Why would a small power plant want to use hydrogen for energy storage? Its energy density by volume absolutely sucks, so it's necessary to use very high pressure tanks, which have to be able to contain really teeny molecules and resist embrittlement. It's more of a headache than it's worth.
C++, properly written*, has memory management and real arrays. Most non-C++ programmers do not even realize how good it is.
*Properly written here means code that does nothing obviously bad, rather than code that is perfectly written. Code reviews are adequate to enforce the "properly written" part.
"Faith", like many words, can have multiple meanings. As far as outside the US-speaking world goes, wasn't Kierkegaard pretty emphatic on faith in God without reasons?
C'mon. A camera with film? At least make it digital. It's a lot cheaper and easier to use in the long run. Do they even make such a restricted cell phone? We thought it would be useful for my son to be able to call us if necessary, and discussed not getting it out at school.
The problem with being too restrictive a parent is that you may push your kid(s) to do things outside the home that may be worse from your point of view and may not be supervised at all. You have to let them screw up sometimes, or they're not going to learn what they should. Your job is to make sure they don't screw up too bad, and that's easier if they're at home when they do at least some dumb things. Think about it.
One thing I do hope you do is stay flexible. You say your child isn't in high school yet. Your child will be different then, and different rules will be appropriate.
Last I checked, something over half the world self-identified as Christian or Muslim, both of whom believe in God. Jews also believe in God, but not in significant numbers. There are other religions, who may have gods (the Hindus have lots of them), and you might consider the Buddha and the Tao as something like gods.
TFS listed several shows that have a 90% male audience, and none that had a 90% female audience. I wouldn't expect anyone to RTFA, but I thought it was reasonable to RTFS.
If they're killed in the act, (a) we know they're guilty, and (b) the act of killing has an immediate beneficial effect, since you can't legally kill someone in the act unless they're being a dangerous threat.
One problem with executing the wrong guy is that you've got a murderer around who's not only escaped conviction but scrutiny. Nobody's going to be looking for the real murderer, and even if some amateur finds the guy it's going to be awful embarrassing to prosecute him or her.
This is one of the lessons of the French Dreyfus affair in the 19th Century: after he was convicted on really flimsy evidence, the army had to let the real spy, Esterhazy, go free or admit that they lied about Dreyfus.
Sure. You build up carbon dioxide, you breathe. Carbon dioxide goes away. That's how it normally works, and breathing is not normally uncomfortable. The difference is that you're also losing rather than gaining oxygen, so you pass out pretty fast and die peacefully not too long later. I don't know if a person would get to the point of wanting to breathe again, but it remains a very humane execution method.
Seems to me it would reduce recidivism. If applied to any but the very worst crimes, it would encourage crime. If I'm committing armed robbery, and am looking at five or ten years if I'm caught, and life if I kill the victim, I'm likely to not want to kill. If it's a death sentence either way, whether to kill or not depends on which way I'm more likely to be caught, and the police are not all that good at finding murderers that have no obvious connection to the victim.
I could even argue that the Nazis were, usually, more "humane" than that because they optimized their gas chambers for efficiency, not maximum suffering.
As part of the efficiency, they used a commercial preparation of cyanide. Zyklon-B contained an irritant to try to make sure nobody was going to hang around a leak, and deliberately made the irritant intolerable at lethal concentrations. They didn't optimize for maximum suffering, but the effect was much the same.
Had they used pure cyanide, you might have a point. Not a good one, but a point.
"Faith" has been used to mean "belief without evidence" by quite a few people, and it seems to be a pretty accepted definition. Many theists have faith in one or more gods, and don't have evidence. I think that particular linguistic point has been lost.
I've never met this Prince Phillip guy, but a reasonable definition of "god" might well include "superhuman", and all the accounts I have received of the prince make him appear to be human. I'm willing to believe that people believe him to be a god, and worship him, but unless I personally believe in his divinity believing in his existence doesn't make me a theist. Many societies have believed the Sun and Moon were gods, and worshipped them, but if I attacked atheism by pointing up and saying "See?" I wouldn't get very far.
