Trying to count how many people pass a point is hardly tracking, you moron.
If you even bothered to read the article half a page down, you'd see there's a timelapse photography of visiting customers. This video is stored on a website we download. Ergo, they're storing videos of people walking by and saving them. And so, there's a permanent record of where these customers were at the time - and let's be honest, when are they ever going to delete this? So yes, you could track someone by seeing these videos, easily.
Secondly, I did not say anything about whether I agree or not with these measures, I merely expressed surprise that in saying they want to be non-controversial, they immediately jump right into one of the most hot button topics in society today - privacy. I do disagree with it, yes, but that's not the point I made. Next time, maybe not whine on your gut instinct, Anonymous Coward...
Probably for much the same reasons that things like Haiku, OpenIndiana, DragonflyBSD, and etc., exist.
Who are you to question what is interesting to someone? I don't mean that in a rude way, but honestly, something doesn't have to have millions of users to be someone's pet project or interesting to a small niche audience. After all, how do you think Linux got started?
This might come as a shock, but the World does not revolve around you!
But that's the thing. If you look on the homepage, it states it's a complete replacement for Linux as a kernel - but it fails miserably at that. Its application compatibility is extremely low, driver support is absolutly abysmal, and you can't even install it on its own - it depends on the very thing it's supposed to replace!
It's such a shame too, because I think there's a big potential for a microkernel system nowadays. It'd be more secure than a mono kernel, much more reliable, much easier to extend, and the only cost is the overhead involved. I don't knock it for being a hobby project - but then GNU should stop pretending like it has some Linux killer on its hands and that it's an official and supported project, because it's become very clear over the last 30+ years (!) that no one wants to work on it. Imagine what it could be if it got some real support, though....
This doesn't count because, as other Slashdot members have said, the news is a big contributor to this. Nontheless, I am very suprised no one's every run a study on this - paying employees more is cheaper in the long run because you save on training costs, you have higher morale, and you get much more quality for your money - one good worker at 80k per year can easily be worth 3 workers at 40k per year, and it also means less people to pay benefits for as well as a more tightly knit group with a smaller communication overhead.
This practice started with some assholes in suits who wanted to pad out their already bursting accounts at the expense of those they are responsible for; not because any study actually demonstrated long term cost savings by getting many cheap employees with low wages over better trained higher ones.
If you only make a single choice (and then simply stick with the choice), then your choice is basically arbitrary and defeats the purpose of having a wide variety of options. That's one of the arguments in the article: more choices aren't always better.
Word of mouth is also useless if others are making arbitrary choices and then simply sticking with them. It reminds me of a comic's (forget who) routine about getting advice on traveling. People who had been to a city once and only eaten at one restaurant would heartily recommend the restaurant even though they had no baseline for comparison. ("Yeah, I know this great restaurant in Toledo!")
Now, maybe you're making the argument that you only have to go through the process of choosing once (which will involve testing more than one selection), but few people do that. Mostly, they do what they decide above and just try a variety or two, say meh, and arbitrarily stick with their choice. How many varieties of peanut butter have most people tried? I'm guessing that mostly people have tried a smooth and a chunky (and maybe a natural), but I doubt many people have really compared brands. Why do "choosy moms choose JIF"? (Their advertising slogan.) Because moms have enough shit to do, so at one point in the past, they grabbed a jar of JIF and then just keep getting it because why not?
Arbitrary choices are not a good solution.
And a world with only JIF as opposed to other brands would be better... How? If you really are overwhelmed with options, go ahead, make an arbitrary selection and stick with it if you like it. You don't have to participate in it. As someone who likes everything " just so" however, I highly appreciate the ability to buy from a large number of brands in order to achieve a favorite taste. You have nothing to lose with a colorful and diverse selection, as people would just wind up with the same choices they'd make if there was only a single choice; but in a monolithic world, people such as myself are far more miserable if something's not right and I have no way to fix it.
