I do. Strangely, killing our fellow man is acceptable under several circumstances here, but marrying our fellow man is illegal under any, because it doesn't.. promote.. population growth? I forget the argument du jour.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
Alarms are overrated and rottweilers can be bypassed for $0.50 worth of Milkbones.
Which is the problem. Without glasses, there will always necessarily be a "sweet spot." Even if you could build advanced features like retina tracking, they would only work for a single individual at a time, unless you could speed up the framerate to a multiple of the number of viewers. The only way for multiple people to watch a single display in 3D is using glasses.
Wow, rose tint much? For most of the 80s, IBM and its compatible set were far from being the standard home PC. Commodore, Apple, Atari, Sinclair, and on and on. Different models by the same manufacturer rarely had interchangeable expansion slots and parts, let alone those by different manufacturers. For a good comparison, consider printers of today (and really, forever). Aside from memory, there are no "standard" parts like ink cartridges or toner drums, let alone something like a duplexer or a paper tray.
But even with "compatible" IBM-PCs and the ISA bus, the degree of compatibility was variable. That's because there was really no standard and reliable API or hardware abstraction until Windows 95. That meant software developers generally had to access hardware directly, and your hardware may or may not have been supported. And if it wasn't supported by the *application*, the fact that your device fit in an ISA slot was largely moot.
In summary, the 80s were a horrible decade for hardware standards on personal computers.
This theory makes only slightly more sense than believing all nautically-themed songs in the past couple of centuries are derivatives of "What do you do with a drunken sailor?"
It's not that bans don't work; it's that they must mirror social values to be effective. Alcohol and marijuana enjoy acceptance by a large portion of the population; upwards of 50% in some places, which is a simple majority.
But those aren't weapons; they're drugs. To at least keep thing in the same ballpark, consider bombs and chemical weapons, both of which are either banned outright or heavily regulated. It also happens to be socially *unacceptable* in the U.S. to possess either of those items as a civilian. So, through a combination of legal and social pressures, the prevalence of such items is negligible despite the fact that anyone could easily make either one in their basement. In some countries however, there's a greater social acceptance of such weapons -- explosives at least -- along with impotent law enforcement, and they're far more prevalent as a result.
I'm not saying we should ban firearms -- I'm actually a card-carrying member of the NRA -- but the idea that bans can't work because *some* bans didn't work is simply a straw man. As with prohibitions against smoking in bars (something else I personally opposed), once social attitudes are in place, then a ban is nothing more than a codification of public sentiment, and it's extremely effective as a result. Not 100%, but (as in this example) smoking in bars and restaurants literally went from perhaps a 1 in 10 prohibiting smoking to 99 in 100, overnight. Without public opinion, people would simply be flaunting the law. Conversely, without a law, owners didn't want to risk alienating customers. The two go hand in hand.
If you already know what files to look for in the index, then you know what files to look for without the index.
If you *don't* know what files to look for, but instead want to peruse the list manually, then this is a poor choice of attack vectors since it requires the user to revisit your site at some point in the future.
history has shown everyone will be forgotten COMPLETELY in time.
No, history has shown that everyone who existed before *recorded* history will be mostly forgotten (though still investigated if their remains are discovered). The advent of stone carvings changed most of that -- there's no longer any guarantee that you'll *ever* be forgotten. At least as long as there's some sentient being out there to discover or learn about you.
At the same time, someone needn't be remembered personally in order for their influence to continue. Nobody remembers who invented the wheel, or decided to cook food, but the influence of those people remains. These are some of the more concrete examples, but we're all the products of our ancestors, both physically and philosophically. That we don't remember exactly who did what and when doesn't make it any less true.
For some reason I misread "private" as "pirate". Which got me thinking.. How long do we have until there are Space Pirates?
It may sound far-fetched, but once the value of payload(s) exceeds the cost of launch by some degree, I believe it's inevitable that we'll see criminal involvement. Treaties against the weaponization of space, slow response times, and the ability to drop off both crew and payloads virtually anywhere in the world all make space piracy a potentially lucrative enterprise. It's debatable whether any existing laws would even provide for the prosecution of such activity. Maybe John Carmack is really the next Blackbeard!
Whoever the first organization is, and I'm not condoning or trivializing the potential for wanton death and destruction caused by Space Piracy, but I sincerely hope they talk like pirates.
If I told you that 1.2% of people who used the Internet were convicted murderers, but failed to mention that 2% of the general population are convicted murderers, would I be right in claiming to have established a correlation between the Internet and murder?
I can't answer that, but I can say that I'm now very scared by the idea that 1 in every 50 people I meet is a convicted murderer.
In which case, that's just how cruise control works. The problem here is the user's expectations not meshing with reality, otherwise known as operator error.
