The purpose of a title is to give the reader some inkling of what might come next.
"Negative Irreproducible Tweets For Science Publishing" may be the worst [not incorrect] Slashdot article title ever.
Something like "A Plan for Publishing Minor Science Results on the Web" (or do better, you're the submitter) would at least not leave readers perplexed.
your comment needs modification in a post NDAA United States (habeus corpus has been revoked)
-But in the United States, you may or have no recourse except to go to court. +But in the United States, you may or may not have the recourse of going to court.
Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.
But if this is BS like it seems to be.. then who cares.
We should care because it could not be BS on day. How vulnerable are we?
I imagine, though, Qt under Microsoft would look like OpenOffice under Oracle. Instant fork, all the developers move there. Probably call it pi or something.
If what you really want is just to be able to shoot a wide range, just get something with an appropriate lens. I got my wife a Canon SX-10, which is 28-560mm (35mm equiv.) over 2.8-5.6f. It's good for almost all uses and much cheaper than a DSLR. I can't see why she'd use a different lens, and it's not removable.
I use something different but it's great for her needs.
I have btrfs on root (I liked the idea of yum integration), but
fsync is god.awful.slow
I wonder if this is why my machine becomes completely unresponsive (clock stops and everything) every few minutes with the drive lights on solid since I switched to btrfs.
Exactly. For those in the US anyway, our country is founded on the model of negative reciprocity and a Natural Rights Republic (Bastiat would later lay a solid philosophical basis for these by deriving the rights of the government from the natural right of self-defense).
Read down the Bill of Rights, and the government: may not prevent your speech may not interfere in your religion may not restrict the press may not restrict the ownership or bearing of arms may not quarter soldiers in private homes may not search you or seize your assets without a warrant may not take your liberty or property without due process of law etc.
even your "right to a trial by jury" is a euphemistic way of saying:
the government may not cage you without peer approval.
The idea of positive rights (that you have a right to something) is a false one because it necessarily involves taking labor and goods from others, which violates their rights. No true right exits that infringes the rights of others.
You don't have a right to food, because taking food from farmers (or money form others to pay the farmers) violates their rights. But you have a right to grow your own food without interference (or buy whatever food you want).
You don't have a right to healthcare because the government can't enslave doctors and take hospitals. But you have a right to seek whatever kind of healthcare you desire.
You don't have a right to be given a gun to protect yourself, but you have a right to own and bear one without interference.
Now, the current government is operating illegally (ever since FDR accepted the Supreme Court's surrender in 1937) so actually the government does now say that you don't have a right to grow your own food without their permission (Wickard v. Fulburn), you don't have a right to bear arms (Miller), you aren't free from search and seizure (Sitz v. Michigan), you don't have a right to be kept out of a cage without a jury (Korematsu), you don't have a right to seek the healthcare you desire (FDA) and various government entitlement programs trample all over the rest of it. But just because your rights are being violated doesn't mean they no longer exist.
A 'right to Internet access' would involve taking from others to give to you, so it can't be a right. But you should not be prevented from accessing and using the Internet however you want.
Simple things like PUC laws that prevent Internet co-ops from forming are therefore illegal, and as are more grand plans like SOPA. Good luck trying to hold the government to its own rules, though - in the whole congress, there's only one guy who even really believes it should. Fortunately, he's running for President.
Chinese sound-a-like marques ("Selman" instead of "Selmer")
Are they any good at all?
Unfortunately, the few suckers for these aren't professional musicians, but often ignorant parents who are trying to get something playable for their kids to start on.
I've been interested for a while to learn the basset horns but even a used one is about eight grand. That's in the cost territory where I have to consider if I could take a month off of work and make one for less money (i.e. not gotta happen).
Basically an $8000 entry-level instrument means I'm not going to learn it.
Real CDROM support means we should be able to have a.288 file that doesn't need to be mounted loopback and modified with mcopy for every different flasher. An big BIOS images aren't a problem anymore.
One stock boot image that gets written to the ElTorrito sector and then jump to the CDROM drive to continue execution of the startup script.
It may be that we'll see those, but people like being able to predict without effort what the cost of a ticket will be.
Yes, but people love discounts, and they love anything they love even more when they don't get it all the time.
