Dude, they fire 200 rockets per day at random civilians in Israel. They are not innocent. They wouldn't even be in Gaza except that they voluntarily left Israel (giving up citizenship rights and property) so that they could wage war on Israel and kill all the Jews. Verdict: guilty.
You might argue that some of the people in Gaza don't fire rockets at Israel every day. True, but they clearly support it. We know this not only from their own mouths, but also from the fact that they sit by while it happens.
Similar: if you let a friend run a meth lab in your house, do not be surprised if the cops arrest you and take your house. Blaming your friend will not significantly help your defense. You let shit happen in your house, you face the consequences.
Rule #1 is that on the internet, the men are men. Rule #2 is that on the internet, the women are men. Rule #3 is that on the internet, the girls are FBI agents.
Plus the "training" reference is obvious. It's a term used in S+M stuff. He's the slave. He's being trained to be a girl. His master makes him dress like a girl and do girly things. (probably also some really nasty things too)
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Riiight...
I'm guessing you are male. I've known a number of geek women, and I've yet to see an attitude like yours. Not that it's impossible of course, but IMHO the chances are rather slim.
(you could be a non-geek one of course, in which case you've mistaken slashdot for myspace)
Before entering a movie theater, you have to empty your breasts. You see this all the time around here. Women usually squeeze and tug at their breasts to squirt the milk into the gutter or into a trash can. It's just what you're expected to do before entering a theater.
Twinkie, beer, london broil, breastmilk... it just doesn't matter. Food is food. Dump it outside the theater before you walk in.
Suppose I'm driving an M1A2 Abrams battle tank at 45 MPH. It weights 69.5 tons. You're in a 550 kg Loremo LS. The difference is a factor of 115, or 97 if we include 100 kg of human flesh. Call it 100.
Will I even be aware of the crash?
The factor of 100 is much like when my own car hits a duck or rabbit. I guess I might hear a small thump. I'm certainly not going to be slowed down in any meaningful way.
The point is, modern cars are designed to absorb energy by crumpling in a progressive manner on impact.
Sure. Would you like to absorb a little energy or a lot of energy? The large vehicle simply doesn't need to absorb very much; the large vehicle barely slows down.
Also, don't assume that all large vehicles are stupidly built.
If you can't do the math, look at the fatality statistics. They tell you all you need to know. Occupants of SUVs are between one and a half and twice as likely to be killed as occupants of cars.
A fine demonstration of how to lie with statistics I'm sure! Large vehicles hold more people, and thus get more deaths. Large vehicles may attract drivers who wish to drive in a manacing manner. Large vehicles may attract drivers who expect to be a useless dead weight during a crash. Large vehicles may attract drivers who wish to tune out the world (no road noise or bumps, plenty of food and music, etc.) even at the expense of safety.
The deformable barrier crash tests are probably the most useful measurement, but obviously it's not quite the same as a real crash.
the one you want to be in is the is the one which decelerates your body most smoothly
That would be the one with more mass.
Crash some weighted toy cars if you need a demonstration of the physics. The car that ends up going backwards (the lighter one) is the one with the most destructive passenger acceleration.
It'll be a 60 minute cab ride in any case, unless you propose a wildly impractical system of near-empty trains running through every suburb and office park. Normal people are **unable** to walk a significant distance with luggage.
If trains were popular, they'd be subject to bombings. Soon enough you'd be spending an hour on each side, just like at the airport.
A train can avoid the slowness that a plane has while taxiing, and it can travel in awful weather if using a track design that doesn't collect snow. Those are about the only advantages over a plane. Aside from that, trains are shit.
Put all stations at airports, in the secured area. Make a station be just like another gate. (perhaps running underground while on airport property) Handle my luggage just the same as when I change planes.
Suppose I fly from LA to Boston, but get diverted to NY because of a storm. Put me on a train instead of putting me in a hotel for the night.
