I'd like to know what they were smoking when they said the average reader reads 12 books a year. How many people read even one?
Speak for yourself. I read at least two books a week, so around 120 books a year. That means an average of 12 books a year for the group if I'm counted with nine non-readers.
I mine crypto currencies during the year when it is cold outside. While my electricity bill has gone up, my natural gas bill has gone down. So for cases where the waste heat is useful, should the energy consumption be treated the same?
The source of the electricity matters too (without taking pollution into account). If the power plant you get electricity from releases as much heat energy as it produces electricity, it's far from zero sum.
I can't "believe" like Mulder yet, either - but I'm not ready to disbelieve based on the lack of evidence.
Why not? The rational choice is to disbelieve due to lack of evidence. Otherwise you may as well believe in Russell's teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, Jesus, the abominable snowman, life after death, time travel and garden fairies.
Well, lets just ignore the moral questions about eating meat for a moment. There is a bigger problem that will likely decide the issue. It takes quite a bit of grain and water to raise animals for food. This isn't a big deal when you have 100 million people on the planet, but it gets to be a problem when the world population climbs towards the 10 billion plus mark.
At that point, I think we'll be better off feeding the animals humans.
Hey man how about you stop ridiculing people that like insects and instead maybe bother to TRY ONE.
I've tried bees, ants, grasshoppers and larvae. Neither is something I'd want to eat again, unless it's to be polite. There's an earthy bitter taste I just can't bring myself to like, any more than I can like green tea or broccoli. I'll eat it if hungry enough, but it's not enjoyable for me. Give me meat, and preferably heart, bone marrow and liver. Tastes and textures that make me salivate. Insects just don't do that.
FYI I am the author of the story. Lately, hosting daemons on SystemD scares me more than running them via services on Windows:-D~... ducks.
In either case it's hand-editing obsolete MSDOS.INI files and trusting in kitchen sink daemons that run with way too high privilege and can take your entire system down. Not much difference, but then again, the systemd creators grew up with Windows, and did what they were comfortable with.
- Remote X works with your window manager. You can choose which windows overlap others, not entire displays. You can minimize them as other window. You can move individual windows between different screens. Dock them. - Remote X works with your X clipboard. I can mark and paste into or from a remote X window. - Moving windows around isn't laggy. The graphics primitives are cached (especially with lbx) and do not have to be re-sent as you move a window. - You don't get blurry text when the subpixel rendering differs between different machines. Because the text is rendered in your own display. - You don't get flyspeck when the remote side is a much higher DPI than the local side. Or obnoxiously large text when it's the other way around. Because the X server is on your local machine, you are in control.
Give them a few more decades and they might finally support remote displays.
Hah. The new generation of Linux programmers do their utmost to destroy that in Linux, with "hot corners", no lbx or X fontserver. In fact, I think you'll have a hard time with many of the "modern" Linux flavors of running anything except a video streaming application like a VNC client. At which point you might as well use Windows.
I see the value of blocklists as a starting point. But the AdBlock family of blockers all make it relatively easy to make your own additions based on the page you're looking at, as well as disabling rules that are irrelevant to you, never causing hits, and just burning cycles. To me it seems like buying a guitar and never tuning it, relying on a store to do it for you every now and then. There are surely people who do that too, but I'd think the majority would prefer to do things themselves and get it right..
Very few religions would define $DEITY to be an alien.
Really? From what I can tell, very few of them consider their $DEITY to be of mundane earthly origin. References to the heavens and stars appears to be the norm, or predating Earth, making it an alien by any sane definition. This is certainly the case for the $DEITY that most of congress claims belief in.
I'm not sure about that. Default adblocking filters do not block trackers.
Who relies on default filters? Surely, people take a look every now and then to identify more items to block?
There's also EFF's privacy badger. Too bad it only works in a couple of browsers, and that it turns on the "do not track" (which doesn't stop tracking; it just gives an additional piece of data for more accurate fingerprinting).
I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. All I can gather is you're an anti-theist and wish to point it out even when it isn't relevant. Is that about right?
No, the point I was trying to make is that for most members of Congress, a willingness to believe in aliens has already been demonstrated. It should then come as no surprise that they're more likely to believe in other aliens too. It would be more surprising if they were highly sceptic and asked for science based evidence.
The least sensical one isn't point #2, but #1. "1. Many high-ranking people in the federal government believe aliens have visited planet Earth." Well, many high-ranking people in the federal government have a religious belief in an alien they call "God", so that's a given.
Congress can certainly pass law that makes the net neutrality decision illegal going forward, and thus FCC must replace it. That's not overturning it, though.
