a second reply to this... 'speculative development' is what some of us in the US call attempting to achieve the american dream. garage start-ups are all over the place. don't feel too speacial or out on a limb for deciding to go this route as well.
Now you're ready to do a dd if=/dev/source_partition of=my_image.img
When you zip the resultant img, it will compress much more because, instead of random data on the unused parts of the drive, it's just a bunch of nulls.
When you go to restore, it will also uncompress quicker because, again, the empty space is just a bunch of nulls, instead of random bits.
no!
when you say "compress" and "uncompress", yes... gzip or compress will run faster, but dd doesn't do "compress" and "uncompress". It writes all the bytes, no matter what is in them. To speed up the dd, make a smaller image, not a larger one with lots of zeros.
This is a nice bit of saftey info... try it sometime, as clutch cables can break....
You can shift your bike without the clutch as long as your speed matches that of the gear. The best way to test is to start out in first, speed up slowly and try upshifting at various speeds, eventually you'll get it right and the bike will shift to 2nd. Now try the downshift to first at the same speed.
fuck that. when all racers are equally prepared the best one will win.
we have "lots" of choices, but only two have enough financing to become public enough for the average joe to see. no election funding any longer! every party should be given equal amounts to "advertise" to the public.
or why not just let the "bad" drugs regulate themselves?
If a person is commiting a crime of violence or theft due to a habbit, he is commiting a crime that should already be covered under current laws, and is punishable as such. If he is doing a drug that ends in overdose, he doesn't cause problems for very long.
Others that control their use don't cause crime and don't die. They are free to use any drug they want.
I dunno. Makes sense to me, but it won't work in our social structure as far as I can tell.
As for your comment: [nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates]... if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence
Where did you get 10% susceptibility? I'd like to read that. I think the number is much higher, but I don't have proof. I am a smoker, so a bit biased, but, from what I understand from observing, addiction is higher than 10% of initially casual smokers.
Nice question, but gives each side a way to get off the hook about some serious flipping by saying a few words which may not be true.
Since I have trust issues about both, I'd like them to have to give real proof to their switch, not double talk. This could be a good one... a really good one. It might help if you nailed down the specific switch for each of them and make the answer for that incident only. don't let them pick an easy one.
and that helps the rest of the country how? bad question. both people can stroke each others egos, but it doesn't help the county run.
I don't need to feel warm and fuzzy about my president. I need him to make good decisions for my safety. if that means telling me that the other guy is a bad man that can't make good decisions, so be it. if he can prove it, then i say well met. walk softly, but carry a big stick. don't ram the other guy into the ground unless you are justified, but don't let him slide by because you are a nice guy.
I vaguely remember bush talking about alternative fuels when he was running last time. I don't know what funding he's thrown at it... I wouldn't strike this off the list even if both have already talked about it. if oil isn't a concern, we don't need to keep jumping into wars in the middle east. thus answering some of the draft questions...
this question is redundant to the other question (18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY) about mary jane. the other leads us to answering how to legalize it or why it will never happen. if legal, it would be free to use for medical reasons. if not, then this might be a good question.
I'd put it on the list only if you think the above mentioned question will be dodged or lead to a denial of ever making pot use legal.
nice re-phrase. very good to grab attention. on a deeper level, just ask yourself where the critical mass is.
once you have x number of the population crack addicted, things can start to fall apart for all of us fairly quickly. agreed, not all drugs are as addictive and lethal but what if 200M of the population were suddenly struck with a crack addiction, and had a steady supply of the drug?
Slashdot Mirror
you are just jealous because your oss project not only had a product, but made 300$ in pay pal donations.
a second reply to this... 'speculative development' is what some of us in the US call attempting to achieve the american dream. garage start-ups are all over the place. don't feel too speacial or out on a limb for deciding to go this route as well.
a limited oss release could get you a free development team. that would be even more likely if you were open to their hopes of payment in the future.
alternative 2)
ripping off two commercial offferings for fractions of a penny based on returns.
Priceless.
macro snobol?
hm... I have encountered my own genetic data first hand, though this sentence is all I have to show for it.