Make the train experience be plane-like, and it could work. Considering all the time a plane wastes on the ground and circling around to land, the train could even end up being faster for short trips.
The requirements of emissions regulations and fuel economy are such that the sensor suite and electronic control necessary are beyond the education level of most "Joe Sixpack" types. I frequently help people on a VW listserv with troubleshooting the mid 80's Digifant fuel injection system, and even that simple four sensor, no memory system is surprisingly tough to nail down when it acts up.
Easy part swap could be done, same as with a PC. I don't need to have a clue about how a video card works in order to swap out a broken one.
The real reason that repairs are difficult is that dealers make lots of money on repairs. If anybody could do the repairs without trouble, many people would do exactly that.
1: Build cars that are appealing to the eye. I mean, cars that are as beautiful to look at as they are beautiful to sit into.
Superficial. Give me something that will get me where I want to go (OK, I'll understand if it won't get me to the Moon). I care more about aerodynamics for fuel efficiency than visual appeal.
a. Nerd! You're not cool.
b. Most likely, you rationalize your buying decision like everybody else. After your animal instincts pick the attractive car, you find some way to argue that the car is your rational choice.
It's terribly wrong to run the numbers with an assumption that busses (and trains) are anywhere near full. Typically they are almost empty, especially outside of the predictable urban routes.
Large cars score worse simply because they can hold more people. You can't put 7 or 8 people in a subcompact.
Cheap cars score worse simply because they are affordable for young drivers.
Pick-ups actually are worse because of weight distribution, but that's far from the only explanation. They also attract young males who want to project a tough-guy image.
The ideal for such a list would be a vehicle that attracts rich 50-year-old women. Something from Mercedes would fit pretty well. Of course, this says nothing about the actual quality of the car.
The driver is listening to an iPod, CD, or cell phone. The driver is applying makeup or shaving. The driver is eating and drinking. ALL AT THE SAME TIME! You're lucky if the driver isn't also yelling at children, smoking, and even glancing at the morning news.
Given the above, poor steering doesn't matter. Good old Newtonian physics is what matters. Given a crash between two vehicles, you want to be in the heavier one. To a limited extent, it's even good to trade off quality for more mass.
Yeah, it's selfish. Kill the other guy and save yourself.
Even our safety testing assumes a completely passive driver. We do crash tests. We don't do scandinavian-style moose avoidance tests. When a European car is modified for the US market, the suspension is adjusted to make the car tall enough for a better score against the tall US crash test objects. (making the US market version have worse handling than the European market version) We even encourage/require safety devices that actively interfere with the driver, such as seat belts that tighten just when you most need to turn your body to quickly see behind you.
USB suffers from 1 ms time quantization and thus latency. I see nothing about fixing this.
Example badness:
When running MIDI over USB, timing is forced onto 1 ms slots. Normally when playing a chord, the keys don't all hit at exactly the same moment. You can't really tell, except that this makes the music sound natural. With the 1 ms problem, the keys happen at exactly the same moment (bad) or spread out into two separate events (worse).
Even if they never look at the code, never pay a consultant to add a feature, etc., the source code is useful.
It's like a mark of quality. In this case, "quality" means that misbehavior is unintentional. There might be bugs, but it won't be an evil mess of spyware and DRM.
Looking at free downloads, you can pretty much answer "Will I get screwed?" by asking if the source is available. To some extent, this even works for things that aren't free downloads.
This is all without getting into the issue of having your business depend on the whims of some software developer who may discontinue their product or go out of business. We so quickly forget how many Y2K problems were unfixable because the source code was unavailable.
1. put it in a pot with some coconut oil or lard 2. melt it 3. add sugar, eggs, baking soda, and flour 4. stir well, or use a mixer 5. fold in some chopped walnuts 6. pour into a pan 7. bake 8. slice into squares
An equally good alternative exists, called baking chocolate. It's essentially the same stuff, but it comes in sensible 1-ounce chunks instead of little squares in annoying plastic/foil wrappers. It's also way cheaper.