I don't think you're right. Not every depressive gets into bad situations, and those that do often get into only a few. You don't want to encourage a depressive to give up, and in some cases walking away can feel like giving up. There are no good generally applicable answers.
Yeah, but there's a difference between posting well-sourced relevant material on an article and having had it reverted without explanation (never edited that page again) and violating the rules, however unevenly applied. If the guy was posting unsourced material, the solution is to collect sources (as I did with another reverted edit).
If $THEY pick you up and try to talk to you without your lawyer present, STFU. $THEY can't legally require you to talk. Don't lie, just insist that you aren't going to talk without your lawyer. $THEY can put you into a situation with severe legal ramifications without access to a lawyer, yes, but they can't make you talk, and they will have to let you lawyer up ("habeas corpus") at some point.
Coercion here means that there's a court order, which takes money and time and energy to fight, and she cooperates or is jailed for contempt of court. She isn't going to disappear, and her lawyer will be able to talk to her. She can be held in jail indefinitely as long as she refuses to cooperate.
The Ken Thompson hack could work in a limited environment, with only one compiler for the applicable code, which is what most people had at the time. It became obsolete with the introduction of gcc.
I'm not arguing in a circle. Civilization is not defined as a form of society that has taxes. Civilization is a form of society in which we have some stability, economic specialization, infrastructure, and some sort of protection against certain classes of bad things happening. It generally requires taxes of some sort.
So, if you want some sort of protection from thieves and people who would lie to you and trick you into buying and ingesting poison thinking it was food, a way to get from point A to point B, and other similar things, you want civilization, and if you have the ability you will be required to pay a share.
Do you realize how frippin' many things you get from a limited selection because you're getting what looks best at the time? Do you invest time and energy into making sure you can buy a car you like, or do you go to a dealer and make a choice? How much work do you do inside a political party to try to make sure you have a candidate you like that you can vote for? Other people control what books and music you've got readily available, and what movies you can watch. I buy what food a limited range of grocery stores stock. You're pretending software is so special that everyone should be involved in it, and that makes as much sense as saying that everyone should be involved in clothing design.
Stallman is a visionary, and has contributed tremendously to the software community. He also rants and has bad hygiene, and his opinions are sufficiently extreme to turn people off. One time he made an offhand comment that video game consoles were immoral, since they used proprietary software, and left a lasting negative impression on someone who then posted on Groklaw's off-topic discussion forum. He is great at seeing what sort of problems we're likely to run into long before we run into them. His "right to read" talks came long before the Kindle and Nook used DRM. He's lousy at convincing people in general to go along with him.
APIs have been held to be copyrightable. That means that, to copy without a license, you need to have a valid defense against infringement. You don't get to start by saying that copying an API is not infringement and doing whatever you like with it; you present your use and say why it isn't really infringing, typically by invoking an argument about functionality. If you had to copy the API to provide functionality, that's cool. If you did it for some other reason, such as not wanting to make your own, that isn't.
APIs are creative. To offer some service, the API designer must select which functions to provide, the names of the functions, and the parameters. If you and I were to design APIs for the same thing, we'd wind up with similar overall designs and different sets of functions, function names, and parameters. The functionality argument only comes in when the API is in use in some way, and there's a reason to be compatible with it.
Oracle is arguing that, since regular Java programs and Android programs aren't at all interchangeable, the API copying is for convenience, not functionality, and hence is infringing. Whether this is true is a question of fact, as far as the courts go, and I'm not going to say one way or another.
I'm saying that people lack specialized knowledge in all sorts of areas. I have no clue how to run a farm, for example. You're the one saying that people lacking specialized knowledge in a particular field are stupid. If you want to call everyone stupid, including you and me, I suppose you can do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would a small power plant want to use hydrogen for energy storage? Its energy density by volume absolutely sucks, so it's necessary to use very high pressure tanks, which have to be able to contain really teeny molecules and resist embrittlement. It's more of a headache than it's worth.
