When you can bring someone who was wrongly convicted and executed back to life after they are exonerated, that is when I will support the death penalty. Until then, its too much of a gamble.
Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.
The USMC also doesn't use a ski jump for it's AV-8B carrier platforms, despite that aircraft operating very well off of the UKs (now retired), Indian and Italian ski jump equipped carriers. It's an operational decision taken by US military planners rather than a limitation with the design, as the RAF GR.7 and GR.9s could launch with a heavier weight than the Marines aircraft because of that ski jump.
Sounds like cars are better built for the European market... Boot locks on all cars I have owned have been secure, and very few cars I have owned have had a boot release in the passenger compartment (I'm not saying they don't exist, but out of my seven cars, only one has had one) - normally it's either a manual release on the boot itself, or you have to use the key to pop it.
The main thing about sticking stuff in the boot is that it's out of sight - how many thieves will attack the boot on the off chance when there's other cars...?
Yup, just take it with you. If you can't take it with you, put it in the boot (trunk) - much harder to smash and grab from the boot, and the thief has to take a chance on there being something in there rather than scoping out the back seats of all the cars around yours.
The passenger compartment of both my cars is kept pretty spotless - there is nothing there for a thief to take a chance on, and you would be surprised just how low value something needs to be for the chance to be taken. Remove all temptation, don't just hide the high value stuff under low value temptation.
Why does it have to be anythings "problem"? If you wish to use "expensive feature X" then you have to pay "expensive feature X's cost", its that simple. In this case, PGO has a cost which the compiling system cannot pay when compiling Firefox (and a tonne of other large projects I bet) - that doesn't make it a problem with PGO, it makes it an issue with the compiler options chosen and the solution is to either upgrade the system or lower the cost involved.
You can't exactly blame anything in this scenario - you are asking the compiler to do X, and it doesnt have unlimited resources to do that.
Who is distributing malware here? And what contortionist moves did you have to make to wring whatever tenacious link you did out of my post to support your comment?
Yes, the posts may be being made with computers infected by malware - but thats a different issue to the one of free speech, and anyway what if they aren't? The issue of whether this has free speech issues still remains even if the astroturfing parties are using Amazon EC2 or their own servers.
Oh, and give up with the "shill" accusations - its childish to claim "shill" when someone is expressing a view point you disagree with. Your attempt to label me as a "shill" has as much, if not more of a negative link to free speech than the topic we are discussing - you are trying to devalue my view by publicly linking it with an automatically negative position. Nice try, but I reject the attempt.
No, astroturfing isnt anti-free-speech at all - its not preventing anyone else from expressing their own views, its providing the view that someone has paid to be provided alongside others views, and while that may be unethical it isn't anti-free-speech.
Remember, everyone has a right to their view, but no one has a right to be heard.
Your "IRL" equivalent is a little off as well - the real life equivalent would be for Nike to pay 1,000 actors to mingle with the anti-Nike protesters and offer whatever public view that Nike wishes them to offer. Those anti-Nike protesters are not the only ones with the right to be there and they are certainly not the only ones with the right to express an opinion. If they want complete control over what message is coming from the group of people they form, then they should not do it in a public place where anyone can join their group and represent them?
While its certainly sucky ethically, there's nothing wrong with it regarding free-speech - you can't claim that X has the right to have a say while Y doesn't, on the same spot at the same time.
I made much the same comment the other day, in the "DoJ investigates..." story - the responses were interesting to say the least, including this little gem:
I don't think this guy really understands what a good editor does, that good proof reading is an art and not something that you sell to the lowest bidder (and should never be done yourself - you are the most likely person to miss mistakes you made in the first place) nor that typesetting is still required even for an ebook.
A decent editor can make or break a book - and a really decent editor isn't afraid to slash a books content over the protestations of the author. I've read far too many books that could have had significant swathes of content removed and not have it had any effect on the storyline, but made it a much better read. Again, thats something that you wouldn't do if you took the editing on yourself.
How would that be "scoring one for free speech"? The very act of what this controller is doing is still free speech, regardless of how much you disagree with it. However, it is an internal matter for Twitter to deal with as an abuse of their system.
Yup, that used to work back when Slashdot was more of a hobby-run project by Taco etc, but lets face it - Firehose just plain doesn't work with not enough people raising the decent stories out of the shit, and story submissions have become much more about ad views and referrals than community desires.
Is there any actual evidence of price fixing in the telecoms sector? In this case we have Apple publicly stating rather onerous pricing terms that affect the prices on third party outlets for products you wish to buy - that's price fixing, ensuring that no one can undercut your store.
The publisher was a middle man that assisted in providing the needed skills to link between, the author, the printer, the distributor, the retailer and the reader. When the need for a printer and rubber and bitumen distributor ended, so did the need for a publisher. The only need left is for funding, the 'one of' payment to authors to produce the work.
The publisher also provides the marketing, editing, proofreading, typesetting, illustrations and quite a few other services that the author cannot provide themselves.
