So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"?
There's a broad variety of reasons to own guns. Some people own guns because the police are not there to protect you and in some areas you NEED protection. Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around. Some people own guns because to them it is an economically advantageous way to acquire food. All of these are valid reasons in my book.
But the government still taxes these people, without providing a police force? So basically the guys who own firearms are the ones who are being oppresed by their government, and the ones who do not feel the need to own weapons, are the ones who live under good governments.
Let's be honests here: you've never lived under an oppressive government, ever. If you did, you'd realize that your rifle would only get you killed if you tried to buy some freedom of your own with it.
More honesty: you like shooting at things, which is ok. Just don't try to rationalize your gun mania into some kind of fight against a government out to oppress you, because it makes you look stupid.
That's not very a precise description of what a neuron does. And the complexity of the brain is not just in the number of neurons in it, which you can argue Moore's Law will eventually make trivial (or more probably, will stop being valir at some point), but in the number of connections each neuron has, which can number in the thousands.
Moore's Law won't help you at all to get the brain connections right any soon.
People just don't like to act according to your retarded moral standards. Instead of burying your head on the ground and blaming the victims, we are actually trying to solve the problem.
As good a scifi writer Asimov was, he never could predict shit.
Of course, in his "future" people didn't have computers, let alone pocket calculators. Instead, they had the slide rule of the future: the analytical rule!
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.bravemule.com/
An illustrated tale of what happens in those fortresses.
Because advertising is annoying.
Believe me, if I could wear magical glasses that adblocked ads in real life, I fucking would.
The 10 billion figure is yearly.
The 200 million figure is monthly.
They are still far apart, but not by as much as you imply.
If something is not ilegal, then it's legal. This "alegal" thing is a dangerous concept.
We can't expect the laws to define absolutely every aspect of the human (or alien!) experience.
Oh, I thought someone had patented the very idea of open sourcing code.
Yeah, but stuxnet was designed to spread even without the internet.
"plants with lots of DNA have more trouble tolerating pollution and extreme climatic extinction"
What kind of genome do you need to survive extinction?
So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"?
There's a broad variety of reasons to own guns. Some people own guns because the police are not there to protect you and in some areas you NEED protection. Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around. Some people own guns because to them it is an economically advantageous way to acquire food. All of these are valid reasons in my book.
But the government still taxes these people, without providing a police force? So basically the guys who own firearms are the ones who are being oppresed by their government, and the ones who do not feel the need to own weapons, are the ones who live under good governments.
Let's be honests here: you've never lived under an oppressive government, ever. If you did, you'd realize that your rifle would only get you killed if you tried to buy some freedom of your own with it.
More honesty: you like shooting at things, which is ok. Just don't try to rationalize your gun mania into some kind of fight against a government out to oppress you, because it makes you look stupid.
How does xargs replace hadoop, even in trivial examples?
Unless you are talking about running hadoop in a single machine, which is just waaay too trivial an example.
Super simple question: yes, they should have read-only access.
Unless you are concerned about privacy issues, but then you probably solved those for your sysadmins too, so no biggie.
That's not very a precise description of what a neuron does. And the complexity of the brain is not just in the number of neurons in it, which you can argue Moore's Law will eventually make trivial (or more probably, will stop being valir at some point), but in the number of connections each neuron has, which can number in the thousands.
Moore's Law won't help you at all to get the brain connections right any soon.
The real nugget of the Myers post is: "The genome is not the code; the genome is the data".
The spanish original doesn't say legitimate.
Also, it says that ISPs cannot block content, applications or services, based on the origin or property of those.
Wait. How were those loony statements?
What's the point of wearing an american flag t-shirt on cinco de mayo, if it is not being a complete asshole?
Well, until you have to go make scripts for some old AIX machine where you can't install whatever you want.
And probably it doesn't have bash, and the ksh doesn't behave in standard ways.
IIRC in the UK, the government has to give you permission to sue it, before you can actually sue it.
What kind of imbecile metric is "terrorist incidents per mile flown"?!?!
You may as well make it terrorist incident per atom transported to get a much more impressive number.
"Pentagon Components".
That must have fooled some guy at the navy thinking he was buying parts to another branch of the government?!
What's next? Not-counterfeit-R-Us?
Can be done, but it will eat your bandwidth like a motherfucker.
People just don't like to act according to your retarded moral standards. Instead of burying your head on the ground and blaming the victims, we are actually trying to solve the problem.
But then nobody would have an incentive to use their solution...
I wasn't paying attention to Python back in the time, but wasn't Python 2.0 incompatible with Python 1.0?
The changes in how scope worked must have surely broken things.
Hibernate allows you to use raw SQL when you need it.
As good a scifi writer Asimov was, he never could predict shit.
Of course, in his "future" people didn't have computers, let alone pocket calculators. Instead, they had the slide rule of the future: the analytical rule!
When you have youtube!