C++, properly written*, has memory management and real arrays. Most non-C++ programmers do not even realize how good it is.
*Properly written here means code that does nothing obviously bad, rather than code that is perfectly written. Code reviews are adequate to enforce the "properly written" part.
Thanks. I never quite got Kierkegaard. Or existentialism as much as I wanted.
"Faith", like many words, can have multiple meanings. As far as outside the US-speaking world goes, wasn't Kierkegaard pretty emphatic on faith in God without reasons?
C'mon. A camera with film? At least make it digital. It's a lot cheaper and easier to use in the long run. Do they even make such a restricted cell phone? We thought it would be useful for my son to be able to call us if necessary, and discussed not getting it out at school.
The problem with being too restrictive a parent is that you may push your kid(s) to do things outside the home that may be worse from your point of view and may not be supervised at all. You have to let them screw up sometimes, or they're not going to learn what they should. Your job is to make sure they don't screw up too bad, and that's easier if they're at home when they do at least some dumb things. Think about it.
One thing I do hope you do is stay flexible. You say your child isn't in high school yet. Your child will be different then, and different rules will be appropriate.
Last I checked, something over half the world self-identified as Christian or Muslim, both of whom believe in God. Jews also believe in God, but not in significant numbers. There are other religions, who may have gods (the Hindus have lots of them), and you might consider the Buddha and the Tao as something like gods.
There's plenty of men whining about women also. We're keeping this equal-opportunity.
TFS listed several shows that have a 90% male audience, and none that had a 90% female audience. I wouldn't expect anyone to RTFA, but I thought it was reasonable to RTFS.
If they're killed in the act, (a) we know they're guilty, and (b) the act of killing has an immediate beneficial effect, since you can't legally kill someone in the act unless they're being a dangerous threat.
If you're cool with executing innocent people, I suppose you would see the appeals process as pointless.
Wouldn't you need some way to get rid of the oxygen and carbon dioxide? It seems to me that what fills the bag or mask is pretty much irrelevant.
One problem with executing the wrong guy is that you've got a murderer around who's not only escaped conviction but scrutiny. Nobody's going to be looking for the real murderer, and even if some amateur finds the guy it's going to be awful embarrassing to prosecute him or her.
This is one of the lessons of the French Dreyfus affair in the 19th Century: after he was convicted on really flimsy evidence, the army had to let the real spy, Esterhazy, go free or admit that they lied about Dreyfus.
Sure. You build up carbon dioxide, you breathe. Carbon dioxide goes away. That's how it normally works, and breathing is not normally uncomfortable. The difference is that you're also losing rather than gaining oxygen, so you pass out pretty fast and die peacefully not too long later. I don't know if a person would get to the point of wanting to breathe again, but it remains a very humane execution method.
Seems to me it would reduce recidivism. If applied to any but the very worst crimes, it would encourage crime. If I'm committing armed robbery, and am looking at five or ten years if I'm caught, and life if I kill the victim, I'm likely to not want to kill. If it's a death sentence either way, whether to kill or not depends on which way I'm more likely to be caught, and the police are not all that good at finding murderers that have no obvious connection to the victim.
As part of the efficiency, they used a commercial preparation of cyanide. Zyklon-B contained an irritant to try to make sure nobody was going to hang around a leak, and deliberately made the irritant intolerable at lethal concentrations. They didn't optimize for maximum suffering, but the effect was much the same.
Had they used pure cyanide, you might have a point. Not a good one, but a point.
"Faith" has been used to mean "belief without evidence" by quite a few people, and it seems to be a pretty accepted definition. Many theists have faith in one or more gods, and don't have evidence. I think that particular linguistic point has been lost.
