I have a question about that: In a vacuum it makes sense, but the speed of light is slower in other materials based on their refractive index. Then the time dilation must surely be less than 100%?
the contrast between that and things like forest/crops doesn't strike you as an important distinction?
I don't get what you're driving at here. "Forest/crops" are generally not viewed as an efficient source of electrical energy, which wind power is. They are also not covered by the wikipedia quote, and now I guess that you'll claim something completely irrelevant such as that it depends on how slowly you use them. Or that you can convert crops to methane by bovine intervention, in order to create CO2-neutral fuel.
This is futile. As an excercise in futility:
But that's my point: "renewable" resources are those things that we can work to keep bringing back or putting in place. There is no such option or need when it comes to tides, wind, etc. The phrase may not be sufficiently detailed when it comes to trees, but it's just plain silly when it comes to wind.
I submit that "Renewable energy" is a perfectly adequate category in which to put wind energy. It seems to me you feel the need to make a distinction between something you need to cultivate in order to renew, and something which you need not, in the process attacking a definition which everyone else I know has no problems with whatsoever. Oh, to hell with it... Don't bother replying, you won't get a response from me.
At least I got to use the term 'bovine intervention'.
In addition, people should be more careful with tidal power. Harnessing it pulls the moon closer to the earth, eventually making it come crashing down through the atmosphere. Or something.
As long as we are not renewable energy in amounts sufficient to cover our needs, I completely agree with you about energy efficiency.
Serious question: Where DOES actually the energy from tidal power plants come from, originally? Rotational momentum of the Earth? My lunatic hypothesis?:)
You go on, the rest of us will accept the established concept of Renewable energy.
"Renewable energy is energy which can be replenished at the same rate it is used."
Further down, "...wind, water, and solar power...".
If you have to start your arguments by redefining common concepts, I can only wish you good luck. If you need to employ questionable linguistics in order to do so (linguists will disagree with you, by the way), you need it even more.
Some people claim that it works better with a clean install, but these are by and large the same people who make the nonsensical claim that Windows computers need reformatting on a regular basis, which is complete and utter bullshit.
Bullshit? I don't know about you, but in my experience any version of Windows (in my case, Win2k) DOES need either:
a) Constant tuning and cleaning to keep the performance up to par.
b) Periodic reinstalls to remove the cruft that adds up after a while, particularly from installing and removing software.
I do the latter, simply because I can't be bothered to nurse an ageing Windows installation. And I am fairly competent, working in CS. With Ghost the whole process will expend about two hours of my time every couple of months, that's including installs of my regular software. Linux, needless to say, is far better in this respect. A Linux install has never gone 'stale' on me.
if you steal from one source, that is plaigiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
If you steal from a source, make damn sure you don't copy their errors as well. It gives you away:) (Yes, the blogger actually cited his source as/. )
Side note: I seem to recall that a major English dictionary (Oxford English?) introduced a few non-existing words in order to catch fraudulent dictionary editors copying their work illegitimately. I can't find a reference, does anyone else know anything about this?
I might have come across a little harsh, sorry for that:)
Anyway, I think it's more of a personal aversion. To me those terms seem constructed (well, duh) and unnatural, and I find them unaesthetic and inelegant. For instance, I prefer 'simulated security', which consists of well-established words with clearly defined meanings, one of more qualities of which 'simcurity' apparently lacks since you felt the need to explain the term in your post.
If you use the term 'guesstimate' you're very imprecise. I have no idea how much confidence I should put in your answer. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Either you're guessing, or you're making an estimate based on interpretation of data in some manner, which one is it? In my opinion there is no 'in between' for which 'guesstimate' is an adequate term. It might be an estimate with incomplete data, but still an estimate. Or a guess. Whichever.
Hmmmm, 'infotainvert'? I believe you're pulling my leg, sir. A Google search yields three hits, two of which points to the same Slashdot article where it was used by you, the third to a literally contentless site at www.infotainvert.com. My first impression is that it is constructed to ridicule exactly the contrived terms of which we are speaking.
Besides, you will note that English is not my first language. In Norwegian, which IS my first language, people will sometimes try to bring similar terms into everyday use. They mostly have little luck for the same reasons I stated above. Maybe we just look at languages in a different manner?
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
BTW, otherwise your post was an interesting one. Going to bed now...