In the future, you will have bigger numbers.
Now you're ready to do a dd if=/dev/source_partition of=my_image.img
When you zip the resultant img, it will compress much more because, instead of random data on the unused parts of the drive, it's just a bunch of nulls.
When you go to restore, it will also uncompress quicker because, again, the empty space is just a bunch of nulls, instead of random bits.
no!
when you say "compress" and "uncompress", yes... gzip or compress will run faster, but dd doesn't do "compress" and "uncompress". It writes all the bytes, no matter what is in them. To speed up the dd, make a smaller image, not a larger one with lots of zeros.
hell... I'll lend you the extra $11.
This is a nice bit of saftey info... try it sometime, as clutch cables can break....
You can shift your bike without the clutch as long as your speed matches that of the gear. The best way to test is to start out in first, speed up slowly and try upshifting at various speeds, eventually you'll get it right and the bike will shift to 2nd. Now try the downshift to first at the same speed.
just make sure you patent your process to get in there... otherwise some other prick will steal your patent back.
never forgotten.
welcome.
fuck that. when all racers are equally prepared the best one will win.
we have "lots" of choices, but only two have enough financing to become public enough for the average joe to see. no election funding any longer! every party should be given equal amounts to "advertise" to the public.
I think that was menat to be a joke... yes, I meant "and why would you appoint said person".
edit, edit, edit. don't trust my initial phrasing, just as I didn't trust theirs.
or why not just let the "bad" drugs regulate themselves?
If a person is commiting a crime of violence or theft due to a habbit, he is commiting a crime that should already be covered under current laws, and is punishable as such. If he is doing a drug that ends in overdose, he doesn't cause problems for very long.
Others that control their use don't cause crime and don't die. They are free to use any drug they want.
I dunno. Makes sense to me, but it won't work in our social structure as far as I can tell.
As for your comment:
[nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates]... if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence
Where did you get 10% susceptibility? I'd like to read that. I think the number is much higher, but I don't have proof. I am a smoker, so a bit biased, but, from what I understand from observing, addiction is higher than 10% of initially casual smokers.
Nice question, but gives each side a way to get off the hook about some serious flipping by saying a few words which may not be true.
Since I have trust issues about both, I'd like them to have to give real proof to their switch, not double talk. This could be a good one... a really good one.
It might help if you nailed down the specific switch for each of them and make the answer for that incident only. don't let them pick an easy one.
I'm for bush... but I think that this statment needs research. Kerry is a bone head, but would he really go that far? $DEITY help us.
and that helps the rest of the country how? bad question. both people can stroke each others egos, but it doesn't help the county run.
I don't need to feel warm and fuzzy about my president. I need him to make good decisions for my safety. if that means telling me that the other guy is a bad man that can't make good decisions, so be it. if he can prove it, then i say well met. walk softly, but carry a big stick. don't ram the other guy into the ground unless you are justified, but don't let him slide by because you are a nice guy.
great question... only one good answer. now get them to prove it :)
god i hope the answer isn't sending more of us into war.
if it is for the both of them... how come they both get different questions? void for not making sense. ask the two questions of both or skip them.
I vaguely remember bush talking about alternative fuels when he was running last time. I don't know what funding he's thrown at it... I wouldn't strike this off the list even if both have already talked about it. if oil isn't a concern, we don't need to keep jumping into wars in the middle east. thus answering some of the draft questions...
yes, i agree, in one case the fraud is with the voter.. in the other case it lies with the government.
this question is redundant to the other question (18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY) about mary jane. the other leads us to answering how to legalize it or why it will never happen. if legal, it would be free to use for medical reasons. if not, then this might be a good question.
I'd put it on the list only if you think the above mentioned question will be dodged or lead to a denial of ever making pot use legal.
nice re-phrase. very good to grab attention. on a deeper level, just ask yourself where the critical mass is.
once you have x number of the population crack addicted, things can start to fall apart for all of us fairly quickly. agreed, not all drugs are as addictive and lethal but what if 200M of the population were suddenly struck with a crack addiction, and had a steady supply of the drug?