What kind of sniper misses, and doesn't take a second shot?
The good kind (would you stay put if you just gave your position away?).
Not really. I saw a show about UK special forces snipers, and as part of their testing, they try to get off as many shots as possible from one location. First they just get in position and fire. If the (expert veteran sniper) trainers can't see them using binoculars from a sniper-range sort of position (200 meters or some such), another trainer moves toward the area and they fire again. If they're still not spotted, the trainer stands right behind them and they take another shot. If the shooter is still not seen, the trainer actually touches his head. Sometimes they're so good the trainers still cannot see them, which is the goal. Now these are really elite snipers, but my point is that a trained sniper absolutely might take multiple shots from one position.
Of course if they're good, as the other guy said they would hit with the first shot anyway, so maybe my point is moot.:-)
It works like this. 5% of Dems, lets say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is way, way higher in the Libertarian camp even though the overall numbers do not come close to comparison.
You know what? The rest of us can make up numbers too!
3% of libertarians, let's say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is more like 97.4% in the Democratic camp.
I don't see how Washington's child abuse laws are related to what I said. My comment was about how a parent's actions or inactions can bring to pass a situation where a child is willing to blackmail their parents with threats of legal action. How the state would actually respond to that is an entirely separate issue. Just because Washington has foolish laws doesn't mean a parent is powerless to teach their children proper respect and boundaries.
In Washington State, the "inflexible rule of the universe" is "If mommy or daddy won't give you what you want, say you will call 911 and tell them that 'Daddy puts his pee pee in your poop hole.'"
If it gets to the point where a child is doing that to their parents (even threatening, let alone following through), the parents almost certainly did a whole bunch of things wrong for a very long time. Not that they deserve whatever happens to them, but IMO those things don't just happen out of the blue.
If you're just running air through the engine with no combustion, there's no net compression. The cylinder would draw air in on the down stroke, close the intake valve, compress the air on the upstroke, and the air would expand again on the downstroke, leaving the air at its original volume, open the exhaust valve, and expel the air. Repeat. So you would be just using up power to do nothing, unless I'm missing something that this coupler is doing.
Same mistake again. It's not either-or. We should put solar panels on houses and build big solar arrays in the desert. And a whole bunch of other stuff. There is no dichotomy to these solutions.
Your argument is called the "perfect solution fallacy", as well as being a strawman. You point out that solar panels on homes will not obviate the need for a power grid and power plants. Well, nobody (who's reasonable) is arguing that they will, at least not in the foreseeable future. So there's the strawman. Clearly solar panels on homes will not completely and by themselves solve the energy problem. Despite that, we should still use them, because we need lots of solutions to the energy problem, not one solution that takes care of the whole problem at once.
Hm...
They are practicing what they preach - most of those practices are in various stages of implementation right now in the USA. That isn't practicing what they preach. Practicing what they preach would be... I don't know, did I miss something? It seems pretty clear to me, but then I was the one who wrote it.
Did you ever hear of Free Speech Zones Good point, I forgot about that atrocity.
Actions speak much louder than words. Well, I guess you completely missed my point. TobascoKid said they are practicing what they preach, and I was refuting that. My whole point was the disparity between the administration's words and actions, and it looks like you agree with me.
What about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and extraordinary rendition to name but three. Cheney is on record saying that torture is a no-brainer if there is the potential to save (presumably american) lives... Guantanamo Bay is a mixed point. On the one hand, they of course say everything going on there is above board. On the other hand, they don't want anybody to know what's actually going on there. With Abu Ghraib, they never publicly condoned what happened, they always maintained it was a few bad apples. I'm not sure what justification they've given for extraordinary rendition, if any. As for torture, mixed messages there too. Bush has said repeatedly "we do not torture", but the way they get around that is to basically define torture as any interrogation tactics we're not currently using. Either that or classify our torture techniques.
Again, my point is that the administration's actions are not consistent with its words.