While I know it is a neologism, that word is possibly one of the more annoying words I know. It's up there with 'guesstimate' and 'edutainment/infotainment'. We already have perfectly good expressions that aren't inane. Sorry, just felt the need to say that, no offence to the good Doc.
why wouldn't it be possible/practical to encase your CPU in one
You wouldn't be interested in that, the point of cooling is to remove the heat from the chip. An insulator would keep it in, you want a heat conductor instead.
The pain uses up all of the drug, so there's none leftover to get addicted on.
I was put on morphine once when I broke my wrist badly, and while I only got it for a couple of days in the hospital, what you're saying sounds very plausible. I got what was a fairly large dosage, but I didn't get high in any manner from it. It certainly didn't tempt me to try more, not that it would have been a good idea anyway:)
What was also interesting is that morphine doesn't take away your pain, it makes you not care that you're in pain. Very strange experience, difficult to explain. The pain was still there, still as strong, but it didn't really bother me.
Re:And in their sequel:
on
Game Breakers
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that sucks. But, in lack of a print option, the repagination plugin for Firefox is your friend. Works really great for those multiple-pages forum discussions as well:)
Short answer: They check, and they only count real impressions:)
When I consulted for an ad-financed site six years ago as a coder, we did it in three different ways:
1) Generally, smaller stores would send us their ad images, and trust us to be honest with them regarding number of impressions and clicks. As it was then a relatively small niche site (skateboarding and snowboarding), we were part of a small community and they had no reason not to. We were honest.
2) Some would have an agreement with a professional advertising firm, which hosted the images and tracked clicks. Some would ask for our numbers as well for comparison.
3) The largest ones would have their own systems, and track everything themselves. They would not give us any insight in their numbers, we had to trust them. They just supplied urls which we included in our scripts.
Obviously the ones paying for the ads wouldn't like to pay for a pageview which never showed their ad, and this made is important for us to be able to provide them with exact numbers. I wrote a small serverside app to track both impressions and clicks. If the user didn't see it, it wasn't counted. The ones doing the tracking themselves wouldn't know about ad-free pageviews in our case. In all cases they would only pay for ads that was actually displayed.
Blocking wasn't much of an issue then anyway, as it usually involved setting up a local proxy or adding to your hosts file. As I generally don't like ads, and we largely were a community-driven site, we made the ads small and non-intrusive.
The downside to blocking is that it makes life difficult for quality sites like ours was (is:). What irks me is that if sites generally made ads NOT fucking annoying (more like the Google ones for instance), this would still continue to be a viable solution for a small startup site.
As it is, I can't stand browsing without blocking both ads and flash. Blame it on the marketing droids of the world, they've brought this upon themselves. They should stop whining already.
This turned out to be longer than I intended, but I guess I answered your question:)
I did what I should have done in the first place, glanced at the source, and found this little script:
function bees() {
var e = document.getElementsByName("google_ads_frame");
if (!e || e.length == 0) {
var e1 = document.getElementById('topbanner');
var e2 = document.getElementById('sidebanner');
e1.innerHTML = "<img src='/images/blockedtop.png'>";
e2.innerHTML = "<img src='/images/blockedside.png'>";
} } setTimeout(bees, 500);
So, they do it clientside. If they want to check who's blocking ads, I guess they can just check their server logs for requests for those images. I guess that should work for any kind of ad.
I didn't think so. I mean, the main host doesn't know when a request is made from your browser to the ad-server, and the ad-server obviously doesn't know that a connection was NOT made to it just now. Nonetheless, this site seems to know that their google ads have been blocked. With Adblock Plus active, in place of the ads, they put an image with "Thank you! For blocking our ads!". I haven't researched whether Adblock or Firefox somehow divulges information that make them able to tell the blockers and the rest apart, or if there is any serverside trickery they're doing. Anyone knows this?
Anyway, as the site is awesome I unblocked them:) On there and on natetrue.com you can check out lots of hacking in the broadest sense of the word, BTW. Well worth a visit.