The torrent part I agree with: torrenting can be very demanding on the networks, and torrents are not used in applications that require real time. They'll be fine if their file transfers take a little bit longer. The encrypted traffic part though - a lot of traffic nowadays is encrypted, so that hardly helps. Furthermore, I don't think that punishing traffic that is encrypted is very fair: the performance overhead is not that great, and I don't understand the obsession with people wanting to monitor and inspect everything. Even in Germany it's a pitiful state of affairs, though not as bad as the US or England. Watching me browse Slashdot is supposed to further secure the state, ja? I don't feel any more secure, and I doubt anyone else does either. I'm very surprised they are as free with it as they are actually; although all (I hope!) banking sites are encrypted nowadays, if they were to read my bank statements unencrypted, I believe that may expose them to a lawsuit from myself...?
Speaking as someone who currently lives in Japan (for work, I'm not Japanese), I think they should. Japan has a ridiculous amount of people in a very small space - Tokyo has is only 75% as large as New York City, but has almost twice as many people. The amount of coal needed to provide enough electricity for them would absolutely pollute the area around them and render it inhabitable - and in a country where habitable land is so scarce, and with such a nice natural climate that attracts a huge amount of tourists, ruining it would not be a good idea. So long as they invest properly in their nuclear power plants and ensure they are well maintained and regulated, they have virtually no environmental impact, and they can provide absolutely insane amounts of power for a very low price. If they act cut the nuclear power like Germany did (which I think was an idiotic move, but I digress), they are going to have a very, very, very hard time supplying enough power for everyone, and if they do it in coal, that will be a disaster. I'll finish with a nice little graph: what do you think?
Is anyone going to do something about Symbian's SIS file format? I feel unfairly pressured and discriminated against, and I demand that Nokia immediately change it. Right now.
...
I feel it ungentlemanly to swear, and so I apologize most sincerely, but this is fu**in' ridiculous.
it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue
WTF? Pure water does not make blood any more acidic or basic. It simply can not do it. In reality, drinking distilled water is OK - your body gets more than enough minerals with food to not care about a couple of milligrams of missing dissolved salts.
It makes it more acidic because it draws out the bases into itself, which you then urinate out. Hence, what's left behind is a collection of the acids in your blood, and so overtime the average acidity becomes higher and higher - it's blood we're talking about, not water. If you drink it regularly, you will develop mineral deficiencies (it's not just salt it takes out of you) unless you consume a crap ton of them to make up for it, and at that point you're essentially drinking hard water but mixing it in your body.
Distilled water might be advisable to drink if, for example, you either have a severe overbalance of minerals or you have consumed a toxic substance of some kind; but it's really not intended as a daily drink and will give you some pretty nasty health problems, like iron deficiency (which carries oxygen from your lungs throughout the rest of your body), tooth decay (because it saps calcium out of your teeth), and an electrolyte imbalance (it'll sap these too) if you do.
A good quality reverse osmosis filter will take out all the nasty stuff, but still leave just enough minerals behind; so long as you make sure to consume enough to compensate, this right here will be fine for you. But drinking distilled water will slowly dissolve your very body into itself.
I'll bet some people will still deny the existance of the Apollo mission. It's reaching the point where it's a great detector for either laziness in research or severe mental health issues, sadly...
Reuse it with what? Tap water? It is a disposable bottle. When you drink the contents toss it in the trash. That is what is for.
You're the epidemy of everything that's wrong with the bottle water consumers. I'm glad to see having animals choke on your excessive waste and leeching plastic into the ground for the next 1,000,000+ years is worth it to you, all so that you don't have to deal with the hassle and pain and sheer inconvenience that is installing a decent water filter into your home. It's not even understandable either, because I'd think one afternoon is worth the every-week-trip-down-to-the-grocery-market-to-haul-back-50-bottles-of-water-while-looking-like-an-ignorant-asshole. And if the chemicals are a concern to you, do you shower or bath at all? Or do you use bottled water for that too? Your skin absorbs them, so you're not saving yourself from that either. It's amazing to me how inconsiderate and short sighted some people are (bravo for being the prime example here), and I see no reason to apologize for my aggressive stance in the slightest.
I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.
There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:
1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!)
2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it!
3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals!
4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!
I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!
Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.
At least he recycles his bottle though, that's a step in the right direction. Don't use disposable plastic bottles, it's not only ridiculously expensive for you in the long run but is also absolutly horrid for the environment.
I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.
