Right. In places like Cuba, you need someone in the neighborhood who knows how stuff works, and figure out how to keep it running with improvised repairs "a la Macgyver." Just look at how old the cars are.
The whole "the dog eats grass for an upset stomach" is bull that is simply not supported by observation. They'll eat it, barf it up, then re-eat it. It's not "grassy" the second or third time around (but maybe they wanted a hot meal????:-)
You can try the experiment yourself - let the dog eat as much grass as it wants, every time you go out. Eventually it will develop a tolerance to keeping large amounts in the stomach for 5-15 minutes - and then watch them not be able to walk a straight line. It's funny. It's the same them as licking or eating a toad. Grass near train tracks is the best because it usually has quite the variety of weeds and plants, and isn't cut often, so they can pick and choose.
They do it because they can get a bit stoned off it. The more they eat and keep down, the more pronounced the effect. The relatively broad-leafed grasses have mild toxins to keep animals from munching on them. You'll notice that if they eat enough of it, they'll weave like a drunk when they walk. It's why even after puking it up, they often want more.
And yet he himself says he barely understands how it works after doing all that. Despite himself being an engineer. Being able to copy something doesn't necessarily impart the ability to understand or modify it - for example, by adding another speed.
So, whose word am I going to take - the engineer, who says he barely understands it after doing all that, or yours? Obviously not yours.
Forgers can make copies of documents in languages they don't understand that are good enough to fool native speakers. Copying it doesn't mean understanding. Ask any plagiarist on a final exam.
Apple, a Buick-class company, got BMW to answer the phone?
Maybe they heard the rumors of Apple wanting to get in the car business and thought Apple might be interested in buying them. After all, with BMW with a market cap of less than $80 billion, Apple can use part of the $137 billion they have stored off-shore to make an all-cash offer and permanently avoid US taxes on it.
Some states won't let the 94% version be sold. So just get your fix here Plastic recyclable bottle, 94% alcohol, convenient screw top, 18 and over to purchase.
Possibly. But the headline of the actual article was misleading, not just the headline of the summary. Everyone howls about how they're against clickbait and want to see at least a modicum of journalistic integrity, and yet here's an article that, if it had been presented as what it was, would have still gotten read, but they couldn't resist what the British call "sexing it up."
As for the rest, either we admit it and learn from our mistakes, or there's no hope at all. The fate of the most significant open source projects is now tied to corporate funding, so we might as well admit it and try to figure out what the next "best move" is, or leave them to become just another mode of software development that answers first to their corporate "owners."
By lying? As others have pointed out (and I agree), if he had said that he had made a working scale model of the transmission, it would still be interesting, and we wouldn't have to have this discussion, would we?
A nice watch is a great fashion accessory - these are fugly ugly. You can strap them around your ankle and say you're being tracked while out on parole and it would be less embarrassing...
The first app for it is the BMW one that will let you roll up your windows with your watch. Or find your car. Call me underwhelmed.
About the only really useful app for any watch will be to find my phone (or my keys):-)
I can't disprove winged flying dragons, but since there is zero evidence for them, I can safely say they don't exist on earth. There might be ants the size of humans, that evolved with titanium composing their body so that they don't collapse under their own weight, but until there's at least a smidgen of evidence, they simply don't exist here either.
Anyone who claims otherwise needs to do more than just make the claim. Let them prove I am wrong about the non-existence of god - or as the preacher would say - "Show me da money!!!" (They're called the flock because they're always getting fleeced).
I was replying to a poster who said that it gave the maker the understanding of how a transmission works, when even the article says otherwise. Your example is just further proof that even an infant can do something without understanding it.
Being able to visualize something working doesn't mean you understand how it works either. Otherwise we'd all have our flying cars by now.
One of my nephews works on the line assembling aircraft. He has NO clue why they fly, and it isn't needed for his job. He just builds them.
Same as most assembly jobs today. Do you think that the robots that are taking those jobs know how the things they're building work? Of course not.
In bygone days, you needed to be able to fix stuff yourself. You couldn't just have a spare part FedEx'd to you. Nowadays even repair technicians don't need to know "how it works" - they just replace parts until it does (see "car repair mechanic"). They're not going to disassemble a starter or a solenoid to repair them.
