While you nerds are busy with barbie, I'm going to be patching the kernel of my girlfriend....if you know what I mean. Oh that's right, it's slashdork you probably don't know what I mean.
Since patching a kernal involves placing statements so as to produce a desired outcome I would venture the following as a guess:
"Aw, c'mon Sweetie! It was just a joke! Please Honey, OW stop hitting me, OW!"...
The average paperback book takes up 0.020141602 cubic feet of space (4.125" X 6.75" X 1.25"). In terms of linear footage you can get 9.6 paperbacks (1.25 in thick) per foot of shelving, 19.2 if you double stack.
25,000 books works out to 503.5 cubic feet of books given the above numbers or a solid cube of books 8' X 10' X 6'. Incidently that's almost entirely inaccessible.
Alternatively that's 1,302 feet of double stacked shelving. A full height bookshelf is 7 shelves 1' deep by 4' long. That's 46.5 bookshelves floor to ceiling double stacked or 93 bookshelves single stacked.
3,500 books is a cube of 60.5 cubic feet or a pile 3' X 4' X 5'. That works out to 364.6 linear feet of single stacked shelving or 182.3' double stacked. That's 7 double stacked bookshelves or 14 single stacked. I have four, crammed to the gills (I need five).
So given the state of my house (a comfortable 3 bedroom with one bedroom converted to the office) that leaves us with three possibilties:
You live in a mansion. You live in a rat warren. You are exaggerating.
The first possiblity renders your opinions irrelevant. I don't think the person mentioned above can afford that much space at this time. The second possibility means you have to THROW SOMETHING OUT! The third possibility means you are engaging in a pissing contest, sorry, not interested.
I use Dewey decimal for non-fiction and alphabetical by author for fiction. I have ~3,000 books and thiis system seems to work for me.
I suppose you could set up a catalog if needed. The important thing is to just get the books into order. Build or buy bookshelves as needed.
I had someone pull that "I pay your salary, and I'd like my burger without mayonnaise" line of bullshit once. Exactly once, because that hungry person had to go across the street and re-order his meal from another restaurant. I don't care if you're at the French Laundry and paying $450 per person for dinner, the dining room belongs to the waiter. You don't like the waiter's rules, take your money and go elsewhere. The restaurant doesn't NEED your self-centered, obnoxious ass around anyway.
I don't have numbers to justify it, but what about everyone complaining about ice caps melting? It would seem to me that warm waters might explain this, but then wouldn't the melting ice cause the ocean to cool? I guess it depends on how much ice is melting and the range of warmer ocean water.
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) has an absortion spectrum which is completely transparent in the visible regions of the spectrum but has a huge absorption peak at about 5.2 microns (~1900 cm-1 for the spectroscopists among us), this is well within the infrared portion of the spectrum and translates into heat.
This means that as we burn more fossil fuels we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (petroleum is underground). More CO2 means more heat is retained by the Earth (heat in is fairly constant, heat out is decreased, the object becomes warmer until a new equilibrium is reached).
When you place a pot of water and ice on a burner and turn it on what happens?
The problem pointed out by other Linux-NTFS developers is that the APL is not GPL compatible, and any changes made by Apple to the driver will be unusable in Linux.
This is where I part ways with a lot of open source folks. What exactly does it HURT to let Apple use this code? The code is for reading/writing NTFS, a specification which isn't officially available anyway and Apple has no control over. There is no risk of "embrace and extend" here. So what's the motivation for denying them?
Who cares whether Apple gives you back their changes or not? Could they actually make a significant improvement to Linux-NTFS? Are the Linux-NTFS developers admitting that Apple can do things that they themselves are too dumb to figure out? And anyway, why would a developer in Apple's position start making wanton changes to the code when they already know that it works? That's the whole point of using it (instead of writing from scratch) in the first place.
I'm not saying this as an Apple fan-boy, this is a free software issue. How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it? Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery. Ultimately it boils down to pure selfishness. You don't want anybody to play your game unless they play by your rules. And this is said by those who purportedly oppose software patents and intellectual property.
Feh. Long live the BSD license.
No silly. The rule is if you play with my ball you've got to let me into the game!
You said the word, but didn't pay any attention to it.
"Unreasonable."
Wiretapping known terrorist sympathizers communicating outside of the country with other known terrorist sympathizers is not an unreasonable search or seizure by any rational definition of the word.
Are you saying that I am a terrorist sympathizer, or are you saying I am irrational? Because they have conducted a MASSIVE wiretapping excersise that probably includes me and you. I don't know about you but having my communications monitored makes me FURIOUS! If their wiretapping is reasonable in their minds they have called me a TRAITOR. If their wiretapping is unreasonable we are in the grip of criminals. Oh and BTW the fact that they did not even apply for a warrent leads me to believe that this Administration is behaving in a criminal fashion. If you don't believe me ask yourself this, would their actions be legal with snail-mail?
