The reason I ask is that it simply doesn't make sense and it doesn't jibe with the rest of environmental regulations in the US. Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, most of the US environmental regulations do make sense, though they're far from perfect.
Particulate matter is classified based on the size of the particles. PM (or TSP) is the set of all particulate matter (Total Suspended Particles). PM(x) is the subset of particulate matter less than (x) microns. You'll typically see PM10 and PM2.5 as common boundaries. PM2.5 is also known as 'fine particulates' and is the most recent focus of air pollution control efforts by EPA and state DEPs.
Finer particles are worse than coarser particles for the reason you specify: Finer particles are able to travel deeper into the lungs and cause more damage. As such, regulations for finer particles are more stringent. For example, in New Jersey you are allowed to increase potential TSP emissions by 25 tons over a 5 year period without any offsets. You are only allowed to increase potential PM10 emissions by 10 tons over the same 5 year period. Remember that those 10 tons of PM10 also count against the 25 tons of TSP, since PM10 is a subset of TSP.
Of course, the oil lobby is extremely powerful, and we are all well aware of their influence inside the Bush administration. It's also easier to filter larger particles, but certainly not impossible to filter fine particles. In any case, what you describe it is a departure from most regulations, which tend to say 'larger particles are better'.
I'll say it again: Just because you personally aren't experiencing the problem doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
We're not talking about averages here. An average doesn't tell you anything about the data except for its average. Yes, Linux, on average, does not have this problem. To be frank, I've never heard of Linux having this issue before reading the GP. However, that does not tell us whether the problem does or does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. We can (probably rightly) assume that the GP is lying or has an otherwise unusual situation, but then we're making assumptions, and we all know where that can lead...
Nothing personal. I just hate seeing people make absolute statements based on anecdotes, assumptions and guesses.
Just a nit.. dictionary.com by itself is not a source. It is a collection of dictionaries. What you're doing is similar to citing Google News as a source. A more proper reference would be "blahblah dictionary, via dictionary.com".
Cut it out with the uptimes. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a thing. Just because you aren't experiencing the problem doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You, my friend, have fucked up your system, that's all. Don't blame it on the machine.
Could it not be said that the ability to screw up the system so badly is the fault of the system? That's the thinking that is applied to Windows, but when Linux screws up, it must be the user's fault? Ridiculous.
In this one, he would be tried for murder by the family of this "victim"
Families cannot try someone for murder. Only a prosecutor can bring criminal cases to court. However, in some states, like CA and NY, there are silly laws that allow "Wrongful Death/Injury" civil suits. This is how OJ was bankrupted by Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman's families despite being acquitted of murder. Same goes for Bernie Goetz, who was acquitted of attempted murder for his subway shootings in the 80s, but was forced to pay those he injured even though the jury in the criminal case determined that his actions were self defence. These civil suits have a lower standard of evidence ('beyond a reasonable doubt' vs. 'a preponderance of evidence') which is what makes them so successful. I would be suprised if we don't see a civil suit against Scott Peterson as well...
which allows for some neat capabilities such as having two files of the same type, but opened by different applications when they are double-clicked on
Different behavior based on an invisible 4-digit code? That doesn't sound very neat at all.
But, it's Apple, so it's cool. If it was MS, there would be no end to the bitching.
No. I want them to write the license in HS level english. Something that someone without a legal degree can 100% comprehend. Is that too hard to grasp ?
Actually, it is. Why is HS level the standard? What about people that can't read at all?
My favorites are all the Microsoft uninstalls which ask me whether I want to delete QQXXZZ.DLL, without telling me what QQXXZZ.DLL is or what it does or what other applications might be using it.
Windows will only prompt you about DLLs installed in the Windows directory that are no longer listed as being used by any programs. If a program didn't properly register, you could be deleting a required DLL. It doesn't tell you what other applications might be using it because as far as it's concerned, no other programs are using it except the one you are uninstalling.
In a vast majority of cases, you will not have a problem deleting these DLLs.
There are many flaws with your argument. First, it is based completely on assumptions. You assume that the crime is murder, that the police would have known about it, that the police would have recovered the weapon, etc., etc. Second, your original assertion was that you had reason to believe that none of your guns had ever been used to commit a crime. It is very easy to commit a crime without even firing the weapon.
My point isn't to say that your guns have been used in crimes. My point is to say that, like many things in life, you simply can't be so sure.
Yeah well you didn't go to business school. Bullet points are all that matter to many MBAs. It doesn't matter what the actual words are, or how they're presented, as long as there's a bullet at the start.
Porn is copyrighted like anything else. The big porn mags and studios do go after infringers whenever they can. It just doesn't make headlines like the MPAA and RIAA do, because porn is one of those things that isn't talked about in public America.