If the pricing model were implemented as a maximum minus discount, I bet most everybody would be OK with that. Except, that does offer less flexibility.
Well-designed big theaters (and especially stadia) often have more efficient speakers (horns). They are typically better than 10% and can reach better than 80% efficiency.
In this speaker is the 2.1% efficiency the same number you're talking about?
Real IMAX uses 8 of these with a 3000W amplifier driving the set.
I only have one 15" passive subwoofer at home. No idea about the efficiency.
Who is the "we" in that sentence? Are you are a libertarian? If you are, I sincerely hope you actually work for a pharmaceutical company because, otherwise, you just used the "Royal We" which is a big no-no.
Its a deal if you promise not of use any of ours either.:)
Don't be a jackass, the US isn't the only hub of medical science in the world. That's not even related, he's talking about the availability of medical care to the population, not the number or quality of your medical scientists.
Those aren't disconnected. We could stop all of our medical research and have plenty of money to pay for medical care for the entire population.
But, that aside, he benefits from the uninsured here because the money goes into research instead. If he's morally opposed to a system, he shouldn't profit from it.
No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe
Middle Ages Europe was basically defined by mercantilism - the propping up of certain corporations by State power. Those corporations ran amok with a good chunk of the world.
That's about as far from a free market as one can possibly get.
Slashdot Mirror
The 2012 Impreza gets 30% better gas mileage than the 2011.
Read the article, but CVT, lighter body, electric steering - 36MPG for an AWD vehicle is nicely impressive.
Technology, it does good things.
Yes, you're very smart because you studied Latin and never make typographical errors.
You should take yourself to dinner tonight to celebrate. You can pay for it with the full refund I'm offering you for my comment.
The purpose of a title is to give the reader some inkling of what might come next.
"Negative Irreproducible Tweets For Science Publishing" may be the worst [not incorrect] Slashdot article title ever.
Something like "A Plan for Publishing Minor Science Results on the Web" (or do better, you're the submitter) would at least not leave readers perplexed.
your comment needs modification in a post NDAA United States (habeus corpus has been revoked)
Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.
no need to get into trouble
I love that this was posted by AC.
But if this is BS like it seems to be.. then who cares.
We should care because it could not be BS on day. How vulnerable are we?
I imagine, though, Qt under Microsoft would look like OpenOffice under Oracle. Instant fork, all the developers move there. Probably call it pi or something.
If what you really want is just to be able to shoot a wide range, just get something with an appropriate lens. I got my wife a Canon SX-10, which is 28-560mm (35mm equiv.) over 2.8-5.6f. It's good for almost all uses and much cheaper than a DSLR. I can't see why she'd use a different lens, and it's not removable.
I use something different but it's great for her needs.
I have btrfs on root (I liked the idea of yum integration), but
fsync is god.awful.slow
I wonder if this is why my machine becomes completely unresponsive (clock stops and everything) every few minutes with the drive lights on solid since I switched to btrfs.
"Just" is such a dangerous word when deleting data.
You can download William Stearns's fully-debugged version, though:
http://www.stearns.org/freedups/
inotify can't watch an entire filesystem. No current *notify kernel hooks can offer this, unfortunately.
Exactly. For those in the US anyway, our country is founded on the model of negative reciprocity and a Natural Rights Republic (Bastiat would later lay a solid philosophical basis for these by deriving the rights of the government from the natural right of self-defense).
Read down the Bill of Rights, and the government:
may not prevent your speech
may not interfere in your religion
may not restrict the press
may not restrict the ownership or bearing of arms
may not quarter soldiers in private homes
may not search you or seize your assets without a warrant
may not take your liberty or property without due process of law
etc.
even your "right to a trial by jury" is a euphemistic way of saying:
the government may not cage you without peer approval.
The idea of positive rights (that you have a right to something) is a false one because it necessarily involves taking labor and goods from others, which violates their rights. No true right exits that infringes the rights of others.
You don't have a right to food, because taking food from farmers (or money form others to pay the farmers) violates their rights. But you have a right to grow your own food without interference (or buy whatever food you want).
You don't have a right to healthcare because the government can't enslave doctors and take hospitals. But you have a right to seek whatever kind of healthcare you desire.
