I've seen this on a *commercial* site. The owner asked me to take a look as to why his site was so slow to load. The (obviously incompetent to the extreme) local web developer he'd hired refused to resize the JPEGs, insisting I had no idea what I was talking about...
You're a professional writer and you don't know that a professional writer writing on his or her own time is still a professional writer, not an amateur?
The quote says "one of the nicest", not "the nicest".
Why do Debian users have to post "Debian's better" to every thread on a linux distro that shows up on Slashdot, regardless of whether or not anyone in the thread talks about which distro is superior?
Maybe Debian's "the nicest" and maybe Mandrake's only "second or third nicest". In common English usage this still leaves Mandrake as being "one of the nicest".
Why a monorail? The first monorail was built from standard subway car parts but rather than run on efficient, low-friction proven steel-on-steel technology they run on TRUCK TIRES. Complete with the energy loss due to tire deformation, the need to replace them relatively frequently, adding to the tire disposal problem (or Washington's burning highway problem, one result of using recycled rubber in paving material).
The monorail looks cooler than it is. There's a reason why this is being sponsored by a citizen's initiative while light rail and commuter rail have been driven by your municipal and county governments. Hint - it's not because the monorail makes sense.
Now that we're on the subject, they should've taken out the Space Needle at the same time they took out the Kingdome. Two of the ugliest structures on the West Coast and we're still stuck with one of them.
My God... Nike, Adidas and all the rest rely on the fact that your feet need high-tech aids if you're to simply walk from the fridge to the couch with a cold one.
Do you really believe that your shoes don't record your beverage brand choice?
Halon systems only work in closed environments. This environment included a huge whole in the side of the building, blasted out windows all over the place, and a fireball that *immediately* started an extremely hot fire
Have you ever seen a chimney? Air with oxygen flowing past the logs allowing combustion to occur while combustion products move up out the top? Hot air and combustion products rise, and this is exactly what was happening in the buildings (the jumpers weren't jumping for fun).
A halon system would've been worthless.
As this respondent has pointed out, pouring water on fires among other things cools things down as it evaporates. In this case the sprinker system wouldn't have to put the fire out, just cool things to the point where the I-beams didn't droop like the average Windows XP user's limp dick.
That would've taken a *huge* amount of water, though. One of the sad ironies uncovered by the FEMA report is that the firemen in the building were carrying their heavy loads of hoses for naught, because the standpipes had almost certainly been taken out by the impact.
Once again, the report is wrong. Fireproofing was applied to all floors, and in fact they'd been steadily *increasing* the amount since the earlier bombing in the early 1990s.
If you'd read the friggin' article or report you'd know this. Some idiot reporter for a right-wing TV news outlet reporting three days after the event does not have the same credibility as a bunch of engineers with full access to past and current records and over six monjths to study the problem.
The buildings were sprayed with fire-resistant material, all floors, not just those below the 70th.
After the bombing in the early 90s, they began increasing the amount of fire-resistant material from 3/4" to 1.5" but hadn't made much progress.
Unlike you, I read the article and either you or FEMA's engineers are wrong. My bet is that it is you.
Interestingly the area of the North tower that was impacted had the thicker coating, while the area of the South tower had yet to have its I-beam coating thickened (other floors had been completed, though). And of course the South tower collapsed first.
On the other hand, the 767 that struck the South tower was moving about 100 MPH faster than the one that struck the North tower, a great increase in kinetic energy. This is reflected in the fact that several pieces of the faster-moving plane went through the building and fell up to six blocks away, while apparently only a single major piece of the slower airline went entirely through the building and that piece fell close to the tower.
The professional view summed up by the FEMA report is that the impact in both cases was so extreme that the fireproofing was knocked off the I-beams.
Now what does this have to do with asbestos or EPA regulations? Absolutely nothing.
Classic Slashdot ignorance and inability to perform analysis...
Example: 51% (over half) of the heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century.