CC is a simple feedback system, where the correction is proportional to the difference between the target and feedback values. The correction is NOT a rate of acceleration, but simply a value of throttle. A large negative differential will result in a large value of throttle whether that differential was created by a steep hill (with perhaps only a minor to the rate of acceleration) or by changing the target velocity by hitting the Accel control 10 times in a row on level ground (where the car may leap forward). The system works very well at maintaining velocity, probably better than most drivers on their own, but so well at *changing* velocity, and certainly not as well as an actual driver, because it has no control over (or awareness of) the rate of acceleration.
Short of designing a new system to replace the ~60 year old version we're still using, the solution is to use manual controls for desired changes in velocity >5MPH.
That's a bit of a straw man. It's generally Macs that are considered to be overpriced; The iPhone is about evenly priced with competitive models.
As far as hardware issues, any idiot can replace a product, which is the "solution" for 99% of technical problems. Note that it's not actually a solution; it's just more economical than diagnosing the real problem.
For software, Apple, being the author of their own OS, are a bit more knowledgeable about OS-X than a Dell representative might be about Windows. But that said, trivial OS issues are not within the domain of problems I want or need help with, therefore the "support" I'm paying for is little more than a subsidy for ignorant customers.
I'm not anti-Apple per se. I've got two iPhones -- one of which I've managed to brick and resurrect -- and I wouldn't trade them for any other phones on the market right now. At the same time, I'd never buy a Mac, especially a desktop model, and price is but one of the many reasons.
The data indicated that use of cellphones decreased while crashes did not. Which just shows that bad drivers will continue to find ways to be bad drivers no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
I do. Strangely, killing our fellow man is acceptable under several circumstances here, but marrying our fellow man is illegal under any, because it doesn't.. promote.. population growth? I forget the argument du jour.
Of course, the detail that has been left out is that a Twitter search won't tell you if the alarm has been armed or if the three nasty rottweilers have been fed recently.
Alarms are overrated and rottweilers can be bypassed for $0.50 worth of Milkbones.
However, that's clearly not their stated intention - to the contrary, in fact.
Uh, yeah.. because stating that your intent is the opposite of what you're doing makes it ok, just like we learned on the playground.
"It's not my intent to hit you in the face, but I'm going to start swinging my arms and walking toward you..."
Ha ha.. w-h-i-t-e. You spelled Indian wrong!
Which is the problem. Without glasses, there will always necessarily be a "sweet spot." Even if you could build advanced features like retina tracking, they would only work for a single individual at a time, unless you could speed up the framerate to a multiple of the number of viewers. The only way for multiple people to watch a single display in 3D is using glasses.
Wow, rose tint much? For most of the 80s, IBM and its compatible set were far from being the standard home PC. Commodore, Apple, Atari, Sinclair, and on and on. Different models by the same manufacturer rarely had interchangeable expansion slots and parts, let alone those by different manufacturers. For a good comparison, consider printers of today (and really, forever). Aside from memory, there are no "standard" parts like ink cartridges or toner drums, let alone something like a duplexer or a paper tray.
But even with "compatible" IBM-PCs and the ISA bus, the degree of compatibility was variable. That's because there was really no standard and reliable API or hardware abstraction until Windows 95. That meant software developers generally had to access hardware directly, and your hardware may or may not have been supported. And if it wasn't supported by the *application*, the fact that your device fit in an ISA slot was largely moot.
In summary, the 80s were a horrible decade for hardware standards on personal computers.
Actually, the Verve did license that sample [in Bittersweet Symphony,] but lost in court anyway
Fortunately, nothing of value was lost.
This theory makes only slightly more sense than believing all nautically-themed songs in the past couple of centuries are derivatives of "What do you do with a drunken sailor?"
Especially since that tune is actually from Oró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile.
Well that's pretty much the definition of quiet isn't it?
That is incredibly irritating, especially if I am browsing the web at night when guests are over.
Sounds like quite the party.
It's not that bans don't work; it's that they must mirror social values to be effective. Alcohol and marijuana enjoy acceptance by a large portion of the population; upwards of 50% in some places, which is a simple majority.
But those aren't weapons; they're drugs. To at least keep thing in the same ballpark, consider bombs and chemical weapons, both of which are either banned outright or heavily regulated. It also happens to be socially *unacceptable* in the U.S. to possess either of those items as a civilian. So, through a combination of legal and social pressures, the prevalence of such items is negligible despite the fact that anyone could easily make either one in their basement. In some countries however, there's a greater social acceptance of such weapons -- explosives at least -- along with impotent law enforcement, and they're far more prevalent as a result.