The days of replacing a burnt solenoid contact with a penny, or sandpapering down the flat spot on the commutator of a starter motor and putting it back in the vehicle, are long gone.
Oh, you'd rather have an echo chamber where nobody can point out that the article headline was a total lie, because it's about 3d printing? Or that open source blew multiple opportunities (just one example: the long delay between the introduction of XP and Vista, then the whole Vista debacle)? You learn as much or more from your mistakes than from your successes. Or at least you should.
I know, but I was a bit under the weather Tuesday:-) Which was a pity, because this week we actually had two days of above-zero weather. Minus 11 tonight - oh well, next week...
Thanks for clearing that up. I have some followup questions: Will clothing stop bullets if we simply print "bulletproof" on it? Also, is it safe to use bleach to remove the pigment in my iris?
Thank you for asking. To answer your first question, if the bullets are plastic printed to the same scale as the transmission in the article, of course it will stop it. Even if they filled it with gunpowder, the plastic shell casing will fail, and the bullet won't have enough mass to go through the paper AND the clothing.
In answer to your second question, it's 100% safe for me if you bleach your iris.
You were just doing what King Solomon did. He was supposed to be the smartest man in the Bible, and he had 300 wives. But since he had 700 concubines, he REALLY cheated his ass off.:-)
And if he was the smartest man in the Bible, just goes to show how stupid the rest of them were.
As I said before, the reasons (excuses, really) to refuse to play devils advocate are bogus and indicate someone who is not capable of critical thinking. You're still a poseur.
So far in order to prove the STL sucks, you've picked on an ancient, long deprecated C library function grandfathered into C++ from it's C heritage and ignored the STL (i.e. SGI STL derived portions of the standard library) entirely.
No - the link YOU chose did that, - did you even read it????
Slashdot Mirror
Right. In places like Cuba, you need someone in the neighborhood who knows how stuff works, and figure out how to keep it running with improvised repairs "a la Macgyver." Just look at how old the cars are.
The whole "the dog eats grass for an upset stomach" is bull that is simply not supported by observation. They'll eat it, barf it up, then re-eat it. It's not "grassy" the second or third time around (but maybe they wanted a hot meal???? :-)
You can try the experiment yourself - let the dog eat as much grass as it wants, every time you go out. Eventually it will develop a tolerance to keeping large amounts in the stomach for 5-15 minutes - and then watch them not be able to walk a straight line. It's funny. It's the same them as licking or eating a toad. Grass near train tracks is the best because it usually has quite the variety of weeds and plants, and isn't cut often, so they can pick and choose.
Have fun :-)
They do it because they can get a bit stoned off it. The more they eat and keep down, the more pronounced the effect. The relatively broad-leafed grasses have mild toxins to keep animals from munching on them. You'll notice that if they eat enough of it, they'll weave like a drunk when they walk. It's why even after puking it up, they often want more.
And yet he himself says he barely understands how it works after doing all that. Despite himself being an engineer. Being able to copy something doesn't necessarily impart the ability to understand or modify it - for example, by adding another speed.
So, whose word am I going to take - the engineer, who says he barely understands it after doing all that, or yours? Obviously not yours.
Forgers can make copies of documents in languages they don't understand that are good enough to fool native speakers. Copying it doesn't mean understanding. Ask any plagiarist on a final exam.
Apple, a Buick-class company, got BMW to answer the phone?
Maybe they heard the rumors of Apple wanting to get in the car business and thought Apple might be interested in buying them. After all, with BMW with a market cap of less than $80 billion, Apple can use part of the $137 billion they have stored off-shore to make an all-cash offer and permanently avoid US taxes on it.
We do not have "the originals" of any of the texts, neither the Hebrew OT nor the Greek NT.
Some states won't let the 94% version be sold. So just get your fix here Plastic recyclable bottle, 94% alcohol, convenient screw top, 18 and over to purchase.
The obvious question - do you drink it or snort it?
Possibly. But the headline of the actual article was misleading, not just the headline of the summary. Everyone howls about how they're against clickbait and want to see at least a modicum of journalistic integrity, and yet here's an article that, if it had been presented as what it was, would have still gotten read, but they couldn't resist what the British call "sexing it up."
As for the rest, either we admit it and learn from our mistakes, or there's no hope at all. The fate of the most significant open source projects is now tied to corporate funding, so we might as well admit it and try to figure out what the next "best move" is, or leave them to become just another mode of software development that answers first to their corporate "owners."