30% came in the years 1950-1999.
Meaning 21% came in the years 1900-1949 in this example.
For the rate of warming to have decreased in the last half of the last century >60% of the heat gain over the last 500 years would have to come from the last century. If the researchers believed this they probably would've stated so.
No... they just version trailers... err previews... issuing mulitple versions of trailers that are edited to raise excitement levels as the release date draws near isn't new, nor is it the basis for "preview" and "trailer" being synonyms in modern English.
It used to be at the end, and there wasn't a fifteen minute wait while "buy an ad on this screen" ads slide-showed in your face along with ads for used cars, singles bars, bad food and the like.
Since trailers were spliced to the end of the last reel, they spewed by while the current audience left and the next audience walked in. The hope being that the current audience left during credits and the next audience walked in afterwards to be greeted by the trailers.
I realize that it already IS a problem for these people to get access, but by making it a government utility does it take it from "unavailable" to "never available"?
Of course it doesn't. In Oregon, at least, the State's decision to lay fiber to a variety of rural "cities" (we call towns of 3,000 people a "city" in my state) has led not only to Internet access by inhabitants but economic growth based on it. The markets being served most likely would've gotten broadband access in the next two or three decades but getting it a few years ago hasn't exactly pissed anyone off...
Um... if you have a problem with the GPL being called the General Public License then you should probably complain to GNU, not the Wall Street Journal.
It's the GPL, not the GGPL though it might more properly be called the GNU GPL. But calling the GPL the "General Public License" is just fine, regardless.
Actually, another thing that I think is a fallacy is any sort of built-in 24-hour day, like many theorize. There simply isn't a need for it, since people get exposure to it automatically
Research strongly indicates a built-in cycle of a bit over 24 hours, actually. Experiments have been run with people kept in isolation without timekeeping devices, and their day slowly advances. The effect's repeatable in different subjects.
So living normally, where we're exposed to the natural cycle of day and night (or in an isolated environment that provides replacement cues), appears to counter that tendency by causing our brain to do a minor reset, if you will.
The link you pointed us to claims that the bug is fixed. If you have evidence it hasn't been then you should resubmit it, because they clearly think it has been...
But as soon as you pick civilian targets (i.e. people who don't carry guns and don't make it their business to kill others) and make your goal to kill as many innocents as possible, you have become a terrorist, plain and simple
In other words, when Reuters reports on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, or the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or the firebombing of Dresden (when high explosives were first used to smash the water system, to make it impossible to put out the fire started by later incindiary bombs), or similar events they should refer to these as "terrorist attacks" by the United States and (for those events in which they participated) Britain?
Because these events do fit your definition. The goal was to kill as many civilians as possible.
(Note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these events being labelled as terrorist attacks, I'm just curious as to whether or not the poster truly wants to apply this definition in a consistent manner).
Oh, sure it does, quoting from a published work most certainly falls under the fair use provisions of copyright law here in the US, at least. And since slashdot's hosted here in the US, that's what counts.
Normally predator introduction won't wipe out a target species. It's been tried many times, with an astonishing lack of success. So your cat idea is as worthless as the previously stated owl idea.
One problem is that rats have co-evolved with any of the predators one might choose to introduce and are well adapted to avoid them. Predators might make a dent in the rat population but there's no way the rat population would be eradicated.
But that's not the worst problem with your idea, which has been rated a "4" by the clueless Slashdot crowd. Here's why:
The seabirds in question, like many species of seabird, have evolved a breeding strategy based on isolation from land-based predators rather than active defense.
Land birds use a variety of techniques to avoid land-based predators. They hide their nests, build them on floating vegetation far from shore, build them up in trees, etc etc.
The sea birds in question get all the food they need to raise their chicks from the sea, so have no reason to breed in ecosystems that include diverse food sources along with the land-based predators that invariably are part of such ecosystems.