There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:
1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!)
2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it!
3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals!
4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!
I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!
Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.
Does this title use a convoluted syntax, or it it just me? (English is not my first language)
I had to read the summary to finally understand what was meant by "F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots". Before that, I was stuck with a seat fearing the ground, and some lightweight pilots whom I couldn't quite fit into that fearful seat.
No, your hunch is right, the title is ridiculous, espcially because "Ground Lightweight Pilots" implies that the pilot is crushed into a thousand little pieces, which is maaaaybe what the aricle talks about? But no, it really does refer to the land. Every Slashdot article recently has had egrigeous spelling errors though, and I think at this point most of the readers don't even bother to read the summary anymore, so then you have ignorant misconceptions flying around and an editor who's extremely familiar with CTRL-C CTRL-Y. So much so, even he doesn't read the article (or the summary or hell, even the frickin' headline) at all anymore either. Slashdot can be a very informative place at times, even though that's exclusivly on technical subjects only, but most of the time it's rather... disappointing.
Okay, my writing has a few mispellings too, please forgive me. However, as a reader, I believe an informally written comment is not quite as bad as a mistake in the story, and to be honest my spell checker does disable itself for Slashdot.
Does this title use a convoluted syntax, or it it just me? (English is not my first language)
I had to read the summary to finally understand what was meant by "F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots". Before that, I was stuck with a seat fearing the ground, and some lightweight pilots whom I couldn't quite fit into that fearful seat.
No, your hunch is right, the title is ridiculous, espcially because "Ground Lightweight Pilots" implies that the pilot is crushed into a thousand little pieces, which is maaaaybe what the aricle talks about? But no, it really does refer to the land. Every Slashdot article recently has had egrigeous spelling errors though, and I think at this point most of the readers don't even bother to read the summary anymore, so then you have ignorant misconceptions flying around and an editor who's extremely familiar with CTRL-C CTRL-Y. So much so, even he doesn't read the article (or the summary or hell, even the frickin' headline) at all anymore either. Slashdot can be a very informative place at times, even though that's exclusivly on technical subjects only, but most of the time it's rather... disappointing.
I was going to ask how many pilots in the whole US Air force weigh less than 135 lbs, and then it occurred to me that this was just a way of keeping women out of their "no girls allowed" fighter jock club.
Isn't your comment sexist in itself because you're making assumption about the weight of someone based on their gender? It's like assuming a woman is weaker physically than a man just because she is a woman, even if statistically men develop more muscle mass that does not mean a man automatically has more physical strength.
Technically speaking, yes, it is. However, it doesn't really count - men DO have a higher strength on average, backed by statistics, and nothing's going to change that. While I believe a woman who has the muscle mass should certainly have the freedom to join just like a man would, you simply have to accept the fact that your pool is going to be much smaller because there's fewer of them. It'd be like if you needed someone over the height of 6'3; while there are tall Japanese or Chinese people, I don't think it's racist to say the majority are going to be much smaller than that, so you're simply not going to have as many asians in that field. They're not actively discriminating against anyone, that would be if they KNEW she had the strength required from through woman out anyway; planning on averages and making a prediction is something you do everyday, with the assumption that some of them are going to be wrong. I do not believe workplace requirments should be relaxed for the sole sake of diversity, and I would hope you're not someone who wants to burden a 4'2 Indian guy with lifting massive shipping boxes if he's not capable of doing it.
Which is the rarest type of introvert (only 1-2% of the worlds population) is also the type with the smartest, most successful, creative people. Isaac Newton, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Nikola Tesla, Bobby Fischer, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Roger Waters, Augustus Caesar, Chevy Chase, John F. Kennedy were INTJs. As one myself, I can tell you we see the world from a unique perspective, but are perceived as being weird by non INTJs. The school system absolutely was not geared up for us, too slow and boring.
The hilarious part is that the mother is so completely clueless to her daughter's feelings and she can't possibly comprehend that her daughter might simply not like working with computers. What if she instead insisted her daughter became a fashion model, and upon being told that she really wanted to be a scientist, would this story support her if she denied her daughter and insisted the fashion model camp be more approachable? There's a basic incompatibility here, her daughter doesn't want to become a programmer, and her mother is laughably misguided if she can't recognize this is not going to work out. The seriously sad part is thqt this lady's an executive, which means she's supposed to be able to make long term strategic decisions; if she can't even see something as basic as this, I'd bet that's one pretty lousy executive.
