Spooks also discussed how Israel was preparing to take down Iran's nuclear program and how to stay relevant when so much information that was classified was now open source and available to anyone.
Well, they got *that* part right.
They did? What part did they get right? The part about "open source" being synonymous with "leaked"? Or the part about classified information no longer being classified once it's leaked?
And Wikipedia is absolutely correct in this. Large dynamic range is what floating point arithmetic gives you, above and beyond what you get from the alternative of representing fractions using integer-based fixed-point arithmetic.
Correct. What he should have said is that fair use is not a right. That's why, when a content provider uses some sort of DRM that prevents you from making any copies whatsoever, it's not a "violation" of your fair use "rights".
The marketplace. And right now, the marketplace is saying that in some cases it's cost-effective to break the law
Completely idiotic. You clearly don't know what "the marketplace" is. Some people think it's cost effective to steal cars, so car companies should be required by law to lower their prices?
The marketplace is about transactions that both parties agree to. Someone has a product to sell, they set the price. If you agree, fine. If you don't agree, no transaction. Or you can offer to pay a lower price. If they agree, fine. If they don't agree, no transaction. You don't get to just take what you want outside of an agreed-upon transaction. If you don't like the price, go make your own music, or buy from someone selling their music at a price you agree with.
Well, when I was a kid learning this stuff (35-40 years ago) we didn't jump right into using letters to represent unknowns either. That's a bit of a conceptual leap. Instead, we had big empty boxes where they wanted you to write in the number that preserves the equality. Perhaps the ASCII representation in the example was just not optimal, and the person should have used brackets. E.g.:
Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.
A quote from a recent Slashdot post seems particularly apropos:
"I'll wager that a countryman's half of all Churchill quotations are fictions, dream'd up on a whim to aid the malarkinations of sophists and deceivers. I for one have never met the fucker, and know not one man of good sense who hath."
Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Yes, there were some conditions related to the census that were later changed ("clarified") by the 16th ammendment, but at least the power to tax in general is written right there, prior to any ammendment. Also, by your line of reasoning, freedom of speech is unconstitutional because it, too, took an amendment to create. Care to amend your position?
At first I thought the money "made from YouTube" *was* from the resulting merchandising opportunity it brought about. But the article summary suggests otherwise. How does one make money *directly* from YouTube?
Funniest thing I've read in months. I can't believe this is only at score:4.
Re:Does it have a monitor and full-size keyboard?
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 1
Yes, as peripherals attached to my docking station. This eliminates the desktop advantage at my desk. How big is your monitor and keyboard at the beach?
I don't think it means what you or the GP suggest. What you and the GP write are nonsensical contradictions. What the original poster wrote is entirely reasonable. "Certainly" means "with a probability of 100%". "Almost certainly" means "with a probability of some number very close to 100%". It doesn't mean "I think maybe this definitely happened" or "I'm certain that this maybe happened" or any other similar construct.
They are potential life forms and not to be used. What is it about potential life forms that forbids them from being used, yet allows you and your wife to allow them to be destroyed by not implanting them in her womb? Seriously, I'm just trying to understand.
I don't understand this. Jesus didn't claim to be a prophet. He claimed to be the Son of God. To anyone who is not a Christian, Jesus is therefore a false prophet, an insane person, or a blasphemer. How can he be a prophet?
Maximum individual freedom? Are you kidding me? How about the freedom to marry the person you love without the government insisting on knowing what kind of plumbing you each have between your legs? How about freedom from illegal warrant-less wiretaps when there's a perfectly legal means for achieving the desired effect, even retroactively (within 72 hours)? How about freedom from unnecessary wars based on known-to-be-false intelligence? How about the freedom to control your own reproductive organs? How about the freedom to buy books or borrow them from the library without having those records inspected by the FBI? I could go one, of course, but I believe I've made my point.
If they are accelerated to near c, then according to the relativistic energy-momentum equations they should have colossal mass, not miniscule
(ob-IANAP) "Mass" means "proper mass" (or "rest mass"). The concept of "relativistic mass" (i.e. calling it such) has been out of vogue for more than 40 years.
We northern aggressors call it the War to End the Obscene Hypocrisy of Proclaiming that All Men Are Created Equal While Forcing Some Into Slavery. That's kind of a long name, so sometimes we just say "Civil War" to save time. But we try to use the proper name whenever practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Spooks also discussed how Israel was preparing to take down Iran's nuclear program and how to stay relevant when so much information that was classified was now open source and available to anyone.
Well, they got *that* part right.