They just breed on remote islands that lack land-based predators capable of taking their eggs or chicks. They mass together as a defense against avian predators (who often breed on the same islands) much like B-17s massed against German fighters in WWII. Unfortunately these dense colonies are very vulnerable to introduced land-based predators.
The rat is one such land-based predator.
But... a quiz for the clueless... what's the most common and successful urban predator of birds, birds that have evolved defenses against land-based predators?
Is it the rat?
No, of course not, it is the cat.
So the brilliant idea here is to protect the seabirds against the rat by introducing cats, a far more efficient bird predator! Can you imagine the havoc cats would do in such a circumstance?
You don't have to imagine it, actually... feral cats are a horrible problem in island ecosystems in which they've been introduced.
So... this leaves us with the owl idea. Owls, which also frequently dine on birds... hmmm. Maybe not such a good idea either, eh?
There are poisons that are quite specific to rats and their close relative, so it is unlikely that they "killed every other living organism on the island that is roughly the same size as a rat".
The folks at the USF&W know more about biology than you do, that's clear. Having worked with USF&W biologists in the past I can assure you that on average they're quite knowledgable. Nowadays it's hard to get in without an MS earned in a discipline that requires a lot of field work, usually helping a professor whose studying habitat needs of a particular critter or something similar.
But Open Office is Star Office, minus a few goodies like the Adabas database and supposedly some fonts (which perhaps are also licensed, not "Open Font"?).
So I have a difficult time understanding your claim that "Open Office is better than Star Office".
Of course, the Star Office beta's been out for a considerable length of time, so the Open Office code base is more recent and you may be using a version with more bug fixes than the Star Office beta release.
But that same Open Office code base will be wrapped into Star Office final...
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen this on a *commercial* site. The owner asked me to take a look as to why his site was so slow to load. The (obviously incompetent to the extreme) local web developer he'd hired refused to resize the JPEGs, insisting I had no idea what I was talking about ...
You're a professional writer and you don't know that a professional writer writing on his or her own time is still a professional writer, not an amateur?
The quote says "one of the nicest", not "the nicest".
Why do Debian users have to post "Debian's better" to every thread on a linux distro that shows up on Slashdot, regardless of whether or not anyone in the thread talks about which distro is superior?
Maybe Debian's "the nicest" and maybe Mandrake's only "second or third nicest". In common English usage this still leaves Mandrake as being "one of the nicest".
Why a monorail? The first monorail was built from standard subway car parts but rather than run on efficient, low-friction proven steel-on-steel technology they run on TRUCK TIRES. Complete with the energy loss due to tire deformation, the need to replace them relatively frequently, adding to the tire disposal problem (or Washington's burning highway problem, one result of using recycled rubber in paving material).
The monorail looks cooler than it is. There's a reason why this is being sponsored by a citizen's initiative while light rail and commuter rail have been driven by your municipal and county governments. Hint - it's not because the monorail makes sense.
Now that we're on the subject, they should've taken out the Space Needle at the same time they took out the Kingdome. Two of the ugliest structures on the West Coast and we're still stuck with one of them.
My God ... Nike, Adidas and all the rest rely on the fact that your feet need high-tech aids if you're to simply walk from the fridge to the couch with a cold one.
Do you really believe that your shoes don't record your beverage brand choice?
The Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor in December 7th weren't suicide pilots, so I don't understand the point of your statement.
Halon systems only work in closed environments. This environment included a huge whole in the side of the building, blasted out windows all over the place, and a fireball that *immediately* started an extremely hot fire
Have you ever seen a chimney? Air with oxygen flowing past the logs allowing combustion to occur while combustion products move up out the top? Hot air and combustion products rise, and this is exactly what was happening in the buildings (the jumpers weren't jumping for fun).
A halon system would've been worthless.
As this respondent has pointed out, pouring water on fires among other things cools things down as it evaporates. In this case the sprinker system wouldn't have to put the fire out, just cool things to the point where the I-beams didn't droop like the average Windows XP user's limp dick.
