I don't know if you went through and read the survey, but it turns out that mainline Protestants have a higher rate of accepting evolution than the "unaffiliated".
Without looking at the KDBUS code, there are typically two answers to that question.
1. It's the easiest (and arguably cleanest) way to model a state machine. 2. Linus doesn't want C++ in the kernel and it's the only way to do stack unwinding in C.
If tens of thousands of bullseye shooters use AK47s, then tens of thousands of bullseye shooters are stupid. The AK47 only has one job it can do, and it's not hitting a target accurately.
Heterosexual consummation, barring 100% effective birth control, with someone that closely related can (very likely will) produce offspring with significant genetic anomalies.
No, it's not "very likely". It's just "more likely". This is a common mistake.
There are a squillion genetic disorders in the human gene pool. You have never heard of most of them because they are rare and recessive. The chances of someone receiving two copies of the broken gene are vanishingly small under normal circumstances. The risk of consanguinity is that if there is a sufficiently recent common ancestor who carried the broken gene, and if that ancestor passed it on to both parents, that gives their offspring a 25% chance of developing the rare disorder.
That is a lot of "if"s piled on top of each other. The vast majority of close relatives could have children with essentially no risk of genetic abnormalities. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course.
Most classical music is best experienced live. Most jazz music is best experienced live. Most rock music is best experienced live. Most pop music is best experienced live (assuming it's actually being performed live, natch).
Most music is not. Most music that you're exposed to in any given day is in film, TV, advertising, when you're on hold, and so on. It's there to affect your mood, but not to call attention to itself. You really don't want to experience that live.
Just for comparison, electronic pipe organs are indistinguishable from air-and-bellows-based organs today. Admittedly, the main reason for this is that most of the sound of the instrument is the reverberation of the space that it's in.
I have yet to meet the synthesizer that can even remotely duplicate the dulcet noises of the old-fashioned dead trees and metal strings of my grand piano.
A synthesizer which is tasked with duplicating the sound produced by a grand piano is a waste of a perfectly good synthesizer. Which is, of course, kind of the point of the thread.
Or the delightfully analog feel. Or dynamic range. Or imposing presence in the living room.
Alternative suggestion: Go to a concert. Most classical music is best experienced live.
On a related note, I usually can't stand recordings of post-Baroque opera. Individual arias or choruses can be okay, but even a low-budget semi-pro staging is usually superior to a recording by the greatest singers and orchestras in the world.
The Patriot Act was passed in both the senate and house of representatives with a veto proof 98 senators and 357 house representatives.
...and is implemented using secret legal interpretations, using secret programmes, with the degree of compliance of the law also being secret. By "secret", I of course mean "withheld from Congress".
Congress has lot to answer for, don't get me wrong. But they were as much in the dark about all this as you were. And unlike you, they didn't even have reason to suspect what was going on.
"Outliers" are, by definition, data points which do not fit your model. They are not "supposed" to be ignored. Rather, there are three things you can do:
1. Change your model. 2. Exclude them from consideration, if you have good a priori evidence for your model. 3. Use statistics which are robust to outliers.
What you don't get to do is exclude data points for reasons of personal bias.
If every other developed country (you know, the ones with public health systems and social safety nets) were doing more spying on their own citizens than the United States is, then you might have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you went through and read the survey, but it turns out that mainline Protestants have a higher rate of accepting evolution than the "unaffiliated".
Are you saying it would be worse than the goto-heavy manual stack unwinding it currently uses?
C++ automatic stack unwinding is even nicer, but you can't have C++ in the kernel because mindless ideologues.
Without looking at the KDBUS code, there are typically two answers to that question.
1. It's the easiest (and arguably cleanest) way to model a state machine.
2. Linus doesn't want C++ in the kernel and it's the only way to do stack unwinding in C.
If tens of thousands of bullseye shooters use AK47s, then tens of thousands of bullseye shooters are stupid. The AK47 only has one job it can do, and it's not hitting a target accurately.
Errr... what I meant to say was no greater risk of genetic abnormalities than in the general population.
No, it's not "very likely". It's just "more likely". This is a common mistake.
There are a squillion genetic disorders in the human gene pool. You have never heard of most of them because they are rare and recessive. The chances of someone receiving two copies of the broken gene are vanishingly small under normal circumstances. The risk of consanguinity is that if there is a sufficiently recent common ancestor who carried the broken gene, and if that ancestor passed it on to both parents, that gives their offspring a 25% chance of developing the rare disorder.
That is a lot of "if"s piled on top of each other. The vast majority of close relatives could have children with essentially no risk of genetic abnormalities. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course.
The people are long dead, but the institution is still around.
The world needs people like that, and not because they have a realistic chance of making it happen.
Actually, no.
Most classical music is best experienced live. Most jazz music is best experienced live. Most rock music is best experienced live. Most pop music is best experienced live (assuming it's actually being performed live, natch).
Most music is not. Most music that you're exposed to in any given day is in film, TV, advertising, when you're on hold, and so on. It's there to affect your mood, but not to call attention to itself. You really don't want to experience that live.
Just for comparison, electronic pipe organs are indistinguishable from air-and-bellows-based organs today. Admittedly, the main reason for this is that most of the sound of the instrument is the reverberation of the space that it's in.
Keith Emerson is the only one that comes to mind.
A synthesizer which is tasked with duplicating the sound produced by a grand piano is a waste of a perfectly good synthesizer. Which is, of course, kind of the point of the thread.
That's because you've never met an Ondes Martenot.
Or a Moog modular, for that matter.
Speak for yourself. I'll take Wendy Carlos or Tangerine Dream over twangy country any day.
Palestrina FTW.
Alternative suggestion: Go to a concert. Most classical music is best experienced live.
On a related note, I usually can't stand recordings of post-Baroque opera. Individual arias or choruses can be okay, but even a low-budget semi-pro staging is usually superior to a recording by the greatest singers and orchestras in the world.
The Boom Box is not a toy.
The good news is, it's only four years until we all finally get to hear Carnival of Light.
Congress has lot to answer for, don't get me wrong. But they were as much in the dark about all this as you were. And unlike you, they didn't even have reason to suspect what was going on.
Polysilicates, yes.
My point is merely that the AC to whom I responded clearly doesn't understand statistics either. It's Skitt's Law in action.
Wha-?
"Outliers" are, by definition, data points which do not fit your model. They are not "supposed" to be ignored. Rather, there are three things you can do:
1. Change your model.
2. Exclude them from consideration, if you have good a priori evidence for your model.
3. Use statistics which are robust to outliers.
What you don't get to do is exclude data points for reasons of personal bias.
Would these be the same people on Twitter who got Adria Richards fired?
If every other developed country (you know, the ones with public health systems and social safety nets) were doing more spying on their own citizens than the United States is, then you might have a point.
But they're not. So you don't.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
Request for Comments: 7102
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
on Marsupial Carriers