They are practicing what they preach - most of those practices are in various stages of implementation right now in the USA.
That isn't practicing what they preach. Practicing what they preach would be saying openly that it's OK to suppress dissenting speech, violate human rights, and hire terrorists. Do you hear the administration publicly admitting to all that? The only things described in the article summary that they have come out in favor of AFAIK are "warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus." Oh, and lying to the public. Bush has said that's OK on at least one occasion*. Otherwise the talk is all about freedom, liberty, democracy, and fighting terrorism.
* When asked whether an official was going to resign (I think Rumsfeld), he lied and said no even though he already knew the person was going to resign. When asked after the fact, he admitted he had lied and did not apologize or indicate he regretted it or had made any kind of mistake in doing so. His position was basically that the reporter had put him in a difficult position by asking him the question, so it was OK for him to lie about it.
You both have good points, but what I took from the GP is that this rejoinder from the open source community that you can always just fix the bugs you find is an oversimplification. Yes, it might be possible to fix the bug. But first you have to wade into an unfamiliar code base to find the bug, and I don't care how well designed or well documented the code is, that takes time. Time that has already been spent by others who you could maybe pay to do it for you (as parent said, this has nothing to do with whether the code is open). Then, as GP said, you have to be sure that you're not breaking other things. More time. Then you have to worry about what happens when the next version of the software comes along. Did they incorporate your patch? If not, what do you do, repatch and retest to see if your patch still works with the new version? More time. In the end, yes it is possible to fix things in an open source package, but IMO it is generally far from practical. OSS certainly has advantages, and I think it's great, but often the ability to edit the code yourself is, ironically, not one of them.
Yes, your anecdotal evidence is compelling. I am sure it's quite safe to extrapolate from your sample of two, and conclude that most American cars will need multiple ECU replacements.
Please tell me I do not need sarcasm tags for this post.
I don't know, not I. I was just responding to this: "IIRC, DMCA only makes it illegal to distribute hacking utils for copy protection. Hack all you want. Download hacks all you want. Just no distributing. " Which I think is incorrect. Whether unlocking a phone constitutes circumvention that's outlawed by the DMCA I don't know.
I know this is slashdot, but come on! Understand what you're responding to before you start typing. Or if you don't want to bother with reading through the comments to get the context (can't blame you), just don't reply at all.
Well, I put some numbers into a spreadsheet. If you drive 200 miles a week, get 50 mpg instead of 30, pay $9/gallon for gas, and spent an extra $20,000 for the efficient car, it will pay for itself in about 16 years. Here are some changes to the equation:
100 m/wk: 32 years 300 m/wk: 11 years 40 mpg: 26 years $30K : 24 years $10K: 8 years $4/gal: 36 years
Money could be an issue. Removing weight costs more money, and so does a hybrid drivetrain (so far anyway). Do both, and you could spend 50 grand on a compact car. Not a good proposition in today's market.
My sarcasm meter is twitching, but I'm not sure. Are you serious? What would be so horrible about that? We can choose which movies/TV shows/books to watch/read, so as long as nobody claims their work is created by someone else, I don't see the problem. Unless you're worried about people not bothering to find out who's responsible for the content they're getting. IMO such consumers deserve what they get. Why protect laziness?
Why would you want to treat intellectual and real property the same, when they're not the same? Making laws that pretend something is other than what it is will almost certainly have bad consequences, even if we can't foresee exactly what those might be. IP law in the US needs reform, but this isn't it.
Except that supply isn't really infinity, just the marginal manufacturing cost is. Restrictions are placed upon supply (you can't get your 0 marginal cost copy without plunking down $50 or whatever) by the manufacturers. Restrictions are, in some cases, placed on supply via the artificial scarcity of copyright. I say artificial because fundamentally the nature of the good is still zero marginal cost and infinite supply, with an external restriction imposed. Some software, however, is not restricted in this way.
