Leaving aside how ridiculous your argument is, I'll poke some holes in your math instead. To paraphrase XKCD, space is not high, space is fast. LEO is 7.8 km/s. Accelerating 118 tonnes to 7.8 km/s takes 3590 GJ, significantly more than the 232 GJ you mention.
I'm not really sure what the point of changing to curved tabs is except to make Firefox look exactly like Chrome. And I'll be pretty annoyed if this takes away the ability to enable the menu bar at all.
Most people that want to post on Elitist Jerks are fairly well behaved and well informed people to begin with (Why else would they visit the EJ forum in the first place?)
If you think this you've probably never read The Banhammer (the forum on EJ where infractions are posted) or The Thread of Ultimate Suck (where bad posts are moved, usually after receiving said infraction).
in the meantime the official forums have to handle what must be 100 times the volume with a much lower average post quality even before moderation. Just saying "Well get more moderators then!!!" probably doesn't scale well to that sort of post volume.
Moderating forums scales fairly well with more people. A major problem with the official Blizzard forums is how much you have to do before you get banned. A much harsher policy would clean the forums up tremendously. Or so I'd like to think anyways.
It's pretty clear that Blizzard either doesn't think they can or is not willing to do the level of moderating that is required to get forums of the quality found at Elitist Jerks. It's also clear that this proposed change had nothing to do with reducing forum trolling.
Are you saying then spent none? Becuase I followed the timeline and they already had like 5 different things to try within days of it happening. The problem is they should not have been forced to drill so deeply in the first place. Drilling in shallower water is MUCH safer although more politically incorrect.
Actually, i find it's the other way around. Nobody blinks an eye when Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo brings out a new line of consoles, vendor locked-in to the max, only running apps that require their approval and signature, a process which costs tens of thousands $$. But if Apple does it for their iPhone, bring out the tar and feathers!
There's plenty of complaining about that too. Have you somehow missed the many articles on Slashdot about homebrew for the Nintendo Wii and DS? And the complaining about Sony taking away Linux for the PS3? And I'm pretty sure we had at least one cheering Microsoft for allowing indie development the XBox 360, as well as a million articles about running Linux on the XBox.
If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.
What are you smoking? The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it) about the communications systems in the country. Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC. Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress, but to try to imply that it's totally outrageous for the FCC to regulate on net neutrality is bogus.
How is the hardware R&D any more valid than software R&D? I have a hard time figuring out this distinction. So far as I can tell, if you're against software patents, you're either against all patents, or you're a hypocrite.
In typical Slashdot form, I present a car analogy. Software patents are like patenting the idea of an engine (I put gas in and it makes the wheels turn). Once you've patented your software, no one else can make engines without your permission. Hardware patents are like patenting a specific kind of engine (I put gas in and it does this and that and the wheels turn). Other people can still make engines without paying you royalties as long as their engines don't work exactly the same way as your engine.
Unless you have some way of getting a discount with T-Mobile (they offer AAA discounts, or you might have one through your job). Then you can get a discount on the Even More plan (with contract), but not on the Even More Plus plan. With a 15% discount, the contract plan is only $8/month more than the no contract plan. It is a step in the right direction that T-Mobile offers cheaper no contract plans (I have one), but they aren't as good a deal as they look on paper.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
It's clear from these paragraphs that you have no idea what the GPL actually does or what RMS's goal is. A much better comparison between DRM and the GPL is that they are total opposites. As you say, DRM restricts users to protect the artist from having their property stolen. The GPL empowers users to change software any way they would like. If it restricts anyone, the GPL restricts developers since they can no longer control their code back once they release it.
The problem is: there's virtually no middle ground.
You either pay through your nose for the business-class seats or you have to fly in cattle-like economic class.
Personally, I don't want champagne, I don't want caviar - I just want some additional leg and elbow space. I'll gladly pay 1.5x normal rate for it! But usually there's just no such choice:(
Isn't this exactly what United's Economy Plus offers (Economy + extra legroom for a slightly more expensive ticket)?
