Every time I've tried something else, for myself or the company I work for, I've regretted it. Inkjets are slow and expensive per page, Lexmark lasers are flaky and expensive per page (because there are a dozen different things that can run out besides ink, and Lexmark has a monopoly on all of them). HP stuff always Just Works, and there's a large third-party toner market.
If you're up to spending $650, buy a 2300it's absurdly fast. Alternately, used LJ4*s are cheap (like $50 cheap) and ubiquitous on eBay; just make sure you pick up some spare parts, too. (The roller thingies tend to die after a while.)
Pressure also raises the boiling point of water.
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If what you say is true, then the Kyoto treaty permits limited increase. On the other hand, the absence of the Kyoto treaty permits unlimited increase. In other words, the Kyoto treaty reduces the permitted total rate of increase of emissions.
"The Kyoto treaty would increase emissions" is therefore a nonsense statement. (And saying "[Kyoto] allows to increase them" implies the same thing.)
HTH.
So what? The author is made nervous by the company's creepy abuse of its power; the author's remedies include leaving or, if said creepy abuse of power is in violation of contract or state or Federal law, suing. That doesn't make the abuse of power any less creepy.
Speaking of creepy: I find it profoundly creepy that people tend to respond to "thing X is unethical/obnoxious/gross and I don't like it" with "no, thing X is not actually against the law". It lends all too much credence to the idea that nerds are sociopaths.
$0.08/kwh? Where? I'm pretty sure I pay around $0.20/kwh, although the "generation charge" only makes up about half of that, with the rest going to the "delivery charge" and maybe taxes and stuff.
The CPU does not "churn out NOOPs", it HALTs. When it's in a HALT state, it uses less power and emits less heat, which means less entropy, which means slower aging. (OTOH, I would naively guess that the expand/contract cycles of an uneven load would be more harmful than the heat of a constant load, same as with a light bulb.)
Good point; I suppose people will look at you as though you've grown a second head just for speaking Esperanto at all, and word order issues will just be moot.
If you mark cases, like Esperanto and Latin do, then there's no need for a conventional word order
In other words, "inflection makes [word order] technically superfluous". If you're going to condescend, it helps to know the vocabulary of the field.
Despite the fact that it doesn't have to, Latin strongly favors Subject-Object-Verb word order in practice, and (as I said) I suspect that Esperanto also has a "normal" way of saying things, in the sense that people look at you funny if you say stuff the other way around all the time.
All those sentences you cited convey the same meaning in English, but only one of them doesn't sound stupid. I'll bet it's the same in Esperanto: there is a conventional word order, but inflection makes it technically superfluous, but people will still look at you like you've grown a second head if you use a weird one.
Where do you imagine you would get the modules without first mounting the root filesystem?
A "friendly" bootscreen is probably not an appropriate thing for a user who is up to creating a custom kernel. It seems to me that this should be left up to distros, who probably want their own bootup screens anyway. (But perhaps convenient hooks for that sort of thing could be added so that each distro doesn't have to come up with their own hack.)
Yay IPv6! Yay crash dumps!
Cyanoacrylate glues consist of resin and hardener, too; I'm not sure how one-tube cyanoacrylates get by. (Maybe the tube is split in half internally, and the glue mixes in the nozzle?)
"Suits" would not work, because they do not have the right aerodynamic properties: they would accumulate heat too fast, tumble, and so on. You would have to make carefully balanced capsules, which would get heavy; and after a certain point, it makes much more sense to spend that weight and money making the orbiter itself more robust.
You claimed active defensive measures (like call screening, TeleZapper, and automated call screening) with "no trespassing" signs. I told you why they are different, and pointed out that this law fills the same function as a "no trespassing" sign. You then made an irrelevant throwaway remark.
None of the devices you mention functions as a "no trespassing" sign. In all cases, the telemarketer is permitted to occupy my line without my permission for a certain amount of time, and both call-screening and the TeleZapper require my attention as well. If there's an appropriate metaphor, it's me having to come out and chase those damn salesmen off my lawn every time they wander on to it, because I can't post a no-trespassing sign and the cops wouldn't enforce it if I did. This law permits centralized posting of a no-trespassing sign (necessary because phones don't actually care about geography) and credible enforcement thereof.