Unless you mean only in mathematical, as a formula, that worth/value/price will not be zero unless supply is infinity. The problem is where you equate value with price. They are not the same. I'll reiterate the oxygen example. The price of oxygen is zero because of its abundance, but I think you would agree it's extremely valuable, as without it you cannot live.
Software by it's very nature means unlimited supply of the product thus making it worthless. Software is not by nature worthless, any more than oxygen is. Abundant does not mean worthless.
Software doesn't follow standard economic rules of supply and demand. Stop trying to pretend that it does. Of course it does. Supply = infinity, so price = zero. Exactly what you would expect from the relationship of supply, demand, and price.
The article claims that one benefit of gNewSense is that it is a distribution the FSF can get fully behind. If I recall, the FSF won't endorse Debian because they offer non-free if you enable it in their repositories It's not acceptable to give users the freedom to choose software that... wait I didn't say that right. The FSF wants to force users to... that sounds wrong. The FSF will not endorse anything that empowers users... OK you're right it's stupid.
I can tell you why I stopped using it - I found out about Firefox's extensions. Opera didn't have anything like it at the time, and by the time they did it was too late. I was already happy with my browser and didn't see any need to switch back. And the extension (what are they calling them these days, add ons?) "community" seems to be thriving, so I still don't. I do use Opera occasionally, but basically that's when I'm doing development work and need to log in to an apps from different browsers at the same time. I still like it better than IE - hope that's not damning with faint praise.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I saw a show about UK special forces snipers, and as part of their testing, they try to get off as many shots as possible from one location. First they just get in position and fire. If the (expert veteran sniper) trainers can't see them using binoculars from a sniper-range sort of position (200 meters or some such), another trainer moves toward the area and they fire again. If they're still not spotted, the trainer stands right behind them and they take another shot. If the shooter is still not seen, the trainer actually touches his head. Sometimes they're so good the trainers still cannot see them, which is the goal. Now these are really elite snipers, but my point is that a trained sniper absolutely might take multiple shots from one position. Of course if they're good, as the other guy said they would hit with the first shot anyway, so maybe my point is moot. :-)
It works like this. 5% of Dems, lets say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is way, way higher in the Libertarian camp even though the overall numbers do not come close to comparison.
You know what? The rest of us can make up numbers too!
3% of libertarians, let's say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is more like 97.4% in the Democratic camp.
It's fun!
I don't see how Washington's child abuse laws are related to what I said. My comment was about how a parent's actions or inactions can bring to pass a situation where a child is willing to blackmail their parents with threats of legal action. How the state would actually respond to that is an entirely separate issue. Just because Washington has foolish laws doesn't mean a parent is powerless to teach their children proper respect and boundaries.
If it gets to the point where a child is doing that to their parents (even threatening, let alone following through), the parents almost certainly did a whole bunch of things wrong for a very long time. Not that they deserve whatever happens to them, but IMO those things don't just happen out of the blue.
If you're just running air through the engine with no combustion, there's no net compression. The cylinder would draw air in on the down stroke, close the intake valve, compress the air on the upstroke, and the air would expand again on the downstroke, leaving the air at its original volume, open the exhaust valve, and expel the air. Repeat. So you would be just using up power to do nothing, unless I'm missing something that this coupler is doing.
Same mistake again. It's not either-or. We should put solar panels on houses and build big solar arrays in the desert. And a whole bunch of other stuff. There is no dichotomy to these solutions.
Your argument is called the "perfect solution fallacy", as well as being a strawman. You point out that solar panels on homes will not obviate the need for a power grid and power plants. Well, nobody (who's reasonable) is arguing that they will, at least not in the foreseeable future. So there's the strawman. Clearly solar panels on homes will not completely and by themselves solve the energy problem. Despite that, we should still use them, because we need lots of solutions to the energy problem, not one solution that takes care of the whole problem at once.
Again, my point is that the administration's actions are not consistent with its words.