You don't have a right to be given a gun to protect yourself, but you have a right to own and bear one without interference.
Now, the current government is operating illegally (ever since FDR accepted the Supreme Court's surrender in 1937) so actually the government does now say that you don't have a right to grow your own food without their permission (Wickard v. Fulburn), you don't have a right to bear arms (Miller), you aren't free from search and seizure (Sitz v. Michigan), you don't have a right to be kept out of a cage without a jury (Korematsu), you don't have a right to seek the healthcare you desire (FDA) and various government entitlement programs trample all over the rest of it. But just because your rights are being violated doesn't mean they no longer exist.
A 'right to Internet access' would involve taking from others to give to you, so it can't be a right. But you should not be prevented from accessing and using the Internet however you want.
Simple things like PUC laws that prevent Internet co-ops from forming are therefore illegal, and as are more grand plans like SOPA. Good luck trying to hold the government to its own rules, though - in the whole congress, there's only one guy who even really believes it should. Fortunately, he's running for President.
You're not going to get away with beating them on merit. Sad, but know thy enemy.
People have been trying to beat "them" with violence for at least five millennia. Then we become them.
nm, reading comprehension fail.
Oh, nice. Maybe you'd be willing to put up the blank image as a torrent?
OK, $2 lifespan total. :)
Chinese sound-a-like marques ("Selman" instead of "Selmer")
Are they any good at all?
Unfortunately, the few suckers for these aren't professional musicians, but often ignorant parents who are trying to get something playable for their kids to start on.
I've been interested for a while to learn the basset horns but even a used one is about eight grand. That's in the cost territory where I have to consider if I could take a month off of work and make one for less money (i.e. not gotta happen).
Basically an $8000 entry-level instrument means I'm not going to learn it.
Anybody who flashes BIOS ought to be excited.
Real CDROM support means we should be able to have a .288 file that doesn't need to be mounted loopback and modified with mcopy for every different flasher. An big BIOS images aren't a problem anymore.
One stock boot image that gets written to the ElTorrito sector and then jump to the CDROM drive to continue execution of the startup script.
Boilerplate FTW.
It may be that we'll see those, but people like being able to predict without effort what the cost of a ticket will be.
Yes, but people love discounts, and they love anything they love even more when they don't get it all the time.
If the pricing model were implemented as a maximum minus discount, I bet most everybody would be OK with that. Except, that does offer less flexibility.
So, the studios must impose a minimum ticket price?
Well-designed big theaters (and especially stadia) often have more efficient speakers (horns). They are typically better than 10% and can reach better than 80% efficiency.
In this speaker is the 2.1% efficiency the same number you're talking about?
Real IMAX uses 8 of these with a 3000W amplifier driving the set.
I only have one 15" passive subwoofer at home. No idea about the efficiency.
Much easier to use someone else.
Unless you want to use eBay, the defacto market.
Who is the "we" in that sentence? Are you are a libertarian? If you are, I sincerely hope you actually work for a pharmaceutical company because, otherwise, you just used the "Royal We" which is a big no-no.
We who are forced to pay for the system.
Its a deal if you promise not of use any of ours either. :)
Don't be a jackass, the US isn't the only hub of medical science in the world. That's not even related, he's talking about the availability of medical care to the population, not the number or quality of your medical scientists.
Those aren't disconnected. We could stop all of our medical research and have plenty of money to pay for medical care for the entire population.
Money isn't unlimited (though money isn't the primary problem, it's 3rd-party payer risk).
But, that aside, he benefits from the uninsured here because the money goes into research instead. If he's morally opposed to a system, he shouldn't profit from it.
No, I am fantasizing about a "truly free market" world pretty similar to the Middle Age Europe
Middle Ages Europe was basically defined by mercantilism - the propping up of certain corporations by State power. Those corporations ran amok with a good chunk of the world.
That's about as far from a free market as one can possibly get.
Watch a few episodes of "Locked Up". Solitary confinement ain't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
I haven't seen it - are people being killed in solitary?
Do you not use "advances" developed outside of the USA, on "principle" ?
No, I don't have a problem with other people organizing themselves however they wish.