For actually eating plain: dark chocolate from Dove, Ghirardelli, See's, or Fanny Farmer. Cadbury isn't too bad.
Lindt is only good for conspicuous consumption, where the high price is itself the desirable feature. Judging by taste, Lindt is rather bad. It's bitter! It isn't even sweet!
What I mainly associate with Lindt is the awful (yet terribly expensive) truffles.
They are greasy in a very bad way. I think Lindt uses petroleum jelly to help separate the truffles from the equipment. Eeeeeew.
I guess Lindt also sells some crazy-expensive bitter chocolate squares. The label says "XX% Cacao", with XX being something from 65 to 95. This is only edible if used to bake cookies or brownies.
The big problem is that states are allowed to set the testing content and standards. That's a giant hole. States can choose tests that are way too easy, and many have done exactly that. States can also choose tests that are unrelated to what kids need to learn.
With proper tests, teaching to the test is equivalent to the best teaching. It's also measurable, allowing us to discard teachers who do a terrible job. (might also require making the union contracts invalid by law; firing a bad teacher is nearly impossible)
Slashdot Mirror
AirTran used to be called ValueJet.
They only use the 717, they were the
launch customer and they were the final
customer. They have 86 of them.
Dude, they fire 200 rockets per day at random
civilians in Israel. They are not innocent.
They wouldn't even be in Gaza except that they
voluntarily left Israel (giving up citizenship
rights and property) so that they could wage war
on Israel and kill all the Jews. Verdict: guilty.
You might argue that some of the people in Gaza
don't fire rockets at Israel every day. True, but
they clearly support it. We know this not only
from their own mouths, but also from the fact that
they sit by while it happens.
Similar: if you let a friend run a meth lab in
your house, do not be surprised if the cops
arrest you and take your house. Blaming your
friend will not significantly help your defense.
You let shit happen in your house, you face the
consequences.
Suppose the woman was fully dressed in a very
conservative way. Despite this, a group of guy
stands around staring at her body and talking
about it.
I don't see the difference.
Rule #1 is that on the internet, the men are men.
Rule #2 is that on the internet, the women are men.
Rule #3 is that on the internet, the girls are FBI agents.
Plus the "training" reference is obvious. It's a term used in S+M stuff. He's the slave. He's being trained to be a girl. His master makes him dress like a girl and do girly things. (probably also some really nasty things too)
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect
you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Riiight...
I'm guessing you are male. I've known a number of
geek women, and I've yet to see an attitude like
yours. Not that it's impossible of course, but
IMHO the chances are rather slim.
(you could be a non-geek one of course, in which
case you've mistaken slashdot for myspace)
Breastfed babies don't suck in as much air as
bottlefed babies. Burping the baby is seldom
needed.
Before entering a movie theater, you have to empty
your breasts. You see this all the time around
here. Women usually squeeze and tug at their
breasts to squirt the milk into the gutter or
into a trash can. It's just what you're expected
to do before entering a theater.
Twinkie, beer, london broil, breastmilk... it just
doesn't matter. Food is food. Dump it outside the
theater before you walk in.
I want the naked astronaut pictures.
Suppose I'm driving an M1A2 Abrams battle tank at 45 MPH. It weights 69.5 tons. You're in a 550 kg Loremo LS. The difference is a factor of 115, or 97 if we include 100 kg of human flesh. Call it 100.
Will I even be aware of the crash?
The factor of 100 is much like when my own car hits a duck or rabbit. I guess I might hear a small thump. I'm certainly not going to be slowed down in any meaningful way.
The point is, modern cars are designed to absorb energy by crumpling in a progressive manner on impact.
Sure. Would you like to absorb a little energy or a lot of energy? The large vehicle simply doesn't need to absorb very much; the large vehicle barely slows down.