That would've taken a *huge* amount of water, though. One of the sad ironies uncovered by the FEMA report is that the firemen in the building were carrying their heavy loads of hoses for naught, because the standpipes had almost certainly been taken out by the impact.
Once again, the report is wrong. Fireproofing was applied to all floors, and in fact they'd been steadily *increasing* the amount since the earlier bombing in the early 1990s.
If you'd read the friggin' article or report you'd know this. Some idiot reporter for a right-wing TV news outlet reporting three days after the event does not have the same credibility as a bunch of engineers with full access to past and current records and over six monjths to study the problem.
The buildings were sprayed with fire-resistant material, all floors, not just those below the 70th.
After the bombing in the early 90s, they began increasing the amount of fire-resistant material from 3/4" to 1.5" but hadn't made much progress.
Unlike you, I read the article and either you or FEMA's engineers are wrong. My bet is that it is you.
Interestingly the area of the North tower that was impacted had the thicker coating, while the area of the South tower had yet to have its I-beam coating thickened (other floors had been completed, though). And of course the South tower collapsed first.
On the other hand, the 767 that struck the South tower was moving about 100 MPH faster than the one that struck the North tower, a great increase in kinetic energy. This is reflected in the fact that several pieces of the faster-moving plane went through the building and fell up to six blocks away, while apparently only a single major piece of the slower airline went entirely through the building and that piece fell close to the tower.
The professional view summed up by the FEMA report is that the impact in both cases was so extreme that the fireproofing was knocked off the I-beams.
Now what does this have to do with asbestos or EPA regulations? Absolutely nothing.
"Disabled" in the case means that pieces of 767 sliced through the sprinker standpipes.
...
Not surprising. They're just pipes
Classic Slashdot ignorance and inability to perform analysis ...
Example: 51% (over half) of the heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century.
30% came in the years 1950-1999.
Meaning 21% came in the years 1900-1949 in this example.
For the rate of warming to have decreased in the last half of the last century >60% of the heat gain over the last 500 years would have to come from the last century. If the researchers believed this they probably would've stated so.
No ... they just version trailers ... err previews ... issuing mulitple versions of trailers that are edited to raise excitement levels as the release date draws near isn't new, nor is it the basis for "preview" and "trailer" being synonyms in modern English.
It used to be at the end, and there wasn't a fifteen minute wait while "buy an ad on this screen" ads slide-showed in your face along with ads for used cars, singles bars, bad food and the like.
Since trailers were spliced to the end of the last reel, they spewed by while the current audience left and the next audience walked in. The hope being that the current audience left during credits and the next audience walked in afterwards to be greeted by the trailers.
I realize that it already IS a problem for these people to get access, but by making it a government utility does it take it from "unavailable" to "never available"?
...
Of course it doesn't. In Oregon, at least, the State's decision to lay fiber to a variety of rural "cities" (we call towns of 3,000 people a "city" in my state) has led not only to Internet access by inhabitants but economic growth based on it. The markets being served most likely would've gotten broadband access in the next two or three decades but getting it a few years ago hasn't exactly pissed anyone off
I know! Let's just use the weight of the chip! That's an objective number! "Athlon 1.1 Gram" etc.
It's just about as meaningful as MHz comparisions between unrelated processor architectures ...
Um ... if you have a problem with the GPL being called the General Public License then you should probably complain to GNU, not the Wall Street Journal.
It's the GPL, not the GGPL though it might more properly be called the GNU GPL. But calling the GPL the "General Public License" is just fine, regardless.
Well, one world-famous mathematician was once quoted as haughtily saying that "Computer Science is just a trivial subset of Discrete Mathematics"...
Research strongly indicates a built-in cycle of a bit over 24 hours, actually. Experiments have been run with people kept in isolation without timekeeping devices, and their day slowly advances. The effect's repeatable in different subjects.
