I strongly doubt that any methanol is sold as rubbing alcohol anymore in any civilized country. It takes a decent amount to kill, but not much to permanently blind.
Assuming you meant the expression was o(1/N) (time, or a "speed" of o(N)), you are incorrect. In fact, the speedup is not merely O(N) but theta(N) (holding the other factors constant, of course).
God gave you a shift key for a reason. Learn to master it. Or, alternatively, don't use terminology you don't understand.
I, for one, would much rather have a 30 GB hard drive than have to deal with tape or be limited to what fits on an SD or other flash card. Still, I don't like all the compromises you have to make with this machine. If it were just a bit smaller, or cheaper, or more powerful as a computer, I'd have to consider it.
Who is coming out with portable hard disk video recorders?
It is very hard to parallelize most ordinary computation. It is very easy to parallelize much of 3D rendering (though not all of it). It shouldn't be surprising if we end up in a world with single-CPU systems with large arrays of graphics processors.
Sorry, had it a little wrong (and less amusing than the real thing). It's:
UNITED STATES v. 11 1/4 DOZEN PACKAGES OF ARTICLE LABELED IN PART MRS. MOFFET'S SHOO FLY POWDERS FOR DRUNKENNESS, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941).
Some judges like to cite this along with Easter Seals Society for Crippled Children v. Playboy Magazine, 815 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1987) when dealing with cases with weird names. Sorry, I don't think the full text is on the web, but I don't think there's anything very funny about the case itself anyway.
This is what is known as an "in rem" suit. A party -- here, the government -- seeks to establish that it is the owner of a piece of property. Provided that a court has jurisdiction over the property, it can decide everyone's rights in it -- not just parties to the suit. In contrast, if the government just sues one person for an object and wins, anyone else can still claim to be the rightful owner of the object and (usually) will not be bound by the earlier judgment.
There are many well-known cases with names like "U.S. v. 40 acres of land," and people love to cite a customs case called something like "U.S. v. 133 boxes of Mrs. Floogle's Delightful Foot Powder." I have been told, but cannot verify, that slaves' suits for freedom were usually done in rem, in order to extinguish all claims, not just the apparent masters', which is why the famous case just before the civil war was known as "Dred Scot v. Sanford" rather than "Scot v. Sanford": "Dred Scot" was not personally the plaintiff, but rather a description of the disputed "res."
Either that, or the WWF (err, WWE) champ is involved.
All real Haskell code uses the "layout" rule, in which whitespace is meaningful, bit it's entirely optional, and defined by translation to the whitespace-free language. See section 2.7 of the Haskell 98 Report.
So, yes, Haskell is perfect, except: even if God plays dice, there is absolutely no way he uses n+k patterns.
Absolutely. How, precisely, should sentences like the one below, which is an exception to the totally nonsensical rules on "collapsible corporations," be translated into a simple form? The I.R.S. may do a bad job, but most of the blame has to lie with the Congress that refuses to repeal dreck like the following, the first sentence of sec. 341(e)(1):
For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of (A) the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus (B) if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus (C) if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made (i) by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and (ii) by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged, does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.
Obviously, he wrote a "research"; there's just a misplaced modifier and missing comma in front of the last word, not to mention the other half-dozen problems. The sentence should read:
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albeit a bit speculative, research in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology.
See how much more fun Slashdot is if you squint a little and don't think very much?
Sure, there's plenty of reason not to cooperate. But there's no possible reason to conspire not to cooperate. If you don't want to cooperate, you just ignore each other and develop separately, which is the precise opposite of a conspiracy.
I can't see any possible way for this suit to succeed on its merits. The courts have held, again and again, that a "unilateral refusal to deal" is not a violation of the antitrust laws. As far as I can tell, there isn't any allegation the companies conspire not to use each others' phones -- and, of course, there would be no reason for them to conspire _not_ to cooperate.
But, like most class actions, this suit can succeed without the slightest hint of merit, since the real point is just to extract fees for lawyers by making it too expensive for the defendants.
Try zoneld.com: 4 cents 24/7 to 5 states of your choice, 4.5 to the rest, 6-second billing, online bill, no monthly fee. You do need to put up with a mildly annoying website, though.
Still, $20 including local sounds awfully tempting to me.
That's not right. A minor's non-essentials contracts are voidable, not void.
Of course, the effect on contract counterparties is even worse. But Apple would be free to take the risk and believe that the kid would not choose to void the contract on reaching majority.