We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?
The Slackware FAQ still talks about SoundBlaster 16 and old CD-ROM drives. It gives a strong impression that this is not a distro for modern times.
Well evidently, since you haven't even bothered to look at it beyond the home page, you clearly haven't been pressured enough into bothering to do any real research. Slackware is literally just a vanilla Linux kernel and some prebuilt packages of popular programs - that's all it is. No custom this, no custom that, no preset defaults. If the plain Linux kernel isn't stable, reliable, trustworthy and has a large community, then I don't know why you'd think Debian would have that.
Of course, you're actually right in some ways. While it's designed to be simple to modify for what you wish it to be, it really excels at being a personal OS for a single user, one who can mold it into whatever they want. In particular though, it's not suitable for enterprise use, or at least not without some serious custom modding and testing. The packages, while stable, are fairly new, the prebuilt package repository is fairly small (and the unofficial Slackbuilds isn't stable at all), and the whole package managment system in general doesn't really scale well. The difference is, I actually used it heavily a couple years back, before I switched my peronal workstation to FreeBSD, and I found its weak points (and strong ones) through heavy daily interaction. If you're willing to dismiss it simply because of what it looks like alone, you're clearly not the target audience. So go back to Debian, apt-get purge that Systemd, and put back on your beloved sysvinit. Go ahead, it'll be the same as before, it won't have been cursed by thy evil foe then.
But if you can't be bothered to do any sort of serious study whatsoever, then please quit whining like a three year old, and don't bite off someone's head when they gave you a well-intentioned and helpful reccommendation.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to count how many people pass a point is hardly tracking, you moron.
If you even bothered to read the article half a page down, you'd see there's a timelapse photography of visiting customers. This video is stored on a website we download. Ergo, they're storing videos of people walking by and saving them. And so, there's a permanent record of where these customers were at the time - and let's be honest, when are they ever going to delete this? So yes, you could track someone by seeing these videos, easily.
Secondly, I did not say anything about whether I agree or not with these measures, I merely expressed surprise that in saying they want to be non-controversial, they immediately jump right into one of the most hot button topics in society today - privacy. I do disagree with it, yes, but that's not the point I made. Next time, maybe not whine on your gut instinct, Anonymous Coward...
Sensors that track customers? Sounds like a very strange definition of uncontroversial, but that's just me...
Probably for much the same reasons that things like Haiku, OpenIndiana, DragonflyBSD, and etc., exist. Who are you to question what is interesting to someone? I don't mean that in a rude way, but honestly, something doesn't have to have millions of users to be someone's pet project or interesting to a small niche audience. After all, how do you think Linux got started? This might come as a shock, but the World does not revolve around you!
But that's the thing. If you look on the homepage, it states it's a complete replacement for Linux as a kernel - but it fails miserably at that. Its application compatibility is extremely low, driver support is absolutly abysmal, and you can't even install it on its own - it depends on the very thing it's supposed to replace!
It's such a shame too, because I think there's a big potential for a microkernel system nowadays. It'd be more secure than a mono kernel, much more reliable, much easier to extend, and the only cost is the overhead involved. I don't knock it for being a hobby project - but then GNU should stop pretending like it has some Linux killer on its hands and that it's an official and supported project, because it's become very clear over the last 30+ years (!) that no one wants to work on it. Imagine what it could be if it got some real support, though....
This doesn't count because, as other Slashdot members have said, the news is a big contributor to this. Nontheless, I am very suprised no one's every run a study on this - paying employees more is cheaper in the long run because you save on training costs, you have higher morale, and you get much more quality for your money - one good worker at 80k per year can easily be worth 3 workers at 40k per year, and it also means less people to pay benefits for as well as a more tightly knit group with a smaller communication overhead.
This practice started with some assholes in suits who wanted to pad out their already bursting accounts at the expense of those they are responsible for; not because any study actually demonstrated long term cost savings by getting many cheap employees with low wages over better trained higher ones.