As for mail, "opt out" is again a matter of having to chase each individual trespasser off my lawn. There is no way I can tell the post office "don't deliver solicitations"; instead, I must filter through them and make return contact, perhaps repeatedly, if I want any single source out of the thousands of possible sources to stop harrassing me. It is not scalable: the more mail is sent, the more of my time must be spent rejecting it, whereas a central "don't mail me" list at the post office would again be a single, simple act like a no-trespassing sign.
Please explain these rights of which you speak. I don't believe anybody has a right to use my phone (which I own) or my phone service (which I pay the phone company for) as the vehicle for their freedom of speech when I don't want them to. They have the right to publish a newletter and offer it to me, put up a web site, stand on a soapbox and yell, to broadcast radio signals, to tell their friends to tell their friends to tell their friends to tell my friends to tell me... but not the right to ring my phone or my doorbell or dump crap in my mailbox (physical or electronic) if I don't want them to.
Yes, I don't think it's possible that "nobody" knows who you are. On the other hand, if you're connected directly to only a few people, it may be that only a few people know who you are, which is almost as good. (Contrast this with Napster, where anyone who wants to knows who you are.)
IPv6 that most systems use today
Welcome, visitor from the future! In the twenty-fourth-and-a-half century, does the Linux IPv6 implementation finally work?
Unfortunately, our current primitive networking technology provides no method of communicating directly with other computers anonymously. On the other hand, if you connect to only a few computers directly, and those computers cooperate to disguise the origin of your traffic, it may well be the case that nobody else knows who you are.
If they managed to "owe" you $160, that means you didn't even notice that they were charging you, much less call them up and try to correct the mistake, much less dispute the charge, for several months. Sounds like you're leaving a lot out, which weakens your position a great deal.
Huh. That's news to me; I just assumed that the implementation was consistent with the abstraction. Certainly having the root servers or the TLD servers returning results for third-level domains does not sound right to me: there's a reason DNS has a hierarchical structure, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I've tried something else, for myself or the company I work for, I've regretted it. Inkjets are slow and expensive per page, Lexmark lasers are flaky and expensive per page (because there are a dozen different things that can run out besides ink, and Lexmark has a monopoly on all of them). HP stuff always Just Works, and there's a large third-party toner market. If you're up to spending $650, buy a 2300it's absurdly fast. Alternately, used LJ4*s are cheap (like $50 cheap) and ubiquitous on eBay; just make sure you pick up some spare parts, too. (The roller thingies tend to die after a while.)
The mantle is at really absurd pressures, on the order of millions of atmospheres. Water at this pressure does not become vapor, but rather Something Weird.
[There is no text; only Zuul.]
If what you say is true, then the Kyoto treaty permits limited increase. On the other hand, the absence of the Kyoto treaty permits unlimited increase. In other words, the Kyoto treaty reduces the permitted total rate of increase of emissions. "The Kyoto treaty would increase emissions" is therefore a nonsense statement. (And saying "[Kyoto] allows to increase them" implies the same thing.) HTH.
So what? The author is made nervous by the company's creepy abuse of its power; the author's remedies include leaving or, if said creepy abuse of power is in violation of contract or state or Federal law, suing. That doesn't make the abuse of power any less creepy.
Speaking of creepy: I find it profoundly creepy that people tend to respond to "thing X is unethical/obnoxious/gross and I don't like it" with "no, thing X is not actually against the law". It lends all too much credence to the idea that nerds are sociopaths.
$0.08/kwh? Where? I'm pretty sure I pay around $0.20/kwh, although the "generation charge" only makes up about half of that, with the rest going to the "delivery charge" and maybe taxes and stuff.
The CPU does not "churn out NOOPs", it HALTs. When it's in a HALT state, it uses less power and emits less heat, which means less entropy, which means slower aging. (OTOH, I would naively guess that the expand/contract cycles of an uneven load would be more harmful than the heat of a constant load, same as with a light bulb.)
Good point; I suppose people will look at you as though you've grown a second head just for speaking Esperanto at all, and word order issues will just be moot.
If you mark cases, like Esperanto and Latin do, then there's no need for a conventional word order
In other words, "inflection makes [word order] technically superfluous". If you're going to condescend, it helps to know the vocabulary of the field.