As others have mentioned, shave in the shower. Wash your face with soap, turn the temperature up as hot as you can bear for a minute or two in order to soak your beard and heat up your skin. Bring a small mirror, and you can have a very close and comfortable shave. You don't even need foam. I had a problem with skin irritation after shaving, it's completely gone after starting to shave this way. I find that this is way better than foam and a brush in front of the basin. You might still have the problem with the razor sliding, but give it a try:) If you have access to a sauna or a turkish steam bath, the result is even better. It is considered rude to do it in a public establishment, though:)
Collecting the licence fee through taxes is bullshit. I live in Norway, and our taxes are really high already. I'll gladly pay taxes for health services, roads, police, administration, and other NECESSARY public services. Programming without commercials is no such thing. I don't own a TV by choice, and would find it very annoying to have to buy this service regardless of what I thought of it. The licence is currently at 2039 NOK, approximately 305 USD. If not owning a TV somehow became tax deductible, I'd take a different view. Otherwise, no thanks.
In Norway the licence fee is 2039 NOK, approx. 305 USD. I don't own a TV. I like movies, but am really not interested in most of the regular programming. It would really suck if this fee should be transferred to the income tax, as I then would be forced to buy a service which I do not want or need.
Common arguments for this licence is:
"preservation of the Norwegian language". Huh? I think we manage fine, thanks.
"Quality programming". Quality programming is, to me, an oxymoron. They have to make shows that compete with the commercial channels, which of course goes for the lowest common denominator.
"No commercials". All fine, but it's not true. They do have commercials at the start of most sporting events, in the form of "This broadcast is sponsored by..."
What's more, the licence collectors are a bunch of bullies. One got angry with me when I told him "No, I don't have a TV. No, you may not enter my apartment to check". They kept sending me bills for months. They simply won't believe that some people prefer reading or listening to music. What is this world coming to...
I don't really care that the licence system is inefficient, I don't want to pay for everyone else anyway.
When Norway banned smoking in bars, I was a bit annoyed, being a smoker myself. The problem was, we had perfectly good laws specifying how to keep areas of the pub smoke free. Only they weren't enforced. At all.
I think this was intentional from a perspective of health politics, in order to impose stricter laws. One restaurant I went to had ventilation at the tables, which worked so well that you couldn't smell the cigar being smoked at the next table. It could have worked well, with enforcement.
Now, a couple of years afterwards, I'm happy with going outside to get my nicotine fix. Why? It doesn't really bother me, and instead of smoking 20-30 cigarettes in a night, I'll smoke five. I'll feel better the next day, and it probably is a lot healthier.
So, even though I still feel that the ban was too harsh a measure, it has turned out well for me personally. A few of my smoking friends are still annoyed by the ban, but most feel as I do. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. Thanks a lot!
I have a question about that: In a vacuum it makes sense, but the speed of light is slower in other materials based on their refractive index. Then the time dilation must surely be less than 100%?
Can anyone enlighten me about this?
I don't get what you're driving at here. "Forest/crops" are generally not viewed as an efficient source of electrical energy, which wind power is. They are also not covered by the wikipedia quote, and now I guess that you'll claim something completely irrelevant such as that it depends on how slowly you use them. Or that you can convert crops to methane by bovine intervention, in order to create CO2-neutral fuel.
This is futile. As an excercise in futility:
I submit that "Renewable energy" is a perfectly adequate category in which to put wind energy. It seems to me you feel the need to make a distinction between something you need to cultivate in order to renew, and something which you need not, in the process attacking a definition which everyone else I know has no problems with whatsoever.
Oh, to hell with it... Don't bother replying, you won't get a response from me.
At least I got to use the term 'bovine intervention'.
Have a nice day!
Nice? :)
In addition, people should be more careful with tidal power. Harnessing it pulls the moon closer to the earth, eventually making it come crashing down through the atmosphere. Or something.
:)
As long as we are not renewable energy in amounts sufficient to cover our needs, I completely agree with you about energy efficiency.
Serious question: Where DOES actually the energy from tidal power plants come from, originally? Rotational momentum of the Earth? My lunatic hypothesis?
You go on, the rest of us will accept the established concept of Renewable energy.
"Renewable energy is energy which can be replenished at the same rate it is used."
Further down, "...wind, water, and solar power...".
If you have to start your arguments by redefining common concepts, I can only wish you good luck. If you need to employ questionable linguistics in order to do so (linguists will disagree with you, by the way), you need it even more.
I think you're just quarrelsome. Or IMHBT.
