It helps to think of the dust not as grains of sand, but as particles of finely ground flour. Go open a bag of baking flour, and I guarantee you no matter how gently you open the bag, there will be a fair-sized cloud of it ejected airborne from the bag as you do.
The benefit to society in this case is greater if Google is allowed to keep the name, simply because asking 5 million people to change their email addresses would be asinine. Damages should be awarded but no harm should be inflicted on users because of this man's claim.
The more stuff on a chip, the lower the yields due to failures of individual components, and the more need for a heat spreader. Secondly, putting all the stuff on a chip means it has to be manufactured by a single company, so less cost-savings is to be found than from shopping around for off-the-shelves from China.
I would also hazard a guess that some of the components on the PCB would simply not fit into an IC.
That being said, if you really wanted to make an all-in-one-chip iPhone, it's probably possible, minus a few bulky components, but probably not economical. I'm pretty sure they've put the phone together in close to the cheapest way possible given their circumstances.
Quite frankly I agree, but I want to see a human around at that very last moment, before that singularity crunches or the last hydrogen fuel source is exhausted, fighting it right up to the bitter end. I want it never to be said that we didn't fight for life and living, right up until the end.
Easy, offer a huge up-front discount to the schools and sneak it into the contract. People who think they're getting a deal of a lifetime tend not to look too closely at the fine print (gifthorses and all that).
"The study concludes that that inattention blindness explains the researchers' widely publicized 2001 findings that users of hands-free and hand-held cell phones are equally impaired, missing more traffic signals and reacting to signals more slowly than motorists who do not use cell phones."
I'm puzzled by this statement because it seems to imply that the West intervened in, for example, Vietnam or Iraq for humanitarian rather than strategic reasons. Do you really believe that?
I'm puzzled by your reply because it seems to imply that I believe Vietnam or Iraq were wars waged for humanitarian purposes, when I said no such thing.
Unfortunately that's the other half of the problem. The ancient world simply had more of a stomach for the business of war. Nowadays we are all lured in by the false embrace of liberalism. The idea that your enemy should have the same rights as yourself is quite ridiculous, yet extending 'rights' to 'everyone' appeals to our sentimentality and leaves a warm feeling in the stomach.
You will note that the Muslim world, the Chinese, and the Russians hold no such compulsions, nor do they subscribe (but for platitudes) to liberalism. They are much better equipped for the realities of war.
I actually believe it is our sentimentality that will get us killed. If we aren't wiling to do what is necessary, only what makes us 'feel nice', how the hell are we going to hold our own against forces like these?
Perhaps you should take a look at what the Romans did to suppress the second Jewish revolt. Swift and effective.
A standing army is a mass killing machine. What we see in modern times, with the perceived ineffectiveness of standing armies against guerilla forces, is an artifact of pretending the civilian population is 'innocent'. It isn't.
Let's take Palestinians as an example. As individuals, many of the common people are indeed innocent. However, as a group, they are guilty of supporting an insurgency against Israel, by simple virtue of tolerating its presence amongst them. The civilian population forms the recruiting base, the moral and logistical support, and is harbors a nationalist intent. Since you can't separate the individual from the group, you have no choice but to treat them not as individuals, but as a group. A single entity which must be pacified as a whole.
With limited punishment, you do indeed just breed more hate. The point is to not stop there, but to keep going until you reach fear, to make it unprofitable for the civilian population to fight; to win the war of attrition. The goal is to make the enemy sick of war before your own supporting public at home gets sick of fighting them. A population facing real, active extinction at the end of a gun barrel will quickly fall into line. It doesn't matter how many roadside bombs your resistance sets off when you're taking out 5 soldiers and they're putting down 50,000 of your citizens every day. The insurgency will lose popular support.
Once you are committed to the goal of truly winning, of pacifying the region, there are other more targeted and effective methods that can be used besides simple mass slaughter, such as an elimination of all fighting-aged males in the population. The next generation will then be fathered by dying old men, cripples, retards, and inexperienced young boys. They will pose much less of a threat.
No, the 'correct' thing to do is to build road taxes into driver's license fees. Drivers with big-rig licenses pay more than your average punk with a normal one, but everyone pays a flat, average rate to renew their licenses every year.
I'd like to see a return to the tactics of the ancient world when dealing with rebellions, such as decimation and mass crucifixion. That's how you deal with rebellions and insurrections, not molly-coddling the civilian population (half of whom are in league with the resistance fighters) and standing around waiting to be shot. The US in Iraq is in the business of guarding its enemies.
Oh yeah, and the companies that make bombs and guns will get richer.
Unfortunately for pacifists, people (when not neutered by an easy life with lots of food and entertainment, such as in the West) are vile, disgusting animals, prone to quarreling with and killing each other. Quite frankly, these types un-neutered by the 'easy life' we lead need to be kept from killing themselves and others.
That's what "guns and bombs" are for.