If you only make a single choice (and then simply stick with the choice), then your choice is basically arbitrary and defeats the purpose of having a wide variety of options. That's one of the arguments in the article: more choices aren't always better.
Word of mouth is also useless if others are making arbitrary choices and then simply sticking with them. It reminds me of a comic's (forget who) routine about getting advice on traveling. People who had been to a city once and only eaten at one restaurant would heartily recommend the restaurant even though they had no baseline for comparison. ("Yeah, I know this great restaurant in Toledo!")
Now, maybe you're making the argument that you only have to go through the process of choosing once (which will involve testing more than one selection), but few people do that. Mostly, they do what they decide above and just try a variety or two, say meh, and arbitrarily stick with their choice. How many varieties of peanut butter have most people tried? I'm guessing that mostly people have tried a smooth and a chunky (and maybe a natural), but I doubt many people have really compared brands. Why do "choosy moms choose JIF"? (Their advertising slogan.) Because moms have enough shit to do, so at one point in the past, they grabbed a jar of JIF and then just keep getting it because why not?
Arbitrary choices are not a good solution.
And a world with only JIF as opposed to other brands would be better... How? If you really are overwhelmed with options, go ahead, make an arbitrary selection and stick with it if you like it. You don't have to participate in it. As someone who likes everything " just so" however, I highly appreciate the ability to buy from a large number of brands in order to achieve a favorite taste. You have nothing to lose with a colorful and diverse selection, as people would just wind up with the same choices they'd make if there was only a single choice; but in a monolithic world, people such as myself are far more miserable if something's not right and I have no way to fix it.
The torrent part I agree with: torrenting can be very demanding on the networks, and torrents are not used in applications that require real time. They'll be fine if their file transfers take a little bit longer. The encrypted traffic part though - a lot of traffic nowadays is encrypted, so that hardly helps. Furthermore, I don't think that punishing traffic that is encrypted is very fair: the performance overhead is not that great, and I don't understand the obsession with people wanting to monitor and inspect everything. Even in Germany it's a pitiful state of affairs, though not as bad as the US or England. Watching me browse Slashdot is supposed to further secure the state, ja? I don't feel any more secure, and I doubt anyone else does either. I'm very surprised they are as free with it as they are actually; although all (I hope!) banking sites are encrypted nowadays, if they were to read my bank statements unencrypted, I believe that may expose them to a lawsuit from myself...?
Yes, but if I may say so, it's rather clear you haven't been...
Speaking as someone who currently lives in Japan (for work, I'm not Japanese), I think they should. Japan has a ridiculous amount of people in a very small space - Tokyo has is only 75% as large as New York City, but has almost twice as many people. The amount of coal needed to provide enough electricity for them would absolutely pollute the area around them and render it inhabitable - and in a country where habitable land is so scarce, and with such a nice natural climate that attracts a huge amount of tourists, ruining it would not be a good idea. So long as they invest properly in their nuclear power plants and ensure they are well maintained and regulated, they have virtually no environmental impact, and they can provide absolutely insane amounts of power for a very low price. If they act cut the nuclear power like Germany did (which I think was an idiotic move, but I digress), they are going to have a very, very, very hard time supplying enough power for everyone, and if they do it in coal, that will be a disaster. I'll finish with a nice little graph: what do you think?
Is anyone going to do something about Symbian's SIS file format? I feel unfairly pressured and discriminated against, and I demand that Nokia immediately change it. Right now.
I feel it ungentlemanly to swear, and so I apologize most sincerely, but this is fu**in' ridiculous.
it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue
WTF? Pure water does not make blood any more acidic or basic. It simply can not do it. In reality, drinking distilled water is OK - your body gets more than enough minerals with food to not care about a couple of milligrams of missing dissolved salts.
It makes it more acidic because it draws out the bases into itself, which you then urinate out. Hence, what's left behind is a collection of the acids in your blood, and so overtime the average acidity becomes higher and higher - it's blood we're talking about, not water. If you drink it regularly, you will develop mineral deficiencies (it's not just salt it takes out of you) unless you consume a crap ton of them to make up for it, and at that point you're essentially drinking hard water but mixing it in your body.