Bullshit? I don't know about you, but in my experience any version of Windows (in my case, Win2k) DOES need either:
a) Constant tuning and cleaning to keep the performance up to par.
b) Periodic reinstalls to remove the cruft that adds up after a while, particularly from installing and removing software.
I do the latter, simply because I can't be bothered to nurse an ageing Windows installation. And I am fairly competent, working in CS. With Ghost the whole process will expend about two hours of my time every couple of months, that's including installs of my regular software.
Linux, needless to say, is far better in this respect. A Linux install has never gone 'stale' on me.
If you steal from a source, make damn sure you don't copy their errors as well.
It gives you away
(Yes, the blogger actually cited his source as
Side note: I seem to recall that a major English dictionary (Oxford English?) introduced a few non-existing words in order to catch fraudulent dictionary editors copying their work illegitimately. I can't find a reference, does anyone else know anything about this?
I might have come across a little harsh, sorry for that :)
Anyway, I think it's more of a personal aversion. To me those terms seem constructed (well, duh) and unnatural, and I find them unaesthetic and inelegant. For instance, I prefer 'simulated security', which consists of well-established words with clearly defined meanings, one of more qualities of which 'simcurity' apparently lacks since you felt the need to explain the term in your post.
If you use the term 'guesstimate' you're very imprecise. I have no idea how much confidence I should put in your answer. How did you arrive at your conclusion? Either you're guessing, or you're making an estimate based on interpretation of data in some manner, which one is it? In my opinion there is no 'in between' for which 'guesstimate' is an adequate term. It might be an estimate with incomplete data, but still an estimate. Or a guess. Whichever.
Hmmmm, 'infotainvert'? I believe you're pulling my leg, sir. A Google search yields three hits, two of which points to the same Slashdot article where it was used by you, the third to a literally contentless site at www.infotainvert.com. My first impression is that it is constructed to ridicule exactly the contrived terms of which we are speaking.
Besides, you will note that English is not my first language. In Norwegian, which IS my first language, people will sometimes try to bring similar terms into everyday use. They mostly have little luck for the same reasons I stated above. Maybe we just look at languages in a different manner?
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
BTW, otherwise your post was an interesting one. Going to bed now...
While I know it is a neologism, that word is possibly one of the more annoying words I know. It's up there with 'guesstimate' and 'edutainment/infotainment'. We already have perfectly good expressions that aren't inane.
Sorry, just felt the need to say that, no offence to the good Doc.
On the contrary, that sentence made it hilarious
That sounds unreasonable. And, it seems like you're
wrong.
BTW, the fucking creeps that endorces such conduct and practices deserves whatever's coming to them, IMHO.
I was put on morphine once when I broke my wrist badly, and while I only got it for a couple of days in the hospital, what you're saying sounds very plausible.
I got what was a fairly large dosage, but I didn't get high in any manner from it. It certainly didn't tempt me to try more, not that it would have been a good idea anyway
What was also interesting is that morphine doesn't take away your pain, it makes you not care that you're in pain. Very strange experience, difficult to explain. The pain was still there, still as strong, but it didn't really bother me.
'I am serious, and don't call me Shirley!'
:)
Sorry
Yeah, that sucks. But, in lack of a print option, the repagination plugin for Firefox is your friend. :)
Works really great for those multiple-pages forum discussions as well
Short answer: They check, and they only count real impressions :)
:). What irks me is that if sites generally made ads NOT fucking annoying (more like the Google ones for instance), this would still continue to be a viable solution for a small startup site.
:)
When I consulted for an ad-financed site six years ago as a coder, we did it in three different ways:
1) Generally, smaller stores would send us their ad images, and trust us to be honest with them regarding number of impressions and clicks. As it was then a relatively small niche site (skateboarding and snowboarding), we were part of a small community and they had no reason not to. We were honest.
2) Some would have an agreement with a professional advertising firm, which hosted the images and tracked clicks. Some would ask for our numbers as well for comparison.
3) The largest ones would have their own systems, and track everything themselves. They would not give us any insight in their numbers, we had to trust them. They just supplied urls which we included in our scripts.
Obviously the ones paying for the ads wouldn't like to pay for a pageview which never showed their ad, and this made is important for us to be able to provide them with exact numbers. I wrote a small serverside app to track both impressions and clicks. If the user didn't see it, it wasn't counted. The ones doing the tracking themselves wouldn't know about ad-free pageviews in our case. In all cases they would only pay for ads that was actually displayed.