Actually, this issue is raised all the time in America's funniest court: the Tax Court. Those of us who read Tax Notes Today (free trial at www.tax.org) see every tax case in the country, and a good 20% or so of them are totally frivolous. (10 cases so far this month have used the word "frivolous," in fact.) The claim that Social Security numbers are the Mark of the Beast is raised so often that the IRS recently sent a notice to all of its field offices, to ensure a coordinated response.
While we're all in full nit-pick mode, note that there's an extra space before the quotation, no space after it, and no space before the first hyperlink. Submitters and editors, how about using a preview button once in a while?
Yes, but there's another part of the first amendment you're not reading: the right to petition the government. Under the _Noerr_-_Pennington_ doctrine, it is a violation of the First Amendment for the courts to punish anyone for filing a not-objectively-unreasonable lawsuit, that is, one which has some prayer of success, NO MATTER WHAT the plaintiff's actual motive in suing was.
In short, the Supreme Court has held, punishing non-frivolous SLAPP suits would violate the First Amendment.
Some people have to commute at busy times. In my job (as a lawyer), it's OK for me to arrive at 10 some days, but I often have to stay long past 6:30. People like me should be more heavily discouraged from driving during rush hour. Employers like yours should have more incentive to allow or encourage alternative work schedules. Not everyone can move their commute from rush hour, but the people who can, should.
Same thing on alternative roads. Some people need to be somewhere fast, and should take the shortest route. But wouldn't it be nice if the people who *weren't* really in a rush could be (effectively) bribed by the tax system to stay on those back roads?
Slashdot Mirror
I strongly doubt that any methanol is sold as rubbing alcohol anymore in any civilized country. It takes a decent amount to kill, but not much to permanently blind.
Usually people use isopropanol.
Assuming you meant the expression was o(1/N) (time, or a "speed" of o(N)), you are incorrect. In fact, the speedup is not merely O(N) but theta(N) (holding the other factors constant, of course).
God gave you a shift key for a reason. Learn to master it. Or, alternatively, don't use terminology you don't understand.
Yes, but, as I said, then you have to deal with tape. I've had enough of linear-access-only video.
Of course, if I actually needed to record video for some reason, I'd deal with it (or find some alternative.)
I, for one, would much rather have a 30 GB hard drive than have to deal with tape or be limited to what fits on an SD or other flash card. Still, I don't like all the compromises you have to make with this machine. If it were just a bit smaller, or cheaper, or more powerful as a computer, I'd have to consider it.
Who is coming out with portable hard disk video recorders?
That shocked me, too, but I'm pretty sure our correspondent's "this virii" was meant to be "these virii," not "this virus."
It was discussed here. Briefly, it means that the kernel itself, just like user programs, can be preempted, preventing high latency.
The alternative, of course, is just to attack all sources of latency in the kernel, which should be both better and harder.
It is very hard to parallelize most ordinary computation. It is very easy to parallelize much of 3D rendering (though not all of it). It shouldn't be surprising if we end up in a world with single-CPU systems with large arrays of graphics processors.
Sorry, had it a little wrong (and less amusing than the real thing). It's:
UNITED STATES v. 11 1/4 DOZEN PACKAGES OF ARTICLE LABELED IN PART MRS. MOFFET'S SHOO FLY POWDERS FOR DRUNKENNESS, 40 F.Supp. 208 (W.D.N.Y. 1941).
Some judges like to cite this along with Easter Seals Society for Crippled Children v. Playboy Magazine, 815 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1987) when dealing with cases with weird names. Sorry, I don't think the full text is on the web, but I don't think there's anything very funny about the case itself anyway.
This is what is known as an "in rem" suit. A party -- here, the government -- seeks to establish that it is the owner of a piece of property. Provided that a court has jurisdiction over the property, it can decide everyone's rights in it -- not just parties to the suit. In contrast, if the government just sues one person for an object and wins, anyone else can still claim to be the rightful owner of the object and (usually) will not be bound by the earlier judgment.
There are many well-known cases with names like "U.S. v. 40 acres of land," and people love to cite a customs case called something like "U.S. v. 133 boxes of Mrs. Floogle's Delightful Foot Powder." I have been told, but cannot verify, that slaves' suits for freedom were usually done in rem, in order to extinguish all claims, not just the apparent masters', which is why the famous case just before the civil war was known as "Dred Scot v. Sanford" rather than "Scot v. Sanford": "Dred Scot" was not personally the plaintiff, but rather a description of the disputed "res."