That has nothing to do with what the DOJ are investigating - they can't stop a publisher or retailer from setting their own price at a rate you deem "greedy", but they can stop what Apple is attempting to do in saying "you cannot price your book cheaper anywhere else than the set iTunes price - if you do that you will cease to be able to sell on iTunes" while still adding an extra 30% cost over other outlets.
Similarly, the publisher can set it's wholesale price but cannot set the price every retailer must sell for, retailers can pick their own prices and even sell at a loss.
So it's not about high prices or greed, it's about control of the market.
The iPad can definitely be sluggish - regularly I have to wait more than 10 seconds for iBooks to display the book pages on opening, or go to swipe twice to turn a page because I thought it hadn't registered the first swipe only to have it turn two pages when the first swipe is eventually carried out.
Also, the iPads Safari has a tendency to reload pages when you switch between "tabs" - which can be fucking annoying when you are swapping between pages to cut and paste information or filling out a form... Even though I haven't added any new applications recently, it does seem to have gotten worse. Safaris UI can also lag a lot, with attempts to click on the bookmarks or "tabs" icons taking several seconds to register some times.
And thats without any other apps lingering in the background...
I love my iPad, I use it every day and its my primary browsing tool for on the couch or out and about, but it does have its foibles.
In the UK the cameras are set for +10%, but regardless its very easy to stay within the speed limit and I reiterate my previous comment about how if you cannot maintain your speed, then you should be making allowances for that with a margin. I can tell when the car is speeding up uncommanded, its not that hard to do - also, anticipation is something you should be well aware of anyway as a driver, and you should be anticipating the fact that going down a gradient will cause the vehicle to speed up.
The fine in the UK is typically 3 points on your license and £60, or attendance of a speed awareness course. And no, thats not negligible, its not supposed to be...
If you have trouble maintaining a constant speed to the point where you are worried you might be caught for accidentally speeding, then perhaps you should be leaving a healthy margin between the speed you want to maintain and the set speed limit.
If you really were driving as you suggest, then you were essentially driving without due care and attention - if you cannot drive sensibly without a huge effort, then perhaps you shouldnt be driving.
Clarkson does have a point, but equally so does the government - you could just refrain from speeding...
Slashdot Mirror
When you can bring someone who was wrongly convicted and executed back to life after they are exonerated, that is when I will support the death penalty. Until then, its too much of a gamble.
The Russians use helicopters in that role, similar to the Roal Navy's capability before their carriers were retired recently.
As noted in my other post, Russia operates aircraft larger than a Superhornet off of carriers equipped with ski jumps.
Russia operates Mig-29s and Su-33s off of carriers with ski jumps - and the Su-33 is heavier than a Superhornet.
The USMC also doesn't use a ski jump for it's AV-8B carrier platforms, despite that aircraft operating very well off of the UKs (now retired), Indian and Italian ski jump equipped carriers. It's an operational decision taken by US military planners rather than a limitation with the design, as the RAF GR.7 and GR.9s could launch with a heavier weight than the Marines aircraft because of that ski jump.
As noted above, most of the cars in my ownership history haven't had a boot release in the passenger compartment, and that's in the European market.
Sounds like cars are better built for the European market... Boot locks on all cars I have owned have been secure, and very few cars I have owned have had a boot release in the passenger compartment (I'm not saying they don't exist, but out of my seven cars, only one has had one) - normally it's either a manual release on the boot itself, or you have to use the key to pop it.
The main thing about sticking stuff in the boot is that it's out of sight - how many thieves will attack the boot on the off chance when there's other cars...?
Yup, just take it with you. If you can't take it with you, put it in the boot (trunk) - much harder to smash and grab from the boot, and the thief has to take a chance on there being something in there rather than scoping out the back seats of all the cars around yours.
The passenger compartment of both my cars is kept pretty spotless - there is nothing there for a thief to take a chance on, and you would be surprised just how low value something needs to be for the chance to be taken. Remove all temptation, don't just hide the high value stuff under low value temptation.
Why does it have to be anythings "problem"? If you wish to use "expensive feature X" then you have to pay "expensive feature X's cost", its that simple. In this case, PGO has a cost which the compiling system cannot pay when compiling Firefox (and a tonne of other large projects I bet) - that doesn't make it a problem with PGO, it makes it an issue with the compiler options chosen and the solution is to either upgrade the system or lower the cost involved.
You can't exactly blame anything in this scenario - you are asking the compiler to do X, and it doesnt have unlimited resources to do that.
It still doesn't make it legal to redistribute it...
Who is distributing malware here? And what contortionist moves did you have to make to wring whatever tenacious link you did out of my post to support your comment?
Yes, the posts may be being made with computers infected by malware - but thats a different issue to the one of free speech, and anyway what if they aren't? The issue of whether this has free speech issues still remains even if the astroturfing parties are using Amazon EC2 or their own servers.
Oh, and give up with the "shill" accusations - its childish to claim "shill" when someone is expressing a view point you disagree with. Your attempt to label me as a "shill" has as much, if not more of a negative link to free speech than the topic we are discussing - you are trying to devalue my view by publicly linking it with an automatically negative position. Nice try, but I reject the attempt.