I've never met this Prince Phillip guy, but a reasonable definition of "god" might well include "superhuman", and all the accounts I have received of the prince make him appear to be human. I'm willing to believe that people believe him to be a god, and worship him, but unless I personally believe in his divinity believing in his existence doesn't make me a theist. Many societies have believed the Sun and Moon were gods, and worshipped them, but if I attacked atheism by pointing up and saying "See?" I wouldn't get very far.
I don't think you're right. Not every depressive gets into bad situations, and those that do often get into only a few. You don't want to encourage a depressive to give up, and in some cases walking away can feel like giving up. There are no good generally applicable answers.
Yeah, but there's a difference between posting well-sourced relevant material on an article and having had it reverted without explanation (never edited that page again) and violating the rules, however unevenly applied. If the guy was posting unsourced material, the solution is to collect sources (as I did with another reverted edit).
If $THEY pick you up and try to talk to you without your lawyer present, STFU. $THEY can't legally require you to talk. Don't lie, just insist that you aren't going to talk without your lawyer. $THEY can put you into a situation with severe legal ramifications without access to a lawyer, yes, but they can't make you talk, and they will have to let you lawyer up ("habeas corpus") at some point.
Coercion here means that there's a court order, which takes money and time and energy to fight, and she cooperates or is jailed for contempt of court. She isn't going to disappear, and her lawyer will be able to talk to her. She can be held in jail indefinitely as long as she refuses to cooperate.
The Ken Thompson hack could work in a limited environment, with only one compiler for the applicable code, which is what most people had at the time. It became obsolete with the introduction of gcc.
I'm not arguing in a circle. Civilization is not defined as a form of society that has taxes. Civilization is a form of society in which we have some stability, economic specialization, infrastructure, and some sort of protection against certain classes of bad things happening. It generally requires taxes of some sort.
So, if you want some sort of protection from thieves and people who would lie to you and trick you into buying and ingesting poison thinking it was food, a way to get from point A to point B, and other similar things, you want civilization, and if you have the ability you will be required to pay a share.
Do you realize how frippin' many things you get from a limited selection because you're getting what looks best at the time? Do you invest time and energy into making sure you can buy a car you like, or do you go to a dealer and make a choice? How much work do you do inside a political party to try to make sure you have a candidate you like that you can vote for? Other people control what books and music you've got readily available, and what movies you can watch. I buy what food a limited range of grocery stores stock. You're pretending software is so special that everyone should be involved in it, and that makes as much sense as saying that everyone should be involved in clothing design.
Stallman is a visionary, and has contributed tremendously to the software community. He also rants and has bad hygiene, and his opinions are sufficiently extreme to turn people off. One time he made an offhand comment that video game consoles were immoral, since they used proprietary software, and left a lasting negative impression on someone who then posted on Groklaw's off-topic discussion forum. He is great at seeing what sort of problems we're likely to run into long before we run into them. His "right to read" talks came long before the Kindle and Nook used DRM. He's lousy at convincing people in general to go along with him.
APIs have been held to be copyrightable. That means that, to copy without a license, you need to have a valid defense against infringement. You don't get to start by saying that copying an API is not infringement and doing whatever you like with it; you present your use and say why it isn't really infringing, typically by invoking an argument about functionality. If you had to copy the API to provide functionality, that's cool. If you did it for some other reason, such as not wanting to make your own, that isn't.
APIs are creative. To offer some service, the API designer must select which functions to provide, the names of the functions, and the parameters. If you and I were to design APIs for the same thing, we'd wind up with similar overall designs and different sets of functions, function names, and parameters. The functionality argument only comes in when the API is in use in some way, and there's a reason to be compatible with it.
Oracle is arguing that, since regular Java programs and Android programs aren't at all interchangeable, the API copying is for convenience, not functionality, and hence is infringing. Whether this is true is a question of fact, as far as the courts go, and I'm not going to say one way or another.
I'm saying that people lack specialized knowledge in all sorts of areas. I have no clue how to run a farm, for example. You're the one saying that people lacking specialized knowledge in a particular field are stupid. If you want to call everyone stupid, including you and me, I suppose you can do that.