I'm not saying we should ban firearms -- I'm actually a card-carrying member of the NRA -- but the idea that bans can't work because *some* bans didn't work is simply a straw man. As with prohibitions against smoking in bars (something else I personally opposed), once social attitudes are in place, then a ban is nothing more than a codification of public sentiment, and it's extremely effective as a result. Not 100%, but (as in this example) smoking in bars and restaurants literally went from perhaps a 1 in 10 prohibiting smoking to 99 in 100, overnight. Without public opinion, people would simply be flaunting the law. Conversely, without a law, owners didn't want to risk alienating customers. The two go hand in hand.
If you already know what files to look for in the index, then you know what files to look for without the index.
If you *don't* know what files to look for, but instead want to peruse the list manually, then this is a poor choice of attack vectors since it requires the user to revisit your site at some point in the future.
GTA 4 requires two extra cores the same way my kid requires two extra wheels on his bicycle.
there's no English letter that looks like a sideways 'b', 'd', 'p', or 'q' or an upside-down 'k' or 'h' or 'y'
Well what if the PATENT is for the introduction of new letters? What the upside-down k say you NOW, sir???
Somebody needs to patent a method and means for using fewer consecutive periods to get a point across and license it to you free of charge.
history has shown everyone will be forgotten COMPLETELY in time.
No, history has shown that everyone who existed before *recorded* history will be mostly forgotten (though still investigated if their remains are discovered). The advent of stone carvings changed most of that -- there's no longer any guarantee that you'll *ever* be forgotten. At least as long as there's some sentient being out there to discover or learn about you.
At the same time, someone needn't be remembered personally in order for their influence to continue. Nobody remembers who invented the wheel, or decided to cook food, but the influence of those people remains. These are some of the more concrete examples, but we're all the products of our ancestors, both physically and philosophically. That we don't remember exactly who did what and when doesn't make it any less true.
The difference is that we can't test theories on climate change, let alone use a control group.
For some reason I misread "private" as "pirate". Which got me thinking.. How long do we have until there are Space Pirates?
It may sound far-fetched, but once the value of payload(s) exceeds the cost of launch by some degree, I believe it's inevitable that we'll see criminal involvement. Treaties against the weaponization of space, slow response times, and the ability to drop off both crew and payloads virtually anywhere in the world all make space piracy a potentially lucrative enterprise. It's debatable whether any existing laws would even provide for the prosecution of such activity. Maybe John Carmack is really the next Blackbeard!
Whoever the first organization is, and I'm not condoning or trivializing the potential for wanton death and destruction caused by Space Piracy, but I sincerely hope they talk like pirates.
If I told you that 1.2% of people who used the Internet were convicted murderers, but failed to mention that 2% of the general population are convicted murderers, would I be right in claiming to have established a correlation between the Internet and murder?
I can't answer that, but I can say that I'm now very scared by the idea that 1 in every 50 people I meet is a convicted murderer.
The reason old windows are thicker at the bottom is that they were built that way, for structural reasons.
That's just something fat old windows say to make themselves feel better.
That should have read: "...but not so well at changing velocity..."
In which case, that's just how cruise control works. The problem here is the user's expectations not meshing with reality, otherwise known as operator error.
CC is a simple feedback system, where the correction is proportional to the difference between the target and feedback values. The correction is NOT a rate of acceleration, but simply a value of throttle. A large negative differential will result in a large value of throttle whether that differential was created by a steep hill (with perhaps only a minor to the rate of acceleration) or by changing the target velocity by hitting the Accel control 10 times in a row on level ground (where the car may leap forward). The system works very well at maintaining velocity, probably better than most drivers on their own, but so well at *changing* velocity, and certainly not as well as an actual driver, because it has no control over (or awareness of) the rate of acceleration.
Short of designing a new system to replace the ~60 year old version we're still using, the solution is to use manual controls for desired changes in velocity >5MPH.
That's a bit of a straw man. It's generally Macs that are considered to be overpriced; The iPhone is about evenly priced with competitive models.
As far as hardware issues, any idiot can replace a product, which is the "solution" for 99% of technical problems. Note that it's not actually a solution; it's just more economical than diagnosing the real problem.
For software, Apple, being the author of their own OS, are a bit more knowledgeable about OS-X than a Dell representative might be about Windows. But that said, trivial OS issues are not within the domain of problems I want or need help with, therefore the "support" I'm paying for is little more than a subsidy for ignorant customers.
I'm not anti-Apple per se. I've got two iPhones -- one of which I've managed to brick and resurrect -- and I wouldn't trade them for any other phones on the market right now. At the same time, I'd never buy a Mac, especially a desktop model, and price is but one of the many reasons.
It has not.
The data indicated that use of cellphones decreased while crashes did not. Which just shows that bad drivers will continue to find ways to be bad drivers no matter what.