Either that, or the WWF (err, WWE) champ is involved.
Why not make it easy to customize all the keyboard shortcuts?
Single-key forward and back that worked even while in a textbox would be great.
That, and support for mouse buttons 4 and 5 for those of us with space cadet mice.
All real Haskell code uses the "layout" rule, in which whitespace is meaningful, bit it's entirely optional, and defined by translation to the whitespace-free language. See section 2.7 of the Haskell 98 Report.
So, yes, Haskell is perfect, except: even if God plays dice, there is absolutely no way he uses n+k patterns.
Absolutely. How, precisely, should sentences like the one below, which is an exception to the totally nonsensical rules on "collapsible corporations," be translated into a simple form? The I.R.S. may do a bad job, but most of the blame has to lie with the Congress that refuses to repeal dreck like the following, the first sentence of sec. 341(e)(1):
For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of (A) the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus (B) if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus (C) if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made (i) by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and (ii) by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged, does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.
Obviously, he wrote a "research"; there's just a misplaced modifier and missing comma in front of the last word, not to mention the other half-dozen problems. The sentence should read:
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albeit a bit speculative, research in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology.
See how much more fun Slashdot is if you squint a little and don't think very much?
I'm planning to get rich. Every page I see from Slashdot makes me $1,000 richer, since my "User Space" says "Slashdot agrees to pay you $1000."
Do the idiot lawyers who write these actually believe they'll work? Don't ask me. I just come up with tax schemes.
Sure, there's plenty of reason not to cooperate. But there's no possible reason to conspire not to cooperate. If you don't want to cooperate, you just ignore each other and develop separately, which is the precise opposite of a conspiracy.
I can't see any possible way for this suit to succeed on its merits. The courts have held, again and again, that a "unilateral refusal to deal" is not a violation of the antitrust laws. As far as I can tell, there isn't any allegation the companies conspire not to use each others' phones -- and, of course, there would be no reason for them to conspire _not_ to cooperate.
But, like most class actions, this suit can succeed without the slightest hint of merit, since the real point is just to extract fees for lawyers by making it too expensive for the defendants.
Try zoneld.com: 4 cents 24/7 to 5 states of your choice, 4.5 to the rest, 6-second billing, online bill, no monthly fee. You do need to put up with a mildly annoying website, though.
Still, $20 including local sounds awfully tempting to me.
That's not right. A minor's non-essentials contracts are voidable, not void.
Of course, the effect on contract counterparties is even worse. But Apple would be free to take the risk and believe that the kid would not choose to void the contract on reaching majority.
The correct plural of "over-educated genus" is "over-educated genera."
You, sir, are insane.
Either that, or I've just been trolled -- in which case, Congratulations.
Actually, this issue is raised all the time in America's funniest court: the Tax Court. Those of us who read Tax Notes Today (free trial at www.tax.org) see every tax case in the country, and a good 20% or so of them are totally frivolous. (10 cases so far this month have used the word "frivolous," in fact.) The claim that Social Security numbers are the Mark of the Beast is raised so often that the IRS recently sent a notice to all of its field offices, to ensure a coordinated response.
While we're all in full nit-pick mode, note that there's an extra space before the quotation, no space after it, and no space before the first hyperlink. Submitters and editors, how about using a preview button once in a while?
Please provide a reference to this alleged proof that pi is normal.
Yes, but there's another part of the first amendment you're not reading: the right to petition the government. Under the _Noerr_-_Pennington_ doctrine, it is a violation of the First Amendment for the courts to punish anyone for filing a not-objectively-unreasonable lawsuit, that is, one which has some prayer of success, NO MATTER WHAT the plaintiff's actual motive in suing was.
In short, the Supreme Court has held, punishing non-frivolous SLAPP suits would violate the First Amendment.
Some people have to commute at busy times. In my job (as a lawyer), it's OK for me to arrive at 10 some days, but I often have to stay long past 6:30. People like me should be more heavily discouraged from driving during rush hour. Employers like yours should have more incentive to allow or encourage alternative work schedules. Not everyone can move their commute from rush hour, but the people who can, should.
Same thing on alternative roads. Some people need to be somewhere fast, and should take the shortest route. But wouldn't it be nice if the people who *weren't* really in a rush could be (effectively) bribed by the tax system to stay on those back roads?