Am I the only one that is completely confused by how difficult it seems to be to make an electronic voting machine and have it actually work?
First, I'd like to point out that it is nearly impossible to make an electronic voting machine of any kind and prove to everyone that it works given the standard limitations on voting in the US. This limitation is that there is no way to prove to anyone how you voted. Given that limitation, and all the possibilities for sabotage (hardware and software), proving that your system works is nearly impossible. (I am aware that there exists cryptographic methods of doing this, but I sure wouldn't trust Diebold to set it up right.)
However, more importantly than that, and referenced in the article (sorry, I did read it), the voting system has to not only be provable to computer scientists, but Joe Average has to have faith that it counts accurately as well. This is pretty much impossible without voter verified paper ballots.
:() defines a function named : with no arguments. {:|:& } is what the function does.:|: calls itself twice (with a pipe between the two), and the & at the end runs it in the background as a new process. The ; finishes off that command, then the last : runs the function, starting the fork bomb (as each run starts 2 new processes, each of which starts 2 new processes...).
I have to say a word of agreement here; GWT blows the pants off of anything else I can find
Forgive my ignorance here, but why is Google using jQuery in their Google Code site if they could have used GWT?
Google has said that many of their older websites use JavaScript of some sort instead of GWT because GWT had not yet been created when they started work on them, and they feel it would be too much work to move them to GWT. There are some examples of newer Google sites that use GWT that you can look up.
With pen and paper voting in the US, we'd need 10 times as many people to rig the election, thus greatly increasing the chance that someone would talk about it. Whereas with computerized voting machines, we don't have that problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving aside how ridiculous your argument is, I'll poke some holes in your math instead. To paraphrase XKCD, space is not high, space is fast. LEO is 7.8 km/s. Accelerating 118 tonnes to 7.8 km/s takes 3590 GJ, significantly more than the 232 GJ you mention.
I'm not really sure what the point of changing to curved tabs is except to make Firefox look exactly like Chrome. And I'll be pretty annoyed if this takes away the ability to enable the menu bar at all.
At least in Word there's an option after you paste to remove the extra formatting. It shows up as a dropdown at the end of your pasted text.
What issues have you had with Lasership? They haven't messed up anything from Amazon to me yet.
There's also the Norby series (apparently mostly by Janet Asimov according to Wikipedia) which I quite enjoyed as a kid.
Dinosaur Comics, xkcd, and SMBC are all blacked out as well.
But the Outsiders only went to We Made It because of a Puppeteer deployed starseed lure.
Most people that want to post on Elitist Jerks are fairly well behaved and well informed people to begin with (Why else would they visit the EJ forum in the first place?)
If you think this you've probably never read The Banhammer (the forum on EJ where infractions are posted) or The Thread of Ultimate Suck (where bad posts are moved, usually after receiving said infraction).
in the meantime the official forums have to handle what must be 100 times the volume with a much lower average post quality even before moderation. Just saying "Well get more moderators then!!!" probably doesn't scale well to that sort of post volume.
Moderating forums scales fairly well with more people. A major problem with the official Blizzard forums is how much you have to do before you get banned. A much harsher policy would clean the forums up tremendously. Or so I'd like to think anyways.
It's pretty clear that Blizzard either doesn't think they can or is not willing to do the level of moderating that is required to get forums of the quality found at Elitist Jerks. It's also clear that this proposed change had nothing to do with reducing forum trolling.
Are you saying then spent none? Becuase I followed the timeline and they already had like 5 different things to try within days of it happening. The problem is they should not have been forced to drill so deeply in the first place. Drilling in shallower water is MUCH safer although more politically incorrect.
Yeah, it's so much safer that the last major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was in 50 meters of water and took 10 months to stop.
Well, since tax rates in the US are the lowest they've been for decades, I'm not sure what you have to complain about.