Distilled water might be advisable to drink if, for example, you either have a severe overbalance of minerals or you have consumed a toxic substance of some kind; but it's really not intended as a daily drink and will give you some pretty nasty health problems, like iron deficiency (which carries oxygen from your lungs throughout the rest of your body), tooth decay (because it saps calcium out of your teeth), and an electrolyte imbalance (it'll sap these too) if you do.
A good quality reverse osmosis filter will take out all the nasty stuff, but still leave just enough minerals behind; so long as you make sure to consume enough to compensate, this right here will be fine for you. But drinking distilled water will slowly dissolve your very body into itself.
I'll bet some people will still deny the existance of the Apollo mission. It's reaching the point where it's a great detector for either laziness in research or severe mental health issues, sadly...
Reuse it with what? Tap water? It is a disposable bottle. When you drink the contents toss it in the trash. That is what is for.
You're the epidemy of everything that's wrong with the bottle water consumers. I'm glad to see having animals choke on your excessive waste and leeching plastic into the ground for the next 1,000,000+ years is worth it to you, all so that you don't have to deal with the hassle and pain and sheer inconvenience that is installing a decent water filter into your home. It's not even understandable either, because I'd think one afternoon is worth the every-week-trip-down-to-the-grocery-market-to-haul-back-50-bottles-of-water-while-looking-like-an-ignorant-asshole. And if the chemicals are a concern to you, do you shower or bath at all? Or do you use bottled water for that too? Your skin absorbs them, so you're not saving yourself from that either. It's amazing to me how inconsiderate and short sighted some people are (bravo for being the prime example here), and I see no reason to apologize for my aggressive stance in the slightest.
I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.
There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:
1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!
I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!
Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.
At least he recycles his bottle though, that's a step in the right direction. Don't use disposable plastic bottles, it's not only ridiculously expensive for you in the long run but is also absolutly horrid for the environment.
I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.
There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:
1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!
I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!
Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.
Does this title use a convoluted syntax, or it it just me? (English is not my first language)
I had to read the summary to finally understand what was meant by "F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots". Before that, I was stuck with a seat fearing the ground, and some lightweight pilots whom I couldn't quite fit into that fearful seat.
No, your hunch is right, the title is ridiculous, espcially because "Ground Lightweight Pilots" implies that the pilot is crushed into a thousand little pieces, which is maaaaybe what the aricle talks about? But no, it really does refer to the land. Every Slashdot article recently has had egrigeous spelling errors though, and I think at this point most of the readers don't even bother to read the summary anymore, so then you have ignorant misconceptions flying around and an editor who's extremely familiar with CTRL-C CTRL-Y. So much so, even he doesn't read the article (or the summary or hell, even the frickin' headline) at all anymore either. Slashdot can be a very informative place at times, even though that's exclusivly on technical subjects only, but most of the time it's rather... disappointing.
Okay, my writing has a few mispellings too, please forgive me. However, as a reader, I believe an informally written comment is not quite as bad as a mistake in the story, and to be honest my spell checker does disable itself for Slashdot.
Does this title use a convoluted syntax, or it it just me? (English is not my first language)
I had to read the summary to finally understand what was meant by "F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots". Before that, I was stuck with a seat fearing the ground, and some lightweight pilots whom I couldn't quite fit into that fearful seat.
No, your hunch is right, the title is ridiculous, espcially because "Ground Lightweight Pilots" implies that the pilot is crushed into a thousand little pieces, which is maaaaybe what the aricle talks about? But no, it really does refer to the land. Every Slashdot article recently has had egrigeous spelling errors though, and I think at this point most of the readers don't even bother to read the summary anymore, so then you have ignorant misconceptions flying around and an editor who's extremely familiar with CTRL-C CTRL-Y. So much so, even he doesn't read the article (or the summary or hell, even the frickin' headline) at all anymore either. Slashdot can be a very informative place at times, even though that's exclusivly on technical subjects only, but most of the time it's rather... disappointing.
I was going to ask how many pilots in the whole US Air force weigh less than 135 lbs, and then it occurred to me that this was just a way of keeping women out of their "no girls allowed" fighter jock club.