Despite the fact that it doesn't have to, Latin strongly favors Subject-Object-Verb word order in practice, and (as I said) I suspect that Esperanto also has a "normal" way of saying things, in the sense that people look at you funny if you say stuff the other way around all the time.
All those sentences you cited convey the same meaning in English, but only one of them doesn't sound stupid. I'll bet it's the same in Esperanto: there is a conventional word order, but inflection makes it technically superfluous, but people will still look at you like you've grown a second head if you use a weird one.
More chips per wafer => cheaper chips. Setting up the process costs overhead, but there is substantial savings per unit.
Where do you imagine you would get the modules without first mounting the root filesystem? A "friendly" bootscreen is probably not an appropriate thing for a user who is up to creating a custom kernel. It seems to me that this should be left up to distros, who probably want their own bootup screens anyway. (But perhaps convenient hooks for that sort of thing could be added so that each distro doesn't have to come up with their own hack.) Yay IPv6! Yay crash dumps!
Cyanoacrylate glues consist of resin and hardener, too; I'm not sure how one-tube cyanoacrylates get by. (Maybe the tube is split in half internally, and the glue mixes in the nozzle?)
"Suits" would not work, because they do not have the right aerodynamic properties: they would accumulate heat too fast, tumble, and so on. You would have to make carefully balanced capsules, which would get heavy; and after a certain point, it makes much more sense to spend that weight and money making the orbiter itself more robust.
"Since laws are never enforced uniformly, but rather give certain favored groups advantages over other groups, we shouldn't have laws"?
Ah, so what you're actually saying is that there shouldn't be exceptions to the law, not that it shouldn't exist. I agree completely.
You claimed active defensive measures (like call screening, TeleZapper, and automated call screening) with "no trespassing" signs. I told you why they are different, and pointed out that this law fills the same function as a "no trespassing" sign. You then made an irrelevant throwaway remark.
The next move is still yours.
None of the devices you mention functions as a "no trespassing" sign. In all cases, the telemarketer is permitted to occupy my line without my permission for a certain amount of time, and both call-screening and the TeleZapper require my attention as well. If there's an appropriate metaphor, it's me having to come out and chase those damn salesmen off my lawn every time they wander on to it, because I can't post a no-trespassing sign and the cops wouldn't enforce it if I did. This law permits centralized posting of a no-trespassing sign (necessary because phones don't actually care about geography) and credible enforcement thereof. As for mail, "opt out" is again a matter of having to chase each individual trespasser off my lawn. There is no way I can tell the post office "don't deliver solicitations"; instead, I must filter through them and make return contact, perhaps repeatedly, if I want any single source out of the thousands of possible sources to stop harrassing me. It is not scalable: the more mail is sent, the more of my time must be spent rejecting it, whereas a central "don't mail me" list at the post office would again be a single, simple act like a no-trespassing sign.
Please explain these rights of which you speak. I don't believe anybody has a right to use my phone (which I own) or my phone service (which I pay the phone company for) as the vehicle for their freedom of speech when I don't want them to. They have the right to publish a newletter and offer it to me, put up a web site, stand on a soapbox and yell, to broadcast radio signals, to tell their friends to tell their friends to tell their friends to tell my friends to tell me... but not the right to ring my phone or my doorbell or dump crap in my mailbox (physical or electronic) if I don't want them to.
Yes, I don't think it's possible that "nobody" knows who you are. On the other hand, if you're connected directly to only a few people, it may be that only a few people know who you are, which is almost as good. (Contrast this with Napster, where anyone who wants to knows who you are.)
IPv6 that most systems use today Welcome, visitor from the future! In the twenty-fourth-and-a-half century, does the Linux IPv6 implementation finally work? Unfortunately, our current primitive networking technology provides no method of communicating directly with other computers anonymously. On the other hand, if you connect to only a few computers directly, and those computers cooperate to disguise the origin of your traffic, it may well be the case that nobody else knows who you are.
...if I win at Monopoly?
karma. HTH.
If they managed to "owe" you $160, that means you didn't even notice that they were charging you, much less call them up and try to correct the mistake, much less dispute the charge, for several months. Sounds like you're leaving a lot out, which weakens your position a great deal.
Huh. That's news to me; I just assumed that the implementation was consistent with the abstraction. Certainly having the root servers or the TLD servers returning results for third-level domains does not sound right to me: there's a reason DNS has a hierarchical structure, after all.