You may disagree with the motives for certain conflicts going on today (Iraq), and I will give you provisional agreement. Iraq is a hopeless mess with the tactics currently being employed. But eliminating "guns and bombs" just leaves us defenseless and at the mercy of the other human animals.
Ho preso i corsi d'italiano introduttivi, ma ho saputo che gli studenti devono prendere latino in licei, e non ho saputo che licei non era obbligatorio per tutti gli studenti. Ho pensato che il sistema era come gli sistemi qui in l'America del Nord. Un errore grande, io so...
You're further restricting your argument, a sign that you're hardening your position against dispute, but also a sign that you recognize its being hopelessly weak.
The study of Latin, especially Vulgar Latin (as you would read in the Vulgate), paints the picture behind all the current Romance languages. Learning French to learn Spanish is slightly helpful; learning Italian moreso; but learning Latin gives you the full picture of the common vocabularic and grammatical language structure behind all of them, not just one or a few. There are many constructions and words that exist in one Romance language but not another, whereas they all derive from Latin.
Further, to understand most scientific nomenclature without running for a dictionary every time, you're going to need a little Latin. English has imported so many Latin words verbatim that you've already been a disciple of that particular lingua franca, whether you want to admit it or not. Learning Latin therefore helps your English vocabulary as well, as you will finally understand the real meaning of all these words we've imported.
And while I could perhaps think up a few other "practical" reasons to learn Latin, there is the one I personally enjoy: the challenge and satisfaction of mastering something traditionally deemed "hard", and learning it was really quite easy after all.
I'm a fan of Jerome and his Vulgate; keep it simple. Vulgar Latin is very easy to follow. It's all the Ciceronian clause-nesting that turns people off from Latin (most people didn't speak like that anyway). And it's so much like the Romances, as you noticed, that it's almost a drop-in replacement for something like InterLingua, which took so much time and work to develop, and ended up failing.
English is the international business language now.
Nobody is denying that. I'm a first-language English speaker myself. But there are still very valid reasons to learn Latin today, and it is still used in spheres besides legal slang and "reading old books". I mean, really. The leg-up it gives you on every Romance language is worth a year of language classes, at least.
And before you'd raise the Union Jack once more, not everyone, everywhere, speaks English.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. That was the whole fucking point of the grandparent post.
It helps to think of the dust not as grains of sand, but as particles of finely ground flour. Go open a bag of baking flour, and I guarantee you no matter how gently you open the bag, there will be a fair-sized cloud of it ejected airborne from the bag as you do.
Milligrams per 12 ounces.
You know, a half-assed conversion to metric is worse than none at all. That's two conversions required to work with any system, be it American or SI.
Please stop retarding the world with your garbage non-standard unit system.
Laws exist to service society, not as an end in themselves.
The benefit to society in this case is greater if Google is allowed to keep the name, simply because asking 5 million people to change their email addresses would be asinine. Damages should be awarded but no harm should be inflicted on users because of this man's claim.
Health Care is expensive, in part, because it's chronically understaffed due to professional-school elitism by the AMA and the Nurse's unions.
The more stuff on a chip, the lower the yields due to failures of individual components, and the more need for a heat spreader. Secondly, putting all the stuff on a chip means it has to be manufactured by a single company, so less cost-savings is to be found than from shopping around for off-the-shelves from China.
I would also hazard a guess that some of the components on the PCB would simply not fit into an IC.
That being said, if you really wanted to make an all-in-one-chip iPhone, it's probably possible, minus a few bulky components, but probably not economical. I'm pretty sure they've put the phone together in close to the cheapest way possible given their circumstances.
Quite frankly I agree, but I want to see a human around at that very last moment, before that singularity crunches or the last hydrogen fuel source is exhausted, fighting it right up to the bitter end. I want it never to be said that we didn't fight for life and living, right up until the end.
Easy, offer a huge up-front discount to the schools and sneak it into the contract. People who think they're getting a deal of a lifetime tend not to look too closely at the fine print (gifthorses and all that).
Cell Phone Users Drive 'Blind' (University of Utah)
You fail.
"Progressive" and "Regressive" are terms biased towards the poor.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that it's hard to exploit a region for commercial profit when it's in a civil war.
I'm puzzled by your reply because it seems to imply that I believe Vietnam or Iraq were wars waged for humanitarian purposes, when I said no such thing.
There are people out there willing to do the same to us. Be careful of condemning hypotheticals, it leaves you unprepared in case they become reality.
Unfortunately that's the other half of the problem. The ancient world simply had more of a stomach for the business of war. Nowadays we are all lured in by the false embrace of liberalism. The idea that your enemy should have the same rights as yourself is quite ridiculous, yet extending 'rights' to 'everyone' appeals to our sentimentality and leaves a warm feeling in the stomach.
You will note that the Muslim world, the Chinese, and the Russians hold no such compulsions, nor do they subscribe (but for platitudes) to liberalism. They are much better equipped for the realities of war.
