. I would think that the moons would be a much more interesting and useful place to probe.
Um... what? TFA:
The spacecraft will focus on exploring the inner workings of Jupiter. "We're sending Juno out there to try to understand the origin and evolution of Jupiter, ... to explain how much water there is, what it's like inside, what the atmosphere is like," Fran Bagenela of the University of Colorado told a group of scientists at the recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Anchorage, Alaska.
Looking for water on Jupiter's moons will not in any way answer the question of how wet is Jupiter. Considering we don't know if they formed in the same place and out of the same material or not, it'd actually be a pretty useless place to probe. Might be interesting in and of itself, but not very useful for answering the question.
Ah, the joy of generalizing from a sample of one...
Indeed, there's nothing to argue with. He said he can't see it. Presumably, he's being honest about his lack of vision. The fact that this does clearly lead in that direction doesn't alter the fact that he can't see it, so his statement is accurate. ;)
I am unaware if they can or cannot cross-breed and produce fertile offspring, which is what many use to differentiate what is a "species" and what is not.
Probably not if they're professional biologists, who understand that this is a gross oversimplification of the problem.
For the record, lions and tigers can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Expect to be laughed out of the room if you suggest this means they're the same species. :p
Not sure if you're really bad at math, or just really bad at reading, but the math works. 20% chance per robbery, two robberies per year, does indeed lead to a greater than 50% chance of being incarcerated in just two years, as the summary correctly states.
Congrats. You win the "single stupidest person I've seen on /. this year" award.
Blaming Britain today for the unfortunate event is no different than blaming America today for their support of slavery and then segregation. Cultures change. We're really rather embarassed about it now.
I neither owned slaves nor supported segregation. I have nothing to be embarrassed about on that score. The fact that I was born (due to no conscious decision of my own) geographically near the locations in which other people once did these things seems like a really bizarre thing to be embarrassed about.
As a general rule, something simple that works will grow into something large and complex that doesn't work, and no one can figure why.
Feeping creaturism...
Given that "yesterday's attacks" compromise 99% of the attacks that occur every day, that seems wise.
I remember when cable TV was actually worth paying money for...
Wow, it must have been really cheap in your area when it first came out.
Pff, first you want unicode support and now this.
Touché...
The Constitution authorizes the creation of a military to defend against non-U.S. enemies.
Yes, and this is the military equivalent of the "commerce clause". Politicians have long since figured out that the Federal government has absolutely no limits at all whatsoever on its power, given that everything that happens inside our borders in some way affects interstate commerce, and anything outside can be justified as "defending American interests".