115 is fast for public roads, but you'll get murdered if you try to drive that thing on the track. My car cuts off at 135-140, and I'll leave that be until I upgrade to 350hp (then it's 160).
Just like all the others claiming its nice to do so, you sir do not belong behind the wheels of a car. The reasoning behind you speeding up to avoid the collision are all indicators of you being unable to proper factor in your environment.
You should see someone for that jerky knee. I've sped up to avoid an accident; I was turning left on a light that had just turned red when I noticed the guy in the opposite direction had decided to run the light. I floored it and got out of the way - had I not done that, I'd have been t-boned.
What I hate is idiots that jump on the brakes whenever something odd happens, especially in turns. Slowing down limits mobility and can make you go out of control, so you should only do it when necessary. Better to steer out of trouble.
if the car behind you is too close you should take the foot off the speeder and let him get by you since he is a hazard to both you and himself.
You can reduce the chance of being in this situation at all by staying out of the left lane when you aren't passing someone.
And the law is illegal; you just have to show standing and challenge it. Sort of a problem with our legal system, but it's not like the laws can just sit around forever.
Civil rights, huh? In london, the cops sometimes shoot people in the face for being too brown, then lie about it afterwards. In Boston, litebrites are considered terrorist devices. In Chicago, cops beat people with near impunity. But we're not as bad as Malaysia.
You argue that there has to be a 'basis' for banning weapons under the 2nd Amendment. I think this is also untrue, because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the how the system works.
We have to disagree on that, then. The 2nd amendment states that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This specifically enjoins the fed from banning arms of any sort. Arguably, it enjoins them from forbidding ownership to mental incompetents, although this is a fairly extreme interpretation. Regardless, the question to me is whether this stricture applies to the states as well; it may.
Shorting is just one component in an unhealthy trading system that has little to do with directing investment capital to those ventures with the greatest likelihood of being productive and profitable. Rather, the financial system has degenerated into a collection of gambling rings where high rollers lose and win fortunes trying to game the system.
Get some perspective - it's always been a ambling ring. That's how it started.
Yeah, parts of it (kind of long). That passage actually states that, regardless of how useful possession of small arms is or isn't in the role of opposing a government gone mad or foreign invaders, the right remains. I haven't seen any basis for banning of military weapons - the stuff I have seen makes the case that they are specifically protected - a military purpose tends to legitimize private possession. Of course, there isn't anything in the constitution that allows the banning of sporting rifles, so the fed has no prerogative in limiting firearms, according to this interpretation. The fact that the BATF and NFA exist and implications thereof are left to the reader.
You never see an episode of CSI or 24 (or whatever hip crime drama is popular) where they follow all the clues, end up killing an innocent man, and apologize to his widow for their mistake at the end of the episode.
I will agree on the specifics, but 1: 24 is a bad example - Jack Bauer is a barely controlled psychopath - James Bond minus some class and 2: if you look at other series like Law and Order, they do have (a few) cases where they screw up and an innocent person dies in custody or a rapist walks free or an assistant DA is shot by drug smugglers (that whole arc was creepy), so it isn't as dire as all that.
But if you are accused of breaking some law, "Oops" IS a defense! If I accidentally kill someone, and they accuse me of murder, I can indeed say it was an accident and get off absolutely scott-free if they believe me.
No, they can still get you for manslaughter if you're shown to be negligent; murder requires you to be trying to kill someone without good reason, but just killing someone because you're a dumbass does not.
Jacobsen did not lose his copyright based on Katzer's actions. He merely lost his ability to *distribute* his code without infringing on Katzer's patent.
Sort of. He lost his ability to distribute without threat of a lawsuit; the fact that the patent incorporated the code in question and the amount of prior art unearthed in this lawsuit sort of point to the patent being invalidated. Anyway, if you deprive someone of the distribution of code they wrote while retaining the ability yourself, that looks like theft to me.
Copyright was intended to allow people to profit from their works in order to enrich the public domain. Seeing as how that hasn't happened for some 80 years, I'd be okay with invalidating all US copyrights over the copyright limit that was active when they were created.
Pirates aren't warm fuzzy things - they're murderous scum that assault ships, kill the crew and then burn the ship if it's convenient. Killing one isn't even murder - more like pest control.
We changed from 1e6 to 2^20 because it worked better for computers. It makes sense in context, where everything is binary anyway. Science uses base 10 because people mostly use base 10 - nature doesn't care one way or the other.
Dunno about your DSL woes, but I'm actually okay with a bit of inconsistency - it's just part of life. What bothers me is the idea that we should go change something basic like how we measure megabytes when we have something that works already and everybody can agree on. The whole MiB thing is a solution in search of a problem.
Keep in mind that creating a swapfile uses dd. When dd creates a file there's nothing to specify that the file is contiguous. Therefore it's likely to be fragmented.
No it isn't - using dd doesn't make it at all likely; creating a swapfile soon after install generally means that the free space is largely contiguous, and since ext2 allocates files in fragmentation resistant ways, you will get a mostly contiguous swapfile.
Slashdot Mirror
115 is fast for public roads, but you'll get murdered if you try to drive that thing on the track. My car cuts off at 135-140, and I'll leave that be until I upgrade to 350hp (then it's 160).
Why limit yourself? Really, why the hell would you limit your choices in a potentially lethal situation?
Just like all the others claiming its nice to do so, you sir do not belong behind the wheels of a car. The reasoning behind you speeding up to avoid the collision are all indicators of you being unable to proper factor in your environment.
You should see someone for that jerky knee. I've sped up to avoid an accident; I was turning left on a light that had just turned red when I noticed the guy in the opposite direction had decided to run the light. I floored it and got out of the way - had I not done that, I'd have been t-boned.