What about the peoples right to be free of unreasonable serches of their persons, possessions, or EFFECTS.
Seems to me a fishing expidition without a court order constitutes unreasonable search.
But hey, that constitution thing is meaninless anyhow...
The ISA architecture was published for general use. That's what kicked off the whole IBM compatible hardware aftermarket. MCA was an attempt to take back control of the bus architecture, the industry anwers were first EISA and then PCI.
Too bad we can't post in Greek. Transliterated it's
"Efi afto o Isous palin gegraptai, ouk ekpeirasis Kyrion ton Theon sou."
loosely that becomes:
"said to him Jesus, again it is written, do not make (or perform) an experiment of the LORD your God."
Ekpeirsis can also be translated as bother. The point is you should not go around testing the Lord. In this particular case that is what the Devil was tempting Jesus to do. (Kind of futile, I don't think Satan had quite grasped what was going on yet, then again, with the possible exception of his Mother, I don't think anyone had a clue yet).
- There's something really weird that I've heard in some conference : a lab has found that some bacteria species are able to *control* their mutation rate. In case of environmental stress (like new drugs), they increase some proteins that act as mutagens (by recombining gene parts and building new one "lego"-style).
It's not just bacteria. All species are capable of increasing their mutation rates when under stress. Something about the genetic repair mechanism (error checking to the computer geeks) becoming less efficient when the organism is stressed for a prolonged period of time. Lots of failures of course (99.9999999% of mutations are NOT helpful), but once in a while something changes in a adaptive fashion. The new organism is now under less stress and the mutation stabilizes. This can take a few hundred generations but you only have to succeed once in a while. Meantime the sports get winnowed out (starvation or predation usually, although I understand a species of bacteria has evolved that eats styrofoam) and the successes get established. Repeat until your genome is reproductvely incompatible with the root stock and voila! New species.
People have believed in God since the start of time. What makes scientists today so much more certain than scientists of 100 years ago?
Cos, you know, science progresses. That's what it does; that's what it's meant to do. I'd be extremely troubled if scientists today knew less than 100 years ago.
I must have missed something in graduate school. When was it proved that there is no God?
In a simplistic sense you are right about agnosticism. However, take for instance gravity. No matter how many times it is observed in action, it can never be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does. We can make a million, a trillion, observations confirming our theory of gravity and yet this can never preclude the possibility that one day we might make an observation that directly contradicts it.
Nevertheless, instinct and logic tell us that in the end we might as well take the chance and rely on our observations to treat the theory of gravity as a law.
Atheism is the equivalent of this last step. Once we do that we can go on, like the Wright brothers, and build an aeroplane that works, for example. Agnosticism is the equivalent of refusing to get into a plane because gravity cannot be conclusively proven to work the way we think it does.
I guess religion would be sitting on the tarmac praising the gods for the magical metal birds we ride around in and blaming the devil if they crash.
No, religion is the ones who are sure (without any previous proof) that they have understood the problem and go on to build the plane.
The Agnostics being unsure are willing to wait and see.
The Atheists militantly deny both gravity and aerodynamics and casually walk off the cliff...
While I do agree to you on many of the points you make I do disagree about ID being a testable theory. On the scientific side how do you prove the influence of an intelligent designer? On the religious side how do you square ID with the injuntion "Do not put the LORD your God to the test" (Matthew 4:7)?
To me ID (and Creationism) seem to have the worst of both worlds, an untestable theory that may be heretical.
The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID.
Actually it should go under Theology, Christian, Protestant, Fundementalist. The topic heading should be "Detrimental Effects of the Enlightenment". Along with Creationism ID is one of the worst effects of the idea that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge.
Mysticism is a subheading of many Philosophies and Religious beliefs and should be discussed in the appropriate context.
"Things That Go Bump in the Night" goes in Phys Ed., subheading, Geeks, Dorks, and Nerds.
Your experience is eerily similar to mine, however I always wear eye protection when working with a MS computer. Therefore I was able to escape serious injury when my computer exploded. I have also found that the MS licence agreement their lawyers force you to sign absolves them of all legal liability.
Sorry about your accident. I hope the aftereffects are behind you.
I usually wear my seat belt, I consider it more of an advantage than a disadvantage. The thing I was objecting to was the idea that giving up rights would somehow make me safer. The idea that seat belts must be required because they make it safer for other drivers is a toxic idea. The level of safety increase for others is so miniscule that that argument if it is accepted can be used to justify almost anything.
I was actually more concerned about the erosion of civil rights, particularly privacy, than I was about the safety issues. The argument as advanced could be used to justify putting everyone under 24/7 survaillence in the name of keeping them from performing some act that may unintentionaly harm or inconvienience others. Basicly a police state.