Isn't your comment sexist in itself because you're making assumption about the weight of someone based on their gender? It's like assuming a woman is weaker physically than a man just because she is a woman, even if statistically men develop more muscle mass that does not mean a man automatically has more physical strength.
Technically speaking, yes, it is. However, it doesn't really count - men DO have a higher strength on average, backed by statistics, and nothing's going to change that. While I believe a woman who has the muscle mass should certainly have the freedom to join just like a man would, you simply have to accept the fact that your pool is going to be much smaller because there's fewer of them. It'd be like if you needed someone over the height of 6'3; while there are tall Japanese or Chinese people, I don't think it's racist to say the majority are going to be much smaller than that, so you're simply not going to have as many asians in that field. They're not actively discriminating against anyone, that would be if they KNEW she had the strength required from through woman out anyway; planning on averages and making a prediction is something you do everyday, with the assumption that some of them are going to be wrong. I do not believe workplace requirments should be relaxed for the sole sake of diversity, and I would hope you're not someone who wants to burden a 4'2 Indian guy with lifting massive shipping boxes if he's not capable of doing it.
Which is the rarest type of introvert (only 1-2% of the worlds population) is also the type with the smartest, most successful, creative people. Isaac Newton, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Nikola Tesla, Bobby Fischer, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Roger Waters, Augustus Caesar, Chevy Chase, John F. Kennedy were INTJs. As one myself, I can tell you we see the world from a unique perspective, but are perceived as being weird by non INTJs. The school system absolutely was not geared up for us, too slow and boring.
I thought the INFJ's were the rarest? I've seen it several places, but here's a good table of them.
Aww, read that as
for a moment there.
the Central Intelligence Agency will ad a new directorate
Let loose the Hump Day Camel upon the masses!
The hilarious part is that the mother is so completely clueless to her daughter's feelings and she can't possibly comprehend that her daughter might simply not like working with computers. What if she instead insisted her daughter became a fashion model, and upon being told that she really wanted to be a scientist, would this story support her if she denied her daughter and insisted the fashion model camp be more approachable? There's a basic incompatibility here, her daughter doesn't want to become a programmer, and her mother is laughably misguided if she can't recognize this is not going to work out. The seriously sad part is thqt this lady's an executive, which means she's supposed to be able to make long term strategic decisions; if she can't even see something as basic as this, I'd bet that's one pretty lousy executive.
We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?
The Slackware FAQ still talks about SoundBlaster 16 and old CD-ROM drives. It gives a strong impression that this is not a distro for modern times.
Well evidently, since you haven't even bothered to look at it beyond the home page, you clearly haven't been pressured enough into bothering to do any real research. Slackware is literally just a vanilla Linux kernel and some prebuilt packages of popular programs - that's all it is. No custom this, no custom that, no preset defaults. If the plain Linux kernel isn't stable, reliable, trustworthy and has a large community, then I don't know why you'd think Debian would have that.
Of course, you're actually right in some ways. While it's designed to be simple to modify for what you wish it to be, it really excels at being a personal OS for a single user, one who can mold it into whatever they want. In particular though, it's not suitable for enterprise use, or at least not without some serious custom modding and testing. The packages, while stable, are fairly new, the prebuilt package repository is fairly small (and the unofficial Slackbuilds isn't stable at all), and the whole package managment system in general doesn't really scale well. The difference is, I actually used it heavily a couple years back, before I switched my peronal workstation to FreeBSD, and I found its weak points (and strong ones) through heavy daily interaction. If you're willing to dismiss it simply because of what it looks like alone, you're clearly not the target audience. So go back to Debian, apt-get purge that Systemd, and put back on your beloved sysvinit. Go ahead, it'll be the same as before, it won't have been cursed by thy evil foe then.
But if you can't be bothered to do any sort of serious study whatsoever, then please quit whining like a three year old, and don't bite off someone's head when they gave you a well-intentioned and helpful reccommendation.
And yet those terrible reviews are intermingled with glowing 5-star ones. There are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth.
(Although people should definitely be fired -- or charged themselves -- for what they have done to young Ahmed.)
Four sides to every story, not three: mine, yours, the truth, and what really happened.
ACK! That pun was SYNful too!