That isn't practicing what they preach. Practicing what they preach would be saying openly that it's OK to suppress dissenting speech, violate human rights, and hire terrorists. Do you hear the administration publicly admitting to all that? The only things described in the article summary that they have come out in favor of AFAIK are "warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus." Oh, and lying to the public. Bush has said that's OK on at least one occasion*. Otherwise the talk is all about freedom, liberty, democracy, and fighting terrorism.
* When asked whether an official was going to resign (I think Rumsfeld), he lied and said no even though he already knew the person was going to resign. When asked after the fact, he admitted he had lied and did not apologize or indicate he regretted it or had made any kind of mistake in doing so. His position was basically that the reporter had put him in a difficult position by asking him the question, so it was OK for him to lie about it.
Awesome. Um... does that have something to do with my post? :-)
You both have good points, but what I took from the GP is that this rejoinder from the open source community that you can always just fix the bugs you find is an oversimplification. Yes, it might be possible to fix the bug. But first you have to wade into an unfamiliar code base to find the bug, and I don't care how well designed or well documented the code is, that takes time. Time that has already been spent by others who you could maybe pay to do it for you (as parent said, this has nothing to do with whether the code is open). Then, as GP said, you have to be sure that you're not breaking other things. More time. Then you have to worry about what happens when the next version of the software comes along. Did they incorporate your patch? If not, what do you do, repatch and retest to see if your patch still works with the new version? More time. In the end, yes it is possible to fix things in an open source package, but IMO it is generally far from practical. OSS certainly has advantages, and I think it's great, but often the ability to edit the code yourself is, ironically, not one of them.
Yes, your anecdotal evidence is compelling. I am sure it's quite safe to extrapolate from your sample of two, and conclude that most American cars will need multiple ECU replacements.
Please tell me I do not need sarcasm tags for this post.
I don't know, not I. I was just responding to this: "IIRC, DMCA only makes it illegal to distribute hacking utils for copy protection. Hack all you want. Download hacks all you want. Just no distributing. " Which I think is incorrect. Whether unlocking a phone constitutes circumvention that's outlawed by the DMCA I don't know.
I know this is slashdot, but come on! Understand what you're responding to before you start typing. Or if you don't want to bother with reading through the comments to get the context (can't blame you), just don't reply at all.
I believe it also makes it illegal to circumvent access controls. Even if you made the tools yourself.
Well, I put some numbers into a spreadsheet. If you drive 200 miles a week, get 50 mpg instead of 30, pay $9/gallon for gas, and spent an extra $20,000 for the efficient car, it will pay for itself in about 16 years. Here are some changes to the equation:
:-)
100 m/wk: 32 years
300 m/wk: 11 years
40 mpg: 26 years
$30K : 24 years
$10K: 8 years
$4/gal: 36 years
So of course the answer is it depends.
Money could be an issue. Removing weight costs more money, and so does a hybrid drivetrain (so far anyway). Do both, and you could spend 50 grand on a compact car. Not a good proposition in today's market.
My sarcasm meter is twitching, but I'm not sure. Are you serious? What would be so horrible about that? We can choose which movies/TV shows/books to watch/read, so as long as nobody claims their work is created by someone else, I don't see the problem. Unless you're worried about people not bothering to find out who's responsible for the content they're getting. IMO such consumers deserve what they get. Why protect laziness?
Why would you want to treat intellectual and real property the same, when they're not the same? Making laws that pretend something is other than what it is will almost certainly have bad consequences, even if we can't foresee exactly what those might be. IP law in the US needs reform, but this isn't it.
I can tell you why I stopped using it - I found out about Firefox's extensions. Opera didn't have anything like it at the time, and by the time they did it was too late. I was already happy with my browser and didn't see any need to switch back. And the extension (what are they calling them these days, add ons?) "community" seems to be thriving, so I still don't. I do use Opera occasionally, but basically that's when I'm doing development work and need to log in to an apps from different browsers at the same time. I still like it better than IE - hope that's not damning with faint praise.