No, astroturfing isnt anti-free-speech at all - its not preventing anyone else from expressing their own views, its providing the view that someone has paid to be provided alongside others views, and while that may be unethical it isn't anti-free-speech.
Remember, everyone has a right to their view, but no one has a right to be heard.
Your "IRL" equivalent is a little off as well - the real life equivalent would be for Nike to pay 1,000 actors to mingle with the anti-Nike protesters and offer whatever public view that Nike wishes them to offer. Those anti-Nike protesters are not the only ones with the right to be there and they are certainly not the only ones with the right to express an opinion. If they want complete control over what message is coming from the group of people they form, then they should not do it in a public place where anyone can join their group and represent them?
While its certainly sucky ethically, there's nothing wrong with it regarding free-speech - you can't claim that X has the right to have a say while Y doesn't, on the same spot at the same time.
I made much the same comment the other day, in the "DoJ investigates..." story - the responses were interesting to say the least, including this little gem:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2563648&cid=38302818
I don't think this guy really understands what a good editor does, that good proof reading is an art and not something that you sell to the lowest bidder (and should never be done yourself - you are the most likely person to miss mistakes you made in the first place) nor that typesetting is still required even for an ebook.
A decent editor can make or break a book - and a really decent editor isn't afraid to slash a books content over the protestations of the author. I've read far too many books that could have had significant swathes of content removed and not have it had any effect on the storyline, but made it a much better read. Again, thats something that you wouldn't do if you took the editing on yourself.
How would that be "scoring one for free speech"? The very act of what this controller is doing is still free speech, regardless of how much you disagree with it. However, it is an internal matter for Twitter to deal with as an abuse of their system.
I take it France and Germany are fucked then...? Aren't they?
Yup, that used to work back when Slashdot was more of a hobby-run project by Taco etc, but lets face it - Firehose just plain doesn't work with not enough people raising the decent stories out of the shit, and story submissions have become much more about ad views and referrals than community desires.
I'm surprised I've not seen this posted yet, but a few days ago Apple lost control of the iPad trademark in China after a dispute.
http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-loses-trademark-in-china-no-longer-called-ipad-41378/
Is there any actual evidence of price fixing in the telecoms sector? In this case we have Apple publicly stating rather onerous pricing terms that affect the prices on third party outlets for products you wish to buy - that's price fixing, ensuring that no one can undercut your store.
>
The publisher was a middle man that assisted in providing the needed skills to link between, the author, the printer, the distributor, the retailer and the reader. When the need for a printer and rubber and bitumen distributor ended, so did the need for a publisher. The only need left is for funding, the 'one of' payment to authors to produce the work.
The publisher also provides the marketing, editing, proofreading, typesetting, illustrations and quite a few other services that the author cannot provide themselves.
That has nothing to do with what the DOJ are investigating - they can't stop a publisher or retailer from setting their own price at a rate you deem "greedy", but they can stop what Apple is attempting to do in saying "you cannot price your book cheaper anywhere else than the set iTunes price - if you do that you will cease to be able to sell on iTunes" while still adding an extra 30% cost over other outlets.
Similarly, the publisher can set it's wholesale price but cannot set the price every retailer must sell for, retailers can pick their own prices and even sell at a loss.
So it's not about high prices or greed, it's about control of the market.
I'm still on 4.something, not made the leap to iOS5 yet due to the tab bar they've stuck in Safari - more screen real estate gone :(
iPad 1
The iPad can definitely be sluggish - regularly I have to wait more than 10 seconds for iBooks to display the book pages on opening, or go to swipe twice to turn a page because I thought it hadn't registered the first swipe only to have it turn two pages when the first swipe is eventually carried out.
Also, the iPads Safari has a tendency to reload pages when you switch between "tabs" - which can be fucking annoying when you are swapping between pages to cut and paste information or filling out a form... Even though I haven't added any new applications recently, it does seem to have gotten worse. Safaris UI can also lag a lot, with attempts to click on the bookmarks or "tabs" icons taking several seconds to register some times.
And thats without any other apps lingering in the background...
I love my iPad, I use it every day and its my primary browsing tool for on the couch or out and about, but it does have its foibles.
In the UK the cameras are set for +10%, but regardless its very easy to stay within the speed limit and I reiterate my previous comment about how if you cannot maintain your speed, then you should be making allowances for that with a margin. I can tell when the car is speeding up uncommanded, its not that hard to do - also, anticipation is something you should be well aware of anyway as a driver, and you should be anticipating the fact that going down a gradient will cause the vehicle to speed up.
The fine in the UK is typically 3 points on your license and £60, or attendance of a speed awareness course. And no, thats not negligible, its not supposed to be...
If you have trouble maintaining a constant speed to the point where you are worried you might be caught for accidentally speeding, then perhaps you should be leaving a healthy margin between the speed you want to maintain and the set speed limit.
If you really were driving as you suggest, then you were essentially driving without due care and attention - if you cannot drive sensibly without a huge effort, then perhaps you shouldnt be driving.
Clarkson does have a point, but equally so does the government - you could just refrain from speeding...
If that was really true, the UK would have just given him to the US via the extradition treaty in place currently. They haven't, so...