They did? What part did they get right? The part about "open source" being synonymous with "leaked"? Or the part about classified information no longer being classified once it's leaked?
And Wikipedia is absolutely correct in this. Large dynamic range is what floating point arithmetic gives you, above and beyond what you get from the alternative of representing fractions using integer-based fixed-point arithmetic.
And that's just the Homo Sapiens.
Correct. What he should have said is that fair use is not a right. That's why, when a content provider uses some sort of DRM that prevents you from making any copies whatsoever, it's not a "violation" of your fair use "rights".
And for the record, no Federal law can override state criminal statutes.
Except when the federal law claims that it does.
Not always.
Yes, always.
Or, like many people, you can download it from the Internet.
Presumably, you mean illegally. Well you can illegally appropriate cars when you don't like the price. Not a very strong point there.
Lots of laws are commonly ignored.
Completely idiotic. You clearly don't know what "the marketplace" is. Some people think it's cost effective to steal cars, so car companies should be required by law to lower their prices?
The marketplace is about transactions that both parties agree to. Someone has a product to sell, they set the price. If you agree, fine. If you don't agree, no transaction. Or you can offer to pay a lower price. If they agree, fine. If they don't agree, no transaction. You don't get to just take what you want outside of an agreed-upon transaction. If you don't like the price, go make your own music, or buy from someone selling their music at a price you agree with.
Bold statement, Mr. Scrameustache.
Hmmm. I think there's some truth here. What's Gordon Ramsay's nationality? And what's the name of his show?
Well, when I was a kid learning this stuff (35-40 years ago) we didn't jump right into using letters to represent unknowns either. That's a bit of a conceptual leap. Instead, we had big empty boxes where they wanted you to write in the number that preserves the equality. Perhaps the ASCII representation in the example was just not optimal, and the person should have used brackets. E.g.:
4+3+2 = [] + 2. <== fill in the box.
Fermatification?
Frankly, I don't buy it that Churchill actually made the church quote. Until someone proves differently, I think someone pulled that out of their ass.
A quote from a recent Slashdot post seems particularly apropos:
Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
Yes, there were some conditions related to the census that were later changed ("clarified") by the 16th ammendment, but at least the power to tax in general is written right there, prior to any ammendment. Also, by your line of reasoning, freedom of speech is unconstitutional because it, too, took an amendment to create. Care to amend your position?
Actually, that was Richard Pryor to Eddie Murphy (in reference to Bill Cosby), as recounted by Eddie Murphy.
Thanks!
At first I thought the money "made from YouTube" *was* from the resulting merchandising opportunity it brought about. But the article summary suggests otherwise. How does one make money *directly* from YouTube?
Funniest thing I've read in months. I can't believe this is only at score:4.
Yes, as peripherals attached to my docking station. This eliminates the desktop advantage at my desk. How big is your monitor and keyboard at the beach?
I don't think it means what you or the GP suggest. What you and the GP write are nonsensical contradictions. What the original poster wrote is entirely reasonable. "Certainly" means "with a probability of 100%". "Almost certainly" means "with a probability of some number very close to 100%". It doesn't mean "I think maybe this definitely happened" or "I'm certain that this maybe happened" or any other similar construct.
They are potential life forms and not to be used.
What is it about potential life forms that forbids them from being used, yet allows you and your wife to allow them to be destroyed by not implanting them in her womb? Seriously, I'm just trying to understand.
I don't understand this. Jesus didn't claim to be a prophet. He claimed to be the Son of God. To anyone who is not a Christian, Jesus is therefore a false prophet, an insane person, or a blasphemer. How can he be a prophet?
What's different about these? This sort of thing has been available in garden and landscaping shops for years.
Maximum individual freedom? Are you kidding me? How about the freedom to marry the person you love without the government insisting on knowing what kind of plumbing you each have between your legs? How about freedom from illegal warrant-less wiretaps when there's a perfectly legal means for achieving the desired effect, even retroactively (within 72 hours)? How about freedom from unnecessary wars based on known-to-be-false intelligence? How about the freedom to control your own reproductive organs? How about the freedom to buy books or borrow them from the library without having those records inspected by the FBI? I could go one, of course, but I believe I've made my point.
(ob-IANAP)
"Mass" means "proper mass" (or "rest mass"). The concept of "relativistic mass" (i.e. calling it such) has been out of vogue for more than 40 years.
We northern aggressors call it the War to End the Obscene Hypocrisy of Proclaiming that All Men Are Created Equal While Forcing Some Into Slavery. That's kind of a long name, so sometimes we just say "Civil War" to save time. But we try to use the proper name whenever practical.