So living normally, where we're exposed to the natural cycle of day and night (or in an isolated environment that provides replacement cues), appears to counter that tendency by causing our brain to do a minor reset, if you will.
Right. It's a pointer to a review, which would be obvious if you read more carefully:
... the review's "over on newsforge", not here.
Over on NewsForge, Roblimo has taken a look at Sun's new StarOffice 6.0
See
What could be more clear?
The link you pointed us to claims that the bug is fixed. If you have evidence it hasn't been then you should resubmit it, because they clearly think it has been ...
But as soon as you pick civilian targets (i.e. people who don't carry guns and don't make it their business to kill others) and make your goal to kill as many innocents as possible, you have become a terrorist, plain and simple
In other words, when Reuters reports on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, or the fire-bombing of Tokyo, or the firebombing of Dresden (when high explosives were first used to smash the water system, to make it impossible to put out the fire started by later incindiary bombs), or similar events they should refer to these as "terrorist attacks" by the United States and (for those events in which they participated) Britain?
Because these events do fit your definition. The goal was to kill as many civilians as possible.
(Note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these events being labelled as terrorist attacks, I'm just curious as to whether or not the poster truly wants to apply this definition in a consistent manner).
Oh, sure it does, quoting from a published work most certainly falls under the fair use provisions of copyright law here in the US, at least. And since slashdot's hosted here in the US, that's what counts.
Normally predator introduction won't wipe out a target species. It's been tried many times, with an astonishing lack of success. So your cat idea is as worthless as the previously stated owl idea.
... a quiz for the clueless ... what's the most common and successful urban predator of birds, birds that have evolved defenses against land-based predators?
... feral cats are a horrible problem in island ecosystems in which they've been introduced.
... this leaves us with the owl idea. Owls, which also frequently dine on birds ... hmmm. Maybe not such a good idea either, eh?
One problem is that rats have co-evolved with any of the predators one might choose to introduce and are well adapted to avoid them. Predators might make a dent in the rat population but there's no way the rat population would be eradicated.
But that's not the worst problem with your idea, which has been rated a "4" by the clueless Slashdot crowd. Here's why:
The seabirds in question, like many species of seabird, have evolved a breeding strategy based on isolation from land-based predators rather than active defense.
Land birds use a variety of techniques to avoid land-based predators. They hide their nests, build them on floating vegetation far from shore, build them up in trees, etc etc.
The sea birds in question get all the food they need to raise their chicks from the sea, so have no reason to breed in ecosystems that include diverse food sources along with the land-based predators that invariably are part of such ecosystems.
They just breed on remote islands that lack land-based predators capable of taking their eggs or chicks. They mass together as a defense against avian predators (who often breed on the same islands) much like B-17s massed against German fighters in WWII. Unfortunately these dense colonies are very vulnerable to introduced land-based predators.
The rat is one such land-based predator.
But
Is it the rat?
No, of course not, it is the cat.
So the brilliant idea here is to protect the seabirds against the rat by introducing cats, a far more efficient bird predator! Can you imagine the havoc cats would do in such a circumstance?
You don't have to imagine it, actually
So
There are poisons that are quite specific to rats and their close relative, so it is unlikely that they "killed every other living organism on the island that is roughly the same size as a rat".
The folks at the USF&W know more about biology than you do, that's clear. Having worked with USF&W biologists in the past I can assure you that on average they're quite knowledgable. Nowadays it's hard to get in without an MS earned in a discipline that requires a lot of field work, usually helping a professor whose studying habitat needs of a particular critter or something similar.
But Open Office is Star Office, minus a few goodies like the Adabas database and supposedly some fonts (which perhaps are also licensed, not "Open Font"?).
...
So I have a difficult time understanding your claim that "Open Office is better than Star Office".
Of course, the Star Office beta's been out for a considerable length of time, so the Open Office code base is more recent and you may be using a version with more bug fixes than the Star Office beta release.
But that same Open Office code base will be wrapped into Star Office final