The problem is that congress has turned into a binary partisan farce where votes are cast not based on what the congressman thinks, but whether it opposes the adversary. So it won't happen. There's really no way out of this quagmire either, from within the system itself.
And why do you think intrinsic value a good thing for money to have ? It turns out bacon does not make a great currency system.
Stocks for companies that are part of the bacon production chain is indeed used as trade instruments. Individual pieces of meat are not valuable (for long), but the system for producing the meat is. "Money", as in universal currency, no. Bacon futures are not that.
What's important for a monetary system is that it has to be backed by something that makes the users trust it. Whether it's gold, or a relatively stable government with the power and willingness to protect the currency. Hope and greed can fuel investments short term, but are bad backers for currency compared to trust. The only trust Bitcoin provides is in the already completed transactions (as long as 51% is avoided). But nothing provides trust in future value, nor in the ability to make future transactions.
You laugh but you could have bought on the dip, it's already back up to $14.5k again.
Except that you have to find buyers. Right now, those are the gullible johnny-come-latey's, and there are fewer of them every minute. Give it time, and there can't be any more buyers. Except for deflation, there is a limited liquidity to invest in this. The influx must dry up, like with every bubble. It doesn't take magic to see that it's inevitable.
What do you do when you can't find a buyer? What does that do to the value? Sell before then, is the obvious answer. That won't help the ones who buy what you sell, and they will be screaming for blood. Yours. And I'll look the other way.
If it popped how did it rebound half of that back in a day? It just momentarily deflated.
Gaining half back of a major drop is not rebounding. Net, it's still a huge drop. I'd be hopeful that it's reached the time when enough plebs had been swayed, and it would be time for the bubble to burst, but I don't think we're there yet. There are still enough idiots who haven't jumped on this fad. I give it another two months. And then the unwashed masses will cry for the entrails of someone. (Except themselves, for being criminally gullible, of course.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to know what they were smoking when they said the average reader reads 12 books a year. How many people read even one?
Speak for yourself. I read at least two books a week, so around 120 books a year. That means an average of 12 books a year for the group if I'm counted with nine non-readers.
I mine crypto currencies during the year when it is cold outside. While my electricity bill has gone up, my natural gas bill has gone down. So for cases where the waste heat is useful, should the energy consumption be treated the same?
The source of the electricity matters too (without taking pollution into account). If the power plant you get electricity from releases as much heat energy as it produces electricity, it's far from zero sum.
Yes, because one should obviously trust Lance Armstrong's foundation on "no extra drugs, really!"...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but it evidence of irrelevancy.
I can't "believe" like Mulder yet, either - but I'm not ready to disbelieve based on the lack of evidence.
Why not? The rational choice is to disbelieve due to lack of evidence. Otherwise you may as well believe in Russell's teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, Jesus, the abominable snowman, life after death, time travel and garden fairies.
Well, lets just ignore the moral questions about eating meat for a moment. There is a bigger problem that will likely decide the issue. It takes quite a bit of grain and water to raise animals for food. This isn't a big deal when you have 100 million people on the planet, but it gets to be a problem when the world population climbs towards the 10 billion plus mark.
At that point, I think we'll be better off feeding the animals humans.
Panda also sleep for long periods and when they move they move really slowly. The food they eat would not sustain a fast metabolism.
Human vegans too.
They are slow as molasses
and stink up the loo.
How can vegetarianism persist in India?
You do know that vitamin deficiency is a big problem in India, right?
https://timesofindia.indiatime...
All life is precious you insensitive clod, and you do not live unless you kill something. Plant? You killed, animal? You killed it.
Jains only eat parts of plants that can be harvested without killing the plant.
Hey man how about you stop ridiculing people that like insects and instead maybe bother to TRY ONE.
I've tried bees, ants, grasshoppers and larvae. Neither is something I'd want to eat again, unless it's to be polite. There's an earthy bitter taste I just can't bring myself to like, any more than I can like green tea or broccoli. I'll eat it if hungry enough, but it's not enjoyable for me.
Give me meat, and preferably heart, bone marrow and liver. Tastes and textures that make me salivate. Insects just don't do that.
I wonder how that works with paths like
/path/to/src/aux.c
/path/to/con/file1
/path/to/ST:TNG/s1ep2
/path/to/makefiles/makefile1
/path/to/Makefiles/Makefile1
Or where only the case differs:
Never mind NFS network paths like
/net/remotehost/path/to/file
FYI I am the author of the story. Lately, hosting daemons on SystemD scares me more than running them via services on Windows :-D~ ... ducks.
In either case it's hand-editing obsolete MSDOS .INI files and trusting in kitchen sink daemons that run with way too high privilege and can take your entire system down. Not much difference, but then again, the systemd creators grew up with Windows, and did what they were comfortable with.
