My question is, do the judges sequester themselves in the same way? Or are they somehow presumed to be immune from the type of opinion swaying that jurors might experience from the media?
Here's the problem with this whole setup. Competition occurs in pursuit of resources. Fine. Congress dangles resources in the form of free money, OK... the catch is that the corporations are telling Congress what to dangle. This is not really "competition" in the free market sense. It's more like a rigged game where the result is predetermined. If it's not there yet, give it a year and it will be.
Exactly. I don't give a crap if there are 40 regulations. To assume that regulators know what they are doing ignores a lot of evidence to the contrary. OTOH, as AC pointed out, it's good to know why the dumbshits in charge made the rule I'm about to break.
OK, then the reason for low power is that it's dangerous, not because there is a regulation. I was just saying, the reason given originally for not using more power was "due to regulations."
I said "a government that uses your products in a repressive manner." If you know your widgets will be used repressively, then try to avoid making that possible. Linux/GNU software is free and openly available, so there is nothing that CAN be done by definition to prevent China from using it, unless you have suggestion. They don't profit from it. Profiting from evil is taking blood money.
By the way, I'm not suggesting no Chinese should be able to buy Windows. I'm suggesting that the Chinese government should not be sold technology that they will use to repress their people. Why is this so hard to understand? If MS is not doing so, then fine.
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
Or custom GPS solutions that only work with vendor-supplied DVD's, but are convenient for the customer to obtain and use? It's a matter of convenience.
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. First, I meant that it seems like using 1.5% of capacity at one lab for a month or even a year would not match the "DOE is getting serious" tone of this article. Second, the reporter just made it sound like 1.6 billion hours is all ORNL is ever going to get, period, like the computer somehow vanishes after that point, showing again that technology reporters are not good at reporting technology.
Well, besides devoting 0.024/1.6 = 1.5% of the time on one supercomputer at one national lab on this problem, how else is the DOE serious about this? And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct? Just curious. Science reporters love big numbers, don't they?
Steve Jobs says this is better than a phone. My immediate question is, well, does it make phone calls? Um, no. So I still need to keep my phone around with me, right? So now I have to pay $100/month instead of $70/month for mobile connectivity...
Just why is it that ultra-conservative rants about God or racial superiority or anti-socialism are instantly modded off-topic, troll, and/or flamebait until they sink beneath the thresh hold
You're seriously asking this question?
and yet completely off-topic attacks on Creationism in every story even vaguely connected with biology or evolution get modded +5 insightful?
I've started thinking about whether I could get a stand-up desk at work... I know my Mom works long shifts on her feet, as did I when I was a waiter, and it can be really draining. But as you say, perhaps it's easier to get moving... I do get quite a bit of inertia at my desk.
Standing still might be just as bad as or worse than sitting still. I think you're better off interrupting yourself for 5 minutes out of every hour to do some physical activity.
Microsoft has a proven track record and a known strategy of packing standards boards to subvert them for their own uses. I'm thinking of a recent story in which a presentation was leaked about this, cannot find the citation
There are other objects in the universe besides containers, whether open or closed. Obviously an open container is searchable, generally by trivial inspection. A closed container can be searched if it's incidental to an arrest (as opposed to arbitrarily at the officer's whim), but apparently a cell phone is like a laptop, which cannot be searched even if it appears to the officer related to the arrest.
The moral of the story: store your weed in your laptop or cell phone.
"coming soon," eh? I guess that's a little pornographic. Anyhow, judging by how long it took for Google Voice to show up after it was "coming soon," I wouldn't hold my breath for anything.
They ought to be able to use the clean data without need for obfuscation, as these climatologists were caught doing.
Um, do you have any evidence or even a link pointing to evidence for that claim? I submit this as a counter-claim:
FTFL:
"Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
when you see statements like that, how do you cope
Well, you could just try to understand from context, that they mean, five times the energy put into the system besides the energy recovered from the waste heat, which is "free" in this context.
Well, but in a flow reactor, that won't matter. It might take an ounce of water a long time to go through whatever this system is, but once it's flowing, it does not matter how much time it takes. Flow in == flow out, presumably. It will seem instantaneous after the startup time.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds good, but holding the military up as a standard for how bidding should work seems a bit suspect too. :-)
My question is, do the judges sequester themselves in the same way? Or are they somehow presumed to be immune from the type of opinion swaying that jurors might experience from the media?