I personally own guns that are more than 100 years old, and I have reason to believe none have been used to commit a crime.
What reason is that? How can you say this? Without a detailed knowledge of the gun's history (i.e. it was in your family, etc.), you have no idea what that gun was used for. Even with such a history, you cannot blindly accept it as accurate.
A better statement might have been "I have no reason to believe any of these guns have been used to commit a crime."
I don't know who uses what, but perhaps Photoshop uses more mathematically accurate form of cspline, whereas gimp uses not-so-smart type of third order polynomial binning algorithms.
PS. Whenever I resize an image,I first run highpass filter (sharpening), then resize, and then repeat sharpening & smoothing til I get some decent result.
[This is why I'd prefer open source. So I know exactly what is being done to my image.]
I could care less what exact steps are being done to resize an image. I just want it to look good in one step. What you describe is ridiculous, not to mention that you contradict yourself. I hope IHBT.
Interesting to note is that the GP post lamented the rise of sequels, and then said they were sad because a sequel project had been cancelled by Lucasarts.
It all goes back to basic capitalist nature. Most people and businesses are reluctant to spend money on new/untested things. The businesses are more likely to spend money developing sequels to a successful game. As an uninformed consumer, if you thought the first Half Life was good, you're more likely to buy Half Life 2 than Far Cry.
If that person's windows and doors were broadcasting the contents of the home on public frequencies, maybe
What does that even mean? If someone has a sign that says "I have $1,000,000 cash" on their home, it doesn't make a theft justified. Stop blaming the victim!
Also, windows do broadcast the contents of the home: you can look through them! Are we going to say burglary is okay because the blinds weren't closed? I hope IHBT.
A PhD student might be studying molecular biology, and perfectly qualified to change an entery on chemistry. But he might not (and probably would not) know jack about Russian Literature.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a cite for that?
The reason I ask is that it simply doesn't make sense and it doesn't jibe with the rest of environmental regulations in the US. Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, most of the US environmental regulations do make sense, though they're far from perfect.
Particulate matter is classified based on the size of the particles. PM (or TSP) is the set of all particulate matter (Total Suspended Particles). PM(x) is the subset of particulate matter less than (x) microns. You'll typically see PM10 and PM2.5 as common boundaries. PM2.5 is also known as 'fine particulates' and is the most recent focus of air pollution control efforts by EPA and state DEPs.
Finer particles are worse than coarser particles for the reason you specify: Finer particles are able to travel deeper into the lungs and cause more damage. As such, regulations for finer particles are more stringent. For example, in New Jersey you are allowed to increase potential TSP emissions by 25 tons over a 5 year period without any offsets. You are only allowed to increase potential PM10 emissions by 10 tons over the same 5 year period. Remember that those 10 tons of PM10 also count against the 25 tons of TSP, since PM10 is a subset of TSP.
Of course, the oil lobby is extremely powerful, and we are all well aware of their influence inside the Bush administration. It's also easier to filter larger particles, but certainly not impossible to filter fine particles. In any case, what you describe it is a departure from most regulations, which tend to say 'larger particles are better'.
I'll say it again: Just because you personally aren't experiencing the problem doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
We're not talking about averages here. An average doesn't tell you anything about the data except for its average. Yes, Linux, on average, does not have this problem. To be frank, I've never heard of Linux having this issue before reading the GP. However, that does not tell us whether the problem does or does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. We can (probably rightly) assume that the GP is lying or has an otherwise unusual situation, but then we're making assumptions, and we all know where that can lead...
Nothing personal. I just hate seeing people make absolute statements based on anecdotes, assumptions and guesses.
Just a nit.. dictionary.com by itself is not a source. It is a collection of dictionaries. What you're doing is similar to citing Google News as a source. A more proper reference would be "blahblah dictionary, via dictionary.com".
Cut it out with the uptimes. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a thing. Just because you aren't experiencing the problem doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
You, my friend, have fucked up your system, that's all. Don't blame it on the machine.
Could it not be said that the ability to screw up the system so badly is the fault of the system? That's the thinking that is applied to Windows, but when Linux screws up, it must be the user's fault? Ridiculous.
what gives me the right to invade these countries? 9/11 does
Damn, you've become quite a good troll now, haven't you?
I seriously doubt CNN would carry a story of a potential catastrophy
You must not watch CNN then...
I find that statement a little left of center.
And just what the fuck does that mean?