First off the name is Dimas not dumbass. When you can learn to spell you may have a point.
Secondly, my points are equally valid if you have been hit hard enough to knock you out of your seat.
Thirdly, I've looked at the web sites you mentioned. So What? You still took a serious hit and will be stunned until everthing stops moving around. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 G's of lateral acceleration.
Your primary argument was that wearing a seatbelt makes it safer for other drivers. My point is that by the time the seat belt kicks in it is already too late. Any impact on driver safety is stricly for the wearer at this point. The other drivers are on their own.
Therefore your argument justifying seat belts as a safety device for other people is a false argument.
Seat belt laws actually keep the driver behind the wheel, rather than thrown out of one's seat or hard to one side. Often in an accident a driver can prevent an accident from becoming even worse by steering, braking, etc. after the initial contact. Consider seat belt laws to be like laws requiring you to maintain your brakes, brake lights, etc. It's for the safety of other drivers, not you.
That's the dumbest reason I have ever heard for invading my privacy. If you have been hit hard enough to knock you out of the car, I GUARANTEE that you are not in control of yourself, never mind the vehicle, seatbelt or no seatbelt. I can buy that seatbelts will save lives in such situations, but please don't insult people with that kind of mindless prattle.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the link. Finally someone who understands the ministry offered to the gay person.
Since patching a kernal involves placing statements so as to produce a desired outcome I would venture the following as a guess:
"Aw, c'mon Sweetie! It was just a joke! Please Honey, OW stop hitting me, OW!" ...
My 12 mo. baby can say Mama, Baba, and Mmmm (food). All other conversation is carried on by giggles or wailing.
25,000 books works out to 503.5 cubic feet of books given the above numbers or a solid cube of books 8' X 10' X 6'. Incidently that's almost entirely inaccessible.
Alternatively that's 1,302 feet of double stacked shelving. A full height bookshelf is 7 shelves 1' deep by 4' long. That's 46.5 bookshelves floor to ceiling double stacked or 93 bookshelves single stacked.
3,500 books is a cube of 60.5 cubic feet or a pile 3' X 4' X 5'. That works out to 364.6 linear feet of single stacked shelving or 182.3' double stacked. That's 7 double stacked bookshelves or 14 single stacked. I have four, crammed to the gills (I need five).
So given the state of my house (a comfortable 3 bedroom with one bedroom converted to the office) that leaves us with three possibilties:
You live in a mansion.
You live in a rat warren.
You are exaggerating.
The first possiblity renders your opinions irrelevant. I don't think the person mentioned above can afford that much space at this time.
The second possibility means you have to THROW SOMETHING OUT!
The third possibility means you are engaging in a pissing contest, sorry, not interested.
I use Dewey decimal for non-fiction and alphabetical by author for fiction. I have ~3,000 books and thiis system seems to work for me. I suppose you could set up a catalog if needed. The important thing is to just get the books into order. Build or buy bookshelves as needed.
Dear Waiter,
You're Fired!
The Boss
Have you looked at our tax code recently? The more you make, the less you pay (percentagewise).
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) has an absortion spectrum which is completely transparent in the visible regions of the spectrum but has a huge absorption peak at about 5.2 microns (~1900 cm-1 for the spectroscopists among us), this is well within the infrared portion of the spectrum and translates into heat.
This means that as we burn more fossil fuels we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (petroleum is underground). More CO2 means more heat is retained by the Earth (heat in is fairly constant, heat out is decreased, the object becomes warmer until a new equilibrium is reached).
When you place a pot of water and ice on a burner and turn it on what happens?
This is where I part ways with a lot of open source folks. What exactly does it HURT to let Apple use this code? The code is for reading/writing NTFS, a specification which isn't officially available anyway and Apple has no control over. There is no risk of "embrace and extend" here. So what's the motivation for denying them?
Who cares whether Apple gives you back their changes or not? Could they actually make a significant improvement to Linux-NTFS? Are the Linux-NTFS developers admitting that Apple can do things that they themselves are too dumb to figure out? And anyway, why would a developer in Apple's position start making wanton changes to the code when they already know that it works? That's the whole point of using it (instead of writing from scratch) in the first place.
I'm not saying this as an Apple fan-boy, this is a free software issue. How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it? Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery. Ultimately it boils down to pure selfishness. You don't want anybody to play your game unless they play by your rules. And this is said by those who purportedly oppose software patents and intellectual property.
Feh. Long live the BSD license.
No silly. The rule is if you play with my ball you've got to let me into the game!
I don't know, Mr. Pithers Bicycle Ride still makes me ... aw darn, gotta go change my pants.
What does
- IT
mean?"Unreasonable."