Also, don't assume that all large vehicles are stupidly built.
If you can't do the math, look at the fatality statistics. They tell you all you need to know. Occupants of SUVs are between one and a half and twice as likely to be killed as occupants of cars.
A fine demonstration of how to lie with statistics I'm sure! Large vehicles hold more people, and thus get more deaths. Large vehicles may attract drivers who wish to drive in a manacing manner. Large vehicles may attract drivers who expect to be a useless dead weight during a crash. Large vehicles may attract drivers who wish to tune out the world (no road noise or bumps, plenty of food and music, etc.) even at the expense of safety.
The deformable barrier crash tests are probably the most useful measurement, but obviously it's not quite the same as a real crash.
the one you want to be in is the is the one which decelerates your body most smoothly
That would be the one with more mass.
Crash some weighted toy cars if you need a demonstration of the physics. The car that ends up going backwards (the lighter one) is the one with the most destructive passenger acceleration.
It'll be a 60 minute cab ride in any case, unless you propose a wildly impractical system of near-empty trains running through every suburb and office park. Normal people are **unable** to walk a significant distance with luggage.
If trains were popular, they'd be subject to bombings. Soon enough you'd be spending an hour on each side, just like at the airport.
A train can avoid the slowness that a plane has while taxiing, and it can travel in awful weather if using a track design that doesn't collect snow. Those are about the only advantages over a plane. Aside from that, trains are shit.
Put all stations at airports, in the secured area. Make a station be just like another gate. (perhaps running underground while on airport property) Handle my luggage just the same as when I change planes.
Suppose I fly from LA to Boston, but get diverted to NY because of a storm. Put me on a train instead of putting me in a hotel for the night.
Make the train experience be plane-like, and it could work. Considering all the time a plane wastes on the ground and circling around to land, the train could even end up being faster for short trips.
The requirements of emissions regulations and fuel economy are such that the sensor suite and electronic control necessary are beyond the education level of most "Joe Sixpack" types. I frequently help people on a VW listserv with troubleshooting the mid 80's Digifant fuel injection system, and even that simple four sensor, no memory system is surprisingly tough to nail down when it acts up.
Easy part swap could be done, same as with a PC. I don't need to have a clue about how a video card works in order to swap out a broken one.
The real reason that repairs are difficult is that dealers make lots of money on repairs. If anybody could do the repairs without trouble, many people would do exactly that.
1: Build cars that are appealing to the eye. I mean, cars that are as beautiful to look at as they are beautiful to sit into.
Superficial. Give me something that will get me where I want to go (OK, I'll understand if it won't get me to the Moon). I care more about aerodynamics for fuel efficiency than visual appeal.
a. Nerd! You're not cool.
b. Most likely, you rationalize your buying decision like everybody else. After your animal instincts pick the attractive car, you find some way to argue that the car is your rational choice.
The bus is in fact a fuel-guzzling monstrosity.
It's terribly wrong to run the numbers with an assumption that busses (and trains) are anywhere near full. Typically they are almost empty, especially outside of the predictable urban routes.
That list blurs many causes of death.
Large cars score worse simply because they can hold more people. You can't put 7 or 8 people in a subcompact.
Cheap cars score worse simply because they are affordable for young drivers.
Pick-ups actually are worse because of weight distribution, but that's far from the only explanation. They also attract young males who want to project a tough-guy image.
The ideal for such a list would be a vehicle that attracts rich 50-year-old women. Something from Mercedes would fit pretty well. Of course, this says nothing about the actual quality of the car.
The driver is listening to an iPod, CD, or cell phone. The driver is applying makeup or shaving. The driver is eating and drinking. ALL AT THE SAME TIME! You're lucky if the driver isn't also yelling at children, smoking, and even glancing at the morning news.
Given the above, poor steering doesn't matter. Good old Newtonian physics is what matters. Given a crash between two vehicles, you want to be in the heavier one. To a limited extent, it's even good to trade off quality for more mass.