But I don't hate GUI things. I like it so much that I want my GUI thing when I display remote windows. X11 provides that.
Another few:
- Remote X works with your window manager. You can choose which windows overlap others, not entire displays. You can minimize them as other window. You can move individual windows between different screens. Dock them.
- Remote X works with your X clipboard. I can mark and paste into or from a remote X window.
- Moving windows around isn't laggy. The graphics primitives are cached (especially with lbx) and do not have to be re-sent as you move a window.
- You don't get blurry text when the subpixel rendering differs between different machines. Because the text is rendered in your own display.
- You don't get flyspeck when the remote side is a much higher DPI than the local side. Or obnoxiously large text when it's the other way around. Because the X server is on your local machine, you are in control.
Give them a few more decades and they might finally support remote displays.
Hah. The new generation of Linux programmers do their utmost to destroy that in Linux, with "hot corners", no lbx or X fontserver. In fact, I think you'll have a hard time with many of the "modern" Linux flavors of running anything except a video streaming application like a VNC client. At which point you might as well use Windows.
I see the value of blocklists as a starting point. But the AdBlock family of blockers all make it relatively easy to make your own additions based on the page you're looking at, as well as disabling rules that are irrelevant to you, never causing hits, and just burning cycles.
To me it seems like buying a guitar and never tuning it, relying on a store to do it for you every now and then. There are surely people who do that too, but I'd think the majority would prefer to do things themselves and get it right..
Very few religions would define $DEITY to be an alien.
Really? From what I can tell, very few of them consider their $DEITY to be of mundane earthly origin. References to the heavens and stars appears to be the norm, or predating Earth, making it an alien by any sane definition. This is certainly the case for the $DEITY that most of congress claims belief in.
I'm not sure about that. Default adblocking filters do not block trackers.
Who relies on default filters? Surely, people take a look every now and then to identify more items to block?
There's also EFF's privacy badger. Too bad it only works in a couple of browsers, and that it turns on the "do not track" (which doesn't stop tracking; it just gives an additional piece of data for more accurate fingerprinting).
I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. All I can gather is you're an anti-theist and wish to point it out even when it isn't relevant. Is that about right?
No, the point I was trying to make is that for most members of Congress, a willingness to believe in aliens has already been demonstrated. It should then come as no surprise that they're more likely to believe in other aliens too. It would be more surprising if they were highly sceptic and asked for science based evidence.
The least sensical one isn't point #2, but #1.
"1. Many high-ranking people in the federal government believe aliens have visited planet Earth." Well, many high-ranking people in the federal government have a religious belief in an alien they call "God", so that's a given.
Congress can certainly pass law that makes the net neutrality decision illegal going forward, and thus FCC must replace it. That's not overturning it, though.
The problem is that congress has turned into a binary partisan farce where votes are cast not based on what the congressman thinks, but whether it opposes the adversary. So it won't happen. There's really no way out of this quagmire either, from within the system itself.
And why do you think intrinsic value a good thing for money to have ? It turns out bacon does not make a great currency system.
Stocks for companies that are part of the bacon production chain is indeed used as trade instruments. Individual pieces of meat are not valuable (for long), but the system for producing the meat is.
"Money", as in universal currency, no. Bacon futures are not that.
What's important for a monetary system is that it has to be backed by something that makes the users trust it. Whether it's gold, or a relatively stable government with the power and willingness to protect the currency.
Hope and greed can fuel investments short term, but are bad backers for currency compared to trust.
The only trust Bitcoin provides is in the already completed transactions (as long as 51% is avoided). But nothing provides trust in future value, nor in the ability to make future transactions.
You laugh but you could have bought on the dip, it's already back up to $14.5k again.
Except that you have to find buyers. Right now, those are the gullible johnny-come-latey's, and there are fewer of them every minute. Give it time, and there can't be any more buyers.
Except for deflation, there is a limited liquidity to invest in this. The influx must dry up, like with every bubble. It doesn't take magic to see that it's inevitable.
What do you do when you can't find a buyer?
What does that do to the value?
Sell before then, is the obvious answer. That won't help the ones who buy what you sell, and they will be screaming for blood. Yours. And I'll look the other way.
If it popped how did it rebound half of that back in a day? It just momentarily deflated.
Gaining half back of a major drop is not rebounding. Net, it's still a huge drop.
I'd be hopeful that it's reached the time when enough plebs had been swayed, and it would be time for the bubble to burst, but I don't think we're there yet. There are still enough idiots who haven't jumped on this fad. I give it another two months. And then the unwashed masses will cry for the entrails of someone. (Except themselves, for being criminally gullible, of course.)