Wiretapping known terrorist sympathizers communicating outside of the country with other known terrorist sympathizers is not an unreasonable search or seizure by any rational definition of the word.
Are you saying that I am a terrorist sympathizer, or are you saying I am irrational? Because they have conducted a MASSIVE wiretapping excersise that probably includes me and you. I don't know about you but having my communications monitored makes me FURIOUS! If their wiretapping is reasonable in their minds they have called me a TRAITOR. If their wiretapping is unreasonable we are in the grip of criminals. Oh and BTW the fact that they did not even apply for a warrent leads me to believe that this Administration is behaving in a criminal fashion. If you don't believe me ask yourself this, would their actions be legal with snail-mail?
What about the peoples right to be free of unreasonable serches of their persons, possessions, or EFFECTS. Seems to me a fishing expidition without a court order constitutes unreasonable search. But hey, that constitution thing is meaninless anyhow...
The ISA architecture was published for general use. That's what kicked off the whole IBM compatible hardware aftermarket. MCA was an attempt to take back control of the bus architecture, the industry anwers were first EISA and then PCI.
I saw it in a paper about 10 years ago. I wouldn't have a clue as to where to find it now. (Literature search time, sigh).
"Efi afto o Isous palin gegraptai, ouk ekpeirasis Kyrion ton Theon sou."
loosely that becomes:
"said to him Jesus, again it is written, do not make (or perform) an experiment of the LORD your God."
Ekpeirsis can also be translated as bother. The point is you should not go around testing the Lord. In this particular case that is what the Devil was tempting Jesus to do. (Kind of futile, I don't think Satan had quite grasped what was going on yet, then again, with the possible exception of his Mother, I don't think anyone had a clue yet).
It's not just bacteria. All species are capable of increasing their mutation rates when under stress. Something about the genetic repair mechanism (error checking to the computer geeks) becoming less efficient when the organism is stressed for a prolonged period of time. Lots of failures of course (99.9999999% of mutations are NOT helpful), but once in a while something changes in a adaptive fashion. The new organism is now under less stress and the mutation stabilizes. This can take a few hundred generations but you only have to succeed once in a while. Meantime the sports get winnowed out (starvation or predation usually, although I understand a species of bacteria has evolved that eats styrofoam) and the successes get established. Repeat until your genome is reproductvely incompatible with the root stock and voila! New species.
I must have missed something in graduate school. When was it proved that there is no God?
No, religion is the ones who are sure (without any previous proof) that they have understood the problem and go on to build the plane.
The Agnostics being unsure are willing to wait and see.
The Atheists militantly deny both gravity and aerodynamics and casually walk off the cliff...
To me ID (and Creationism) seem to have the worst of both worlds, an untestable theory that may be heretical.
Actually it should go under Theology, Christian, Protestant, Fundementalist. The topic heading should be "Detrimental Effects of the Enlightenment". Along with Creationism ID is one of the worst effects of the idea that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge.
Mysticism is a subheading of many Philosophies and Religious beliefs and should be discussed in the appropriate context.
"Things That Go Bump in the Night" goes in Phys Ed., subheading, Geeks, Dorks, and Nerds.
I hope this has cleared up any confusion.
Your experience is eerily similar to mine, however I always wear eye protection when working with a MS computer. Therefore I was able to escape serious injury when my computer exploded. I have also found that the MS licence agreement their lawyers force you to sign absolves them of all legal liability.
I usually wear my seat belt, I consider it more of an advantage than a disadvantage. The thing I was objecting to was the idea that giving up rights would somehow make me safer. The idea that seat belts must be required because they make it safer for other drivers is a toxic idea. The level of safety increase for others is so miniscule that that argument if it is accepted can be used to justify almost anything.
I was actually more concerned about the erosion of civil rights, particularly privacy, than I was about the safety issues. The argument as advanced could be used to justify putting everyone under 24/7 survaillence in the name of keeping them from performing some act that may unintentionaly harm or inconvienience others. Basicly a police state.
Secondly, my points are equally valid if you have been hit hard enough to knock you out of your seat.
Thirdly, I've looked at the web sites you mentioned. So What? You still took a serious hit and will be stunned until everthing stops moving around. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 G's of lateral acceleration.
Your primary argument was that wearing a seatbelt makes it safer for other drivers. My point is that by the time the seat belt kicks in it is already too late. Any impact on driver safety is stricly for the wearer at this point. The other drivers are on their own.
Therefore your argument justifying seat belts as a safety device for other people is a false argument.
That's the dumbest reason I have ever heard for invading my privacy. If you have been hit hard enough to knock you out of the car, I GUARANTEE that you are not in control of yourself, never mind the vehicle, seatbelt or no seatbelt. I can buy that seatbelts will save lives in such situations, but please don't insult people with that kind of mindless prattle.