Actually, i find it's the other way around. Nobody blinks an eye when Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo brings out a new line of consoles, vendor locked-in to the max, only running apps that require their approval and signature, a process which costs tens of thousands $$. But if Apple does it for their iPhone, bring out the tar and feathers!
There's plenty of complaining about that too. Have you somehow missed the many articles on Slashdot about homebrew for the Nintendo Wii and DS? And the complaining about Sony taking away Linux for the PS3? And I'm pretty sure we had at least one cheering Microsoft for allowing indie development the XBox 360, as well as a million articles about running Linux on the XBox.
If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.
What are you smoking? The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it) about the communications systems in the country. Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC. Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress, but to try to imply that it's totally outrageous for the FCC to regulate on net neutrality is bogus.
How is the hardware R&D any more valid than software R&D? I have a hard time figuring out this distinction. So far as I can tell, if you're against software patents, you're either against all patents, or you're a hypocrite.
In typical Slashdot form, I present a car analogy.
Software patents are like patenting the idea of an engine (I put gas in and it makes the wheels turn). Once you've patented your software, no one else can make engines without your permission.
Hardware patents are like patenting a specific kind of engine (I put gas in and it does this and that and the wheels turn). Other people can still make engines without paying you royalties as long as their engines don't work exactly the same way as your engine.
Unless you have some way of getting a discount with T-Mobile (they offer AAA discounts, or you might have one through your job). Then you can get a discount on the Even More plan (with contract), but not on the Even More Plus plan. With a 15% discount, the contract plan is only $8/month more than the no contract plan. It is a step in the right direction that T-Mobile offers cheaper no contract plans (I have one), but they aren't as good a deal as they look on paper.
T-Mobile told me that company discounts didn't apply to Even More Plus plans. If there's some way to get them, please share.
It's like trying to make a math game fun.
Obviously you never played Number Munchers as a kid.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
It's clear from these paragraphs that you have no idea what the GPL actually does or what RMS's goal is. A much better comparison between DRM and the GPL is that they are total opposites. As you say, DRM restricts users to protect the artist from having their property stolen. The GPL empowers users to change software any way they would like. If it restricts anyone, the GPL restricts developers since they can no longer control their code back once they release it.
>_>;;
The problem is: there's virtually no middle ground.
You either pay through your nose for the business-class seats or you have to fly in cattle-like economic class.
Personally, I don't want champagne, I don't want caviar - I just want some additional leg and elbow space. I'll gladly pay 1.5x normal rate for it! But usually there's just no such choice :(
Isn't this exactly what United's Economy Plus offers (Economy + extra legroom for a slightly more expensive ticket)?
Am I the only one that is completely confused by how difficult it seems to be to make an electronic voting machine and have it actually work?
First, I'd like to point out that it is nearly impossible to make an electronic voting machine of any kind and prove to everyone that it works given the standard limitations on voting in the US. This limitation is that there is no way to prove to anyone how you voted. Given that limitation, and all the possibilities for sabotage (hardware and software), proving that your system works is nearly impossible. (I am aware that there exists cryptographic methods of doing this, but I sure wouldn't trust Diebold to set it up right.)
However, more importantly than that, and referenced in the article (sorry, I did read it), the voting system has to not only be provable to computer scientists, but Joe Average has to have faith that it counts accurately as well. This is pretty much impossible without voter verified paper ballots.
Even more interesting than what is there is what is not. For example, no mention of NASA (and yes, the site is indexed on Google already).
:(){ :|:& };:
I have to say a word of agreement here; GWT blows the pants off of anything else I can find
Forgive my ignorance here, but why is Google using jQuery in their Google Code site if they could have used GWT?
Google has said that many of their older websites use JavaScript of some sort instead of GWT because GWT had not yet been created when they started work on them, and they feel it would be too much work to move them to GWT. There are some examples of newer Google sites that use GWT that you can look up.
With pen and paper voting in the US, we'd need 10 times as many people to rig the election, thus greatly increasing the chance that someone would talk about it. Whereas with computerized voting machines, we don't have that problem.