Blocking wasn't much of an issue then anyway, as it usually involved setting up a local proxy or adding to your hosts file.
As I generally don't like ads, and we largely were a community-driven site, we made the ads small and non-intrusive.
The downside to blocking is that it makes life difficult for quality sites like ours was (is
As it is, I can't stand browsing without blocking both ads and flash.
Blame it on the marketing droids of the world, they've brought this upon themselves. They should stop whining already.
This turned out to be longer than I intended, but I guess I answered your question
I did what I should have done in the first place, glanced at the source, and found this little script:So, they do it clientside. If they want to check who's blocking ads, I guess they can just check their server logs for requests for those images.
I guess that should work for any kind of ad.
I didn't think so. I mean, the main host doesn't know when a request is made from your browser to the ad-server, and the ad-server obviously doesn't know that a connection was NOT made to it just now.
Nonetheless, this site seems to know that their google ads have been blocked.
With Adblock Plus active, in place of the ads, they put an image with "Thank you! For blocking our ads!".
I haven't researched whether Adblock or Firefox somehow divulges information that make them able to tell the blockers and the rest apart, or if there is any serverside trickery they're doing. Anyone knows this?
Anyway, as the site is awesome I unblocked them
On there and on natetrue.com you can check out lots of hacking in the broadest sense of the word, BTW. Well worth a visit.
As others have mentioned, shave in the shower. :) :)
Wash your face with soap, turn the temperature up as hot as you can bear for a minute or two in order to soak your beard and heat up your skin. Bring a small mirror, and you can have a very close and comfortable shave. You don't even need foam. I had a problem with skin irritation after shaving, it's completely gone after starting to shave this way.
I find that this is way better than foam and a brush in front of the basin. You might still have the problem with the razor sliding, but give it a try
If you have access to a sauna or a turkish steam bath, the result is even better. It is considered rude to do it in a public establishment, though
Collecting the licence fee through taxes is bullshit.
I live in Norway, and our taxes are really high already. I'll gladly pay taxes for health services, roads, police, administration, and other NECESSARY public services.
Programming without commercials is no such thing. I don't own a TV by choice, and would find it very annoying to have to buy this service regardless of what I thought of it. The licence is currently at 2039 NOK, approximately 305 USD.
If not owning a TV somehow became tax deductible, I'd take a different view. Otherwise, no thanks.
In Norway the licence fee is 2039 NOK, approx. 305 USD.
I don't own a TV. I like movies, but am really not interested in most of the regular programming.
It would really suck if this fee should be transferred to the income tax, as I then would be forced to buy a service which I do not want or need.
Common arguments for this licence is:
"preservation of the Norwegian language". Huh? I think we manage fine, thanks.
"Quality programming". Quality programming is, to me, an oxymoron. They have to make shows that compete with the commercial channels, which of course goes for the lowest common denominator.
"No commercials". All fine, but it's not true. They do have commercials at the start of most sporting events, in the form of "This broadcast is sponsored by..."
What's more, the licence collectors are a bunch of bullies. One got angry with me when I told him "No, I don't have a TV. No, you may not enter my apartment to check". They kept sending me bills for months. They simply won't believe that some people prefer reading or listening to music. What is this world coming to...
I don't really care that the licence system is inefficient, I don't want to pay for everyone else anyway.
When Norway banned smoking in bars, I was a bit annoyed, being a smoker myself.
The problem was, we had perfectly good laws specifying how to keep areas of the pub smoke free. Only they weren't enforced. At all.
I think this was intentional from a perspective of health politics, in order to impose stricter laws. One restaurant I went to had ventilation at the tables, which worked so well that you couldn't smell the cigar being smoked at the next table. It could have worked well, with enforcement.
Now, a couple of years afterwards, I'm happy with going outside to get my nicotine fix. Why? It doesn't really bother me, and instead of smoking 20-30 cigarettes in a night, I'll smoke five. I'll feel better the next day, and it probably is a lot healthier.
So, even though I still feel that the ban was too harsh a measure, it has turned out well for me personally.
A few of my smoking friends are still annoyed by the ban, but most feel as I do. YMMV.
Ah, sorry then. Way past my bedtime here now. Please ignore.
I think he's perfectly aware of that, he's going for funny. :)
Did you leave your sense of humor at home today?