By lying? As others have pointed out (and I agree), if he had said that he had made a working scale model of the transmission, it would still be interesting, and we wouldn't have to have this discussion, would we?
I thought all that begetting was to show that, in the old days, sex wasn't such a sin after all.
A nice watch is a great fashion accessory - these are fugly ugly. You can strap them around your ankle and say you're being tracked while out on parole and it would be less embarrassing ...
The first app for it is the BMW one that will let you roll up your windows with your watch. Or find your car. Call me underwhelmed.
About the only really useful app for any watch will be to find my phone (or my keys) :-)
I can't disprove winged flying dragons, but since there is zero evidence for them, I can safely say they don't exist on earth. There might be ants the size of humans, that evolved with titanium composing their body so that they don't collapse under their own weight, but until there's at least a smidgen of evidence, they simply don't exist here either.
Anyone who claims otherwise needs to do more than just make the claim. Let them prove I am wrong about the non-existence of god - or as the preacher would say - "Show me da money!!!" (They're called the flock because they're always getting fleeced).
I was replying to a poster who said that it gave the maker the understanding of how a transmission works, when even the article says otherwise. Your example is just further proof that even an infant can do something without understanding it.
Being able to visualize something working doesn't mean you understand how it works either. Otherwise we'd all have our flying cars by now.
One of my nephews works on the line assembling aircraft. He has NO clue why they fly, and it isn't needed for his job. He just builds them.
Same as most assembly jobs today. Do you think that the robots that are taking those jobs know how the things they're building work? Of course not.
In bygone days, you needed to be able to fix stuff yourself. You couldn't just have a spare part FedEx'd to you. Nowadays even repair technicians don't need to know "how it works" - they just replace parts until it does (see "car repair mechanic"). They're not going to disassemble a starter or a solenoid to repair them.
The days of replacing a burnt solenoid contact with a penny, or sandpapering down the flat spot on the commutator of a starter motor and putting it back in the vehicle, are long gone.
Oh, you'd rather have an echo chamber where nobody can point out that the article headline was a total lie, because it's about 3d printing? Or that open source blew multiple opportunities (just one example: the long delay between the introduction of XP and Vista, then the whole Vista debacle)? You learn as much or more from your mistakes than from your successes. Or at least you should.
I know, but I was a bit under the weather Tuesday :-) Which was a pity, because this week we actually had two days of above-zero weather. Minus 11 tonight - oh well, next week ...
Thanks for clearing that up. I have some followup questions: Will clothing stop bullets if we simply print "bulletproof" on it? Also, is it safe to use bleach to remove the pigment in my iris?
Thank you for asking. To answer your first question, if the bullets are plastic printed to the same scale as the transmission in the article, of course it will stop it. Even if they filled it with gunpowder, the plastic shell casing will fail, and the bullet won't have enough mass to go through the paper AND the clothing.
In answer to your second question, it's 100% safe for me if you bleach your iris.
You are why some people shouldn't have children.
Yep - they shouldn't have kids, so my two have less competition for ever-scarcer resources. You volunteering?
You were just doing what King Solomon did. He was supposed to be the smartest man in the Bible, and he had 300 wives. But since he had 700 concubines, he REALLY cheated his ass off. :-)
And if he was the smartest man in the Bible, just goes to show how stupid the rest of them were.
Why not just run apps natively then, instead of in the crappy browser environment? Oh, right, Google lock-in. Silly me.
So far in order to prove the STL sucks, you've picked on an ancient, long deprecated C library function grandfathered into C++ from it's C heritage and ignored the STL (i.e. SGI STL derived portions of the standard library) entirely.
No - the link YOU chose did that, - did you even read it????
Does it have a 2,560 x 1,700 screen? I think that's what you're paying for here.
Can your eyeballs even use 2,560 x 1,700 on a sub-13" screen?
Hope none of you are on a limited-data plan.
You really do not pay extra for the Windows license. Twenty to thirty bucks amounts to 1-2% of the final purchase price.
According to your figures, the minimum people are spending on a computer is $1,000 ($20 == 2%) and up to $3,000 ($30 == 1%).
If you're spending that much, you're more likely buying an Apple laptop, in which case you're not paying for a Windows license.