Yeah, it's selfish. Kill the other guy and save yourself.
Even our safety testing assumes a completely passive driver. We do crash tests. We don't do scandinavian-style moose avoidance tests. When a European car is modified for the US market, the suspension is adjusted to make the car tall enough for a better score against the tall US crash test objects. (making the US market version have worse handling than the European market version) We even encourage/require safety devices that actively interfere with the driver, such as seat belts that tighten just when you most need to turn your body to quickly see behind you.
USB suffers from 1 ms time quantization and thus latency. I see nothing about fixing this.
Example badness:
When running MIDI over USB, timing is forced onto 1 ms slots. Normally when playing a chord, the keys don't all hit at exactly the same moment. You can't really tell, except that this makes the music sound natural. With the 1 ms problem, the keys happen at exactly the same moment (bad) or spread out into two separate events (worse).
Even if they never look at the code, never pay a consultant to add a feature, etc., the source code is useful.
It's like a mark of quality. In this case, "quality" means that misbehavior is unintentional. There might be bugs, but it won't be an evil mess of spyware and DRM.
Looking at free downloads, you can pretty much answer "Will I get screwed?" by asking if the source is available. To some extent, this even works for things that aren't free downloads.
This is all without getting into the issue of having your business depend on the whims of some software developer who may discontinue their product or go out of business. We so quickly forget how many Y2K problems were unfixable because the source code was unavailable.
CMYK is device-dependent - it's all device dependent
Yes and no. There are a few reasonable standards for RGB. CMYK lacks that.
You have to convert anyway. You might as well work in a colorspace with tolerable math properties. - You don't work in CMYK
I don't. Lots of people with aspirations of being "professional" expect to work in CMYK.
Conversion belongs in your printer driver or in the printer itself. - You really don't know what you're talking about
Direct editing of CMYK makes people feel special. They get to pretend they are all professional. - You don't know what I was talking about
It's pure idiocy. - and you're an asshole.
Sorry if you're one of the people I speak of!
CMYK is device-dependent and not orthagonal.
You have to convert anyway. You might as well work in a colorspace with tolerable math properties.
Conversion belongs in your printer driver or in the printer itself.
Direct editing of CMYK makes people feel special. They get to pretend they are all professional. It's pure idiocy.
Sure, it can be very good. Like so:
1. put it in a pot with some coconut oil or lard
2. melt it
3. add sugar, eggs, baking soda, and flour
4. stir well, or use a mixer
5. fold in some chopped walnuts
6. pour into a pan
7. bake
8. slice into squares
An equally good alternative exists, called baking chocolate. It's essentially the same stuff, but it comes in sensible 1-ounce chunks instead of little squares in annoying plastic/foil wrappers. It's also way cheaper.
For actually eating plain: dark chocolate from Dove, Ghirardelli, See's, or Fanny Farmer. Cadbury isn't too bad.
Lindt is only good for conspicuous consumption, where the high price is itself the desirable feature. Judging by taste, Lindt is rather bad. It's bitter! It isn't even sweet!
What I mainly associate with Lindt is the awful (yet terribly expensive) truffles.
They are greasy in a very bad way. I think Lindt uses petroleum jelly to help separate the truffles from the equipment. Eeeeeew.
I guess Lindt also sells some crazy-expensive bitter chocolate squares. The label says "XX% Cacao", with XX being something from 65 to 95. This is only edible if used to bake cookies or brownies.
The big problem is that states are allowed to
set the testing content and standards. That's
a giant hole. States can choose tests that are
way too easy, and many have done exactly that.
States can also choose tests that are unrelated
to what kids need to learn.
With proper tests, teaching to the test is
equivalent to the best teaching. It's also
measurable, allowing us to discard teachers
who do a terrible job. (might also require
making the union contracts invalid by law;
firing a bad teacher is nearly impossible)