In this one, he would be tried for murder by the family of this "victim"
Families cannot try someone for murder. Only a prosecutor can bring criminal cases to court. However, in some states, like CA and NY, there are silly laws that allow "Wrongful Death/Injury" civil suits. This is how OJ was bankrupted by Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman's families despite being acquitted of murder. Same goes for Bernie Goetz, who was acquitted of attempted murder for his subway shootings in the 80s, but was forced to pay those he injured even though the jury in the criminal case determined that his actions were self defence. These civil suits have a lower standard of evidence ('beyond a reasonable doubt' vs. 'a preponderance of evidence') which is what makes them so successful. I would be suprised if we don't see a civil suit against Scott Peterson as well...
Petty theft (<$500) is a misdemeanor in many places. Police and courts simply do not have the resources to be working on these cases.
Strings? I would think it would be some sort of metal cable to withstand the forces of the chute potentially deploying at full throttle...
which allows for some neat capabilities such as having two files of the same type, but opened by different applications when they are double-clicked on
Different behavior based on an invisible 4-digit code? That doesn't sound very neat at all.
But, it's Apple, so it's cool. If it was MS, there would be no end to the bitching.
No. I want them to write the license in HS level english. Something that someone without a legal degree can 100% comprehend. Is that too hard to grasp ?
Actually, it is. Why is HS level the standard? What about people that can't read at all?
My favorites are all the Microsoft uninstalls which ask me whether I want to delete QQXXZZ.DLL, without telling me what QQXXZZ.DLL is or what it does or what other applications might be using it.
Windows will only prompt you about DLLs installed in the Windows directory that are no longer listed as being used by any programs. If a program didn't properly register, you could be deleting a required DLL. It doesn't tell you what other applications might be using it because as far as it's concerned, no other programs are using it except the one you are uninstalling.
In a vast majority of cases, you will not have a problem deleting these DLLs.
There are many flaws with your argument. First, it is based completely on assumptions. You assume that the crime is murder, that the police would have known about it, that the police would have recovered the weapon, etc., etc. Second, your original assertion was that you had reason to believe that none of your guns had ever been used to commit a crime. It is very easy to commit a crime without even firing the weapon.
My point isn't to say that your guns have been used in crimes. My point is to say that, like many things in life, you simply can't be so sure.
What about when your former employer has done nothing wrong?
Yeah well you didn't go to business school. Bullet points are all that matter to many MBAs. It doesn't matter what the actual words are, or how they're presented, as long as there's a bullet at the start.
Porn is copyrighted like anything else. The big porn mags and studios do go after infringers whenever they can. It just doesn't make headlines like the MPAA and RIAA do, because porn is one of those things that isn't talked about in public America.
Back in my home town, they used to put pictures of people who were busted in sting operations for propositioning undercover cops posing as prostitues.
Where'd they put pictures? You never finished your sentence.
I personally own guns that are more than 100 years old, and I have reason to believe none have been used to commit a crime.
What reason is that? How can you say this? Without a detailed knowledge of the gun's history (i.e. it was in your family, etc.), you have no idea what that gun was used for. Even with such a history, you cannot blindly accept it as accurate.
A better statement might have been "I have no reason to believe any of these guns have been used to commit a crime."
It's very hard to prove a negative.
More pages of 'content' = more pages of ads = more $$$$$.
What other reason is there?
Actually, GP said "Universities". You have only mentioned one university, and you didn't even tell us which one it was.
I don't know who uses what, but perhaps Photoshop uses more mathematically accurate form of cspline, whereas gimp uses not-so-smart type of third order polynomial binning algorithms.
PS. Whenever I resize an image,I first run highpass filter (sharpening), then resize, and then repeat sharpening & smoothing til I get some decent result.
[This is why I'd prefer open source. So I know exactly what is being done to my image.]
I could care less what exact steps are being done to resize an image. I just want it to look good in one step. What you describe is ridiculous, not to mention that you contradict yourself. I hope IHBT.
Interesting to note is that the GP post lamented the rise of sequels, and then said they were sad because a sequel project had been cancelled by Lucasarts.
It all goes back to basic capitalist nature. Most people and businesses are reluctant to spend money on new/untested things. The businesses are more likely to spend money developing sequels to a successful game. As an uninformed consumer, if you thought the first Half Life was good, you're more likely to buy Half Life 2 than Far Cry.
If that person's windows and doors were broadcasting the contents of the home on public frequencies, maybe
What does that even mean? If someone has a sign that says "I have $1,000,000 cash" on their home, it doesn't make a theft justified. Stop blaming the victim!
Also, windows do broadcast the contents of the home: you can look through them! Are we going to say burglary is okay because the blinds weren't closed? I hope IHBT.
A PhD student might be studying molecular biology, and perfectly qualified to change an entery on chemistry. But he might not (and probably would not) know jack about Russian Literature.
Why not? What if they're Russian?