I actually believe it is our sentimentality that will get us killed. If we aren't wiling to do what is necessary, only what makes us 'feel nice', how the hell are we going to hold our own against forces like these?
Perhaps you should take a look at what the Romans did to suppress the second Jewish revolt. Swift and effective.
A standing army is a mass killing machine. What we see in modern times, with the perceived ineffectiveness of standing armies against guerilla forces, is an artifact of pretending the civilian population is 'innocent'. It isn't.
Let's take Palestinians as an example. As individuals, many of the common people are indeed innocent. However, as a group, they are guilty of supporting an insurgency against Israel, by simple virtue of tolerating its presence amongst them. The civilian population forms the recruiting base, the moral and logistical support, and is harbors a nationalist intent. Since you can't separate the individual from the group, you have no choice but to treat them not as individuals, but as a group. A single entity which must be pacified as a whole.
With limited punishment, you do indeed just breed more hate. The point is to not stop there, but to keep going until you reach fear, to make it unprofitable for the civilian population to fight; to win the war of attrition. The goal is to make the enemy sick of war before your own supporting public at home gets sick of fighting them. A population facing real, active extinction at the end of a gun barrel will quickly fall into line. It doesn't matter how many roadside bombs your resistance sets off when you're taking out 5 soldiers and they're putting down 50,000 of your citizens every day. The insurgency will lose popular support.
Once you are committed to the goal of truly winning, of pacifying the region, there are other more targeted and effective methods that can be used besides simple mass slaughter, such as an elimination of all fighting-aged males in the population. The next generation will then be fathered by dying old men, cripples, retards, and inexperienced young boys. They will pose much less of a threat.
No, the 'correct' thing to do is to build road taxes into driver's license fees. Drivers with big-rig licenses pay more than your average punk with a normal one, but everyone pays a flat, average rate to renew their licenses every year.
I'd like to see a return to the tactics of the ancient world when dealing with rebellions, such as decimation and mass crucifixion. That's how you deal with rebellions and insurrections, not molly-coddling the civilian population (half of whom are in league with the resistance fighters) and standing around waiting to be shot. The US in Iraq is in the business of guarding its enemies.
Unfortunately for pacifists, people (when not neutered by an easy life with lots of food and entertainment, such as in the West) are vile, disgusting animals, prone to quarreling with and killing each other. Quite frankly, these types un-neutered by the 'easy life' we lead need to be kept from killing themselves and others.
That's what "guns and bombs" are for.
You may disagree with the motives for certain conflicts going on today (Iraq), and I will give you provisional agreement. Iraq is a hopeless mess with the tactics currently being employed. But eliminating "guns and bombs" just leaves us defenseless and at the mercy of the other human animals.
Yes, the look on Bush's face when told "America is under attack" was the look of someone who had planned the whole damn thing. What a crock of shit.
Bene, io sono stato corretto! Grazie.
Ho preso i corsi d'italiano introduttivi, ma ho saputo che gli studenti devono prendere latino in licei, e non ho saputo che licei non era obbligatorio per tutti gli studenti. Ho pensato che il sistema era come gli sistemi qui in l'America del Nord. Un errore grande, io so...
You're further restricting your argument, a sign that you're hardening your position against dispute, but also a sign that you recognize its being hopelessly weak.
The study of Latin, especially Vulgar Latin (as you would read in the Vulgate), paints the picture behind all the current Romance languages. Learning French to learn Spanish is slightly helpful; learning Italian moreso; but learning Latin gives you the full picture of the common vocabularic and grammatical language structure behind all of them, not just one or a few. There are many constructions and words that exist in one Romance language but not another, whereas they all derive from Latin.
Further, to understand most scientific nomenclature without running for a dictionary every time, you're going to need a little Latin. English has imported so many Latin words verbatim that you've already been a disciple of that particular lingua franca, whether you want to admit it or not. Learning Latin therefore helps your English vocabulary as well, as you will finally understand the real meaning of all these words we've imported.
And while I could perhaps think up a few other "practical" reasons to learn Latin, there is the one I personally enjoy: the challenge and satisfaction of mastering something traditionally deemed "hard", and learning it was really quite easy after all.
I'm a fan of Jerome and his Vulgate; keep it simple. Vulgar Latin is very easy to follow. It's all the Ciceronian clause-nesting that turns people off from Latin (most people didn't speak like that anyway). And it's so much like the Romances, as you noticed, that it's almost a drop-in replacement for something like InterLingua, which took so much time and work to develop, and ended up failing.
Nobody is denying that. I'm a first-language English speaker myself. But there are still very valid reasons to learn Latin today, and it is still used in spheres besides legal slang and "reading old books". I mean, really. The leg-up it gives you on every Romance language is worth a year of language classes, at least.
And before you'd raise the Union Jack once more, not everyone, everywhere, speaks English.
And how much further your reach would be, dear AC, even into the Romance languages, were you to speak them both.