Here's the problem with this whole setup. Competition occurs in pursuit of resources. Fine. Congress dangles resources in the form of free money, OK... the catch is that the corporations are telling Congress what to dangle. This is not really "competition" in the free market sense. It's more like a rigged game where the result is predetermined. If it's not there yet, give it a year and it will be.
Exactly. I don't give a crap if there are 40 regulations. To assume that regulators know what they are doing ignores a lot of evidence to the contrary. OTOH, as AC pointed out, it's good to know why the dumbshits in charge made the rule I'm about to break.
OK, then the reason for low power is that it's dangerous, not because there is a regulation. I was just saying, the reason given originally for not using more power was "due to regulations."
Well, if more power is the answer, then change the regulations. Saying "regulations are the limit" seems weird.
I said "a government that uses your products in a repressive manner." If you know your widgets will be used repressively, then try to avoid making that possible. Linux/GNU software is free and openly available, so there is nothing that CAN be done by definition to prevent China from using it, unless you have suggestion. They don't profit from it. Profiting from evil is taking blood money. By the way, I'm not suggesting no Chinese should be able to buy Windows. I'm suggesting that the Chinese government should not be sold technology that they will use to repress their people. Why is this so hard to understand? If MS is not doing so, then fine.
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
Or custom GPS solutions that only work with vendor-supplied DVD's, but are convenient for the customer to obtain and use? It's a matter of convenience.
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. First, I meant that it seems like using 1.5% of capacity at one lab for a month or even a year would not match the "DOE is getting serious" tone of this article. Second, the reporter just made it sound like 1.6 billion hours is all ORNL is ever going to get, period, like the computer somehow vanishes after that point, showing again that technology reporters are not good at reporting technology.
Well, besides devoting 0.024/1.6 = 1.5% of the time on one supercomputer at one national lab on this problem, how else is the DOE serious about this? And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct? Just curious. Science reporters love big numbers, don't they?
Steve Jobs says this is better than a phone. My immediate question is, well, does it make phone calls? Um, no. So I still need to keep my phone around with me, right? So now I have to pay $100/month instead of $70/month for mobile connectivity...
Just why is it that ultra-conservative rants about God or racial superiority or anti-socialism are instantly modded off-topic, troll, and/or flamebait until they sink beneath the thresh hold
You're seriously asking this question?
and yet completely off-topic attacks on Creationism in every story even vaguely connected with biology or evolution get modded +5 insightful?
I think you are exaggerating.
I've started thinking about whether I could get a stand-up desk at work... I know my Mom works long shifts on her feet, as did I when I was a waiter, and it can be really draining. But as you say, perhaps it's easier to get moving... I do get quite a bit of inertia at my desk.
Standing still might be just as bad as or worse than sitting still. I think you're better off interrupting yourself for 5 minutes out of every hour to do some physical activity.
They may not be successful, but I have a feeling they will try. Based on what? Nothing but their reputation, I admit!
Yep, that was it, thanks. Amusing to see how many examples are showing up, though.
Microsoft has a proven track record and a known strategy of packing standards boards to subvert them for their own uses. I'm thinking of a recent story in which a presentation was leaked about this, cannot find the citation
A rouge nation? Hmm, where pretty makeup is a civil right?
There are other objects in the universe besides containers, whether open or closed. Obviously an open container is searchable, generally by trivial inspection. A closed container can be searched if it's incidental to an arrest (as opposed to arbitrarily at the officer's whim), but apparently a cell phone is like a laptop, which cannot be searched even if it appears to the officer related to the arrest.
The moral of the story: store your weed in your laptop or cell phone.
"coming soon," eh? I guess that's a little pornographic. Anyhow, judging by how long it took for Google Voice to show up after it was "coming soon," I wouldn't hold my breath for anything.
They ought to be able to use the clean data without need for obfuscation, as these climatologists were caught doing.
Um, do you have any evidence or even a link pointing to evidence for that claim? I submit this as a counter-claim:
FTFL:
"Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."
when you see statements like that, how do you cope
Well, you could just try to understand from context, that they mean, five times the energy put into the system besides the energy recovered from the waste heat, which is "free" in this context.
the process will take longer and longer time
Well, but in a flow reactor, that won't matter. It might take an ounce of water a long time to go through whatever this system is, but once it's flowing, it does not matter how much time it takes. Flow in == flow out, presumably. It will seem instantaneous after the startup time.
So OK, what do I have to do as a user to download a torrent? Has anything changed? Let's say I'm looking for McMillon and Wife. Will Vuze still work?