What I hate is idiots that jump on the brakes whenever something odd happens, especially in turns. Slowing down limits mobility and can make you go out of control, so you should only do it when necessary. Better to steer out of trouble.
if the car behind you is too close you should take the foot off the speeder and let him get by you since he is a hazard to both you and himself.
You can reduce the chance of being in this situation at all by staying out of the left lane when you aren't passing someone.
And the law is illegal; you just have to show standing and challenge it. Sort of a problem with our legal system, but it's not like the laws can just sit around forever.
Civil rights, huh? In london, the cops sometimes shoot people in the face for being too brown, then lie about it afterwards. In Boston, litebrites are considered terrorist devices. In Chicago, cops beat people with near impunity. But we're not as bad as Malaysia.
So I can say that you're available on the 'ave by the nickname '3 buck chuck'? Think on what you say.
Nah, they got it from his brother bob
You argue that there has to be a 'basis' for banning weapons under the 2nd Amendment. I think this is also untrue, because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the how the system works.
We have to disagree on that, then. The 2nd amendment states that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This specifically enjoins the fed from banning arms of any sort. Arguably, it enjoins them from forbidding ownership to mental incompetents, although this is a fairly extreme interpretation. Regardless, the question to me is whether this stricture applies to the states as well; it may.
Shorting is just one component in an unhealthy trading system that has little to do with directing investment capital to those ventures with the greatest likelihood of being productive and profitable. Rather, the financial system has degenerated into a collection of gambling rings where high rollers lose and win fortunes trying to game the system.
Get some perspective - it's always been a ambling ring. That's how it started.
Yeah, parts of it (kind of long). That passage actually states that, regardless of how useful possession of small arms is or isn't in the role of opposing a government gone mad or foreign invaders, the right remains. I haven't seen any basis for banning of military weapons - the stuff I have seen makes the case that they are specifically protected - a military purpose tends to legitimize private possession. Of course, there isn't anything in the constitution that allows the banning of sporting rifles, so the fed has no prerogative in limiting firearms, according to this interpretation. The fact that the BATF and NFA exist and implications thereof are left to the reader.
You can't sign away the 4th amendment by passing a bill - you have to pass an amendment.
You never see an episode of CSI or 24 (or whatever hip crime drama is popular) where they follow all the clues, end up killing an innocent man, and apologize to his widow for their mistake at the end of the episode.
I will agree on the specifics, but 1: 24 is a bad example - Jack Bauer is a barely controlled psychopath - James Bond minus some class and 2: if you look at other series like Law and Order, they do have (a few) cases where they screw up and an innocent person dies in custody or a rapist walks free or an assistant DA is shot by drug smugglers (that whole arc was creepy), so it isn't as dire as all that.
I suggest you try out that argument, and attempt to possess the modern equivalent of a canon (say a 155mm howitzer).
Last I looked, they cost about $75k.
For that matter, the Court in DC v. Heller seems to come to the conclusion that M-16s may be banned from public carriage
Link please. All I've seen is the SCOTUS pimpslapping the DC courts and them coming up with an absurd registration process.
But if you are accused of breaking some law, "Oops" IS a defense! If I accidentally kill someone, and they accuse me of murder, I can indeed say it was an accident and get off absolutely scott-free if they believe me.
No, they can still get you for manslaughter if you're shown to be negligent; murder requires you to be trying to kill someone without good reason, but just killing someone because you're a dumbass does not.
Jacobsen did not lose his copyright based on Katzer's actions. He merely lost his ability to *distribute* his code without infringing on Katzer's patent.
Sort of. He lost his ability to distribute without threat of a lawsuit; the fact that the patent incorporated the code in question and the amount of prior art unearthed in this lawsuit sort of point to the patent being invalidated. Anyway, if you deprive someone of the distribution of code they wrote while retaining the ability yourself, that looks like theft to me.
Losing your ability to distribute your code isn't the same thing as physically losing it.
Sure it is - if I can't distribute my code, I can't share it, sell it, or really do anything but run it on my box.
Copyright was intended to allow people to profit from their works in order to enrich the public domain. Seeing as how that hasn't happened for some 80 years, I'd be okay with invalidating all US copyrights over the copyright limit that was active when they were created.
2gb per process. the servers are probably 16 and 32g for the big ones.
Pirates aren't warm fuzzy things - they're murderous scum that assault ships, kill the crew and then burn the ship if it's convenient. Killing one isn't even murder - more like pest control.
So don't do it in a fs mounted rw - easy enough. DB backups already have an established process.
We changed from 1e6 to 2^20 because it worked better for computers. It makes sense in context, where everything is binary anyway. Science uses base 10 because people mostly use base 10 - nature doesn't care one way or the other.
36 steps is a lot, but a whole lot of that is cached - a 32 entry cache is enough to make it a fairly unusual event.
Dunno about your DSL woes, but I'm actually okay with a bit of inconsistency - it's just part of life. What bothers me is the idea that we should go change something basic like how we measure megabytes when we have something that works already and everybody can agree on. The whole MiB thing is a solution in search of a problem.
WTF do I then magically need another 8GB of slow memory in the form of a swap partition?
Slow memory is better than no memory - it's not like you're going to use swap until ram gets short.
Keep in mind that creating a swapfile uses dd. When dd creates a file there's nothing to specify that the file is contiguous. Therefore it's likely to be fragmented.
No it isn't - using dd doesn't make it at all likely; creating a swapfile soon after install generally means that the free space is largely contiguous, and since ext2 allocates files in fragmentation resistant ways, you will get a mostly contiguous swapfile.