Re:Just when you thought you were at the bottom...
on
CCTV In School Toilets
·
· Score: 1
Bottom of the slippery slope? Funny:-).
Besides, the bottom part of the slope isn't even slippery... It's covered with sharp stones and poison ivy, it's just steep enough and there's already enough momentum, that those won't provide much of a slowdown, they just hurt more.
It's pretty easy to say that when you're not facing a terminal illness. No one can truthfully say how they will react to a very difficult decision like that until it actually happens. We can say how we would hope to react, but to suppose we would make a better choice than someone else is dishonest and arrogant.
Of course, if you're not especially rich (to some degree even in countries with "socialist" health care, more so in countries like USA, and especially in developing/3rd world countries), it doesn't matter much how you react, 'cos you can't afford the treatment anyway...
I don't know... A common problem, especially when drinking cocktails or shots, but also when being in a bar that serves a lot of different beers you want to try, is that you want to drink more, but you're already so drunk that drinking more will be a bad idea in oh so many ways.
I have followed this rule religiously once I started drinking socially. As a result, I have never gotten a hangover. Here it is:
For every three beers or three shots you drink, drink a glass of water. Also, try to make sure you drink a glass of water before falling asleep.
You will be hangover free...guaranteed. Simple, safe, and effective.
Safe... Absolutely.
Effective... Well... depends on person, and total amount of alcohol, and type of alcohol, not 100% effective in all cases. But is pretty sure to at least reduce the hangover dramatically.
Simple... Uh, sure, as long as you haven't drank so many glasses of water that you no longer can count how much alcohol you drink between glasses of water;-).
Productivity = yes that thing that you gain from good design, unlike vis7a which has retarded design is so many areas and crap changes, so much so that settings and changes I could get to and make in a few clicks, suddenly becomes an effort of extra clicks all because of the crap UI layout/position/ location of settings options etc once again in the Explorer shell! how many times do I need to bring up that heap of shit.
Vista has one saving grace that works out of the box: easily starting programs with keyboard. Just hit "Windows"-key and start typing away, and it'll give you smaller and smaller list of possible programs and documents, and most of the time the program you're after will be at the top of the list after a few keystrokes, so you can just press enter to launch it.
As an example, I'm sure you know how to get to modifying environment variables in XP?. Well, in Win7, just hit "Win-key", type "environ" and select it from menu (ie. just press enter, IIRC). No more navigating stupid control panel.
The rest of changes are pretty good too after getting used to them, I especially like being able to easily set up two half-screen windows side-by-side and being able to maximize window vertically. But that "command line like" launching of programs, that's enough reason for any Linux-user to start hating XP (when compared to Win7, I mean).
So if I murder that judge’s children, I’m good, as long as I don’t benefit from it?;)
What an idiot.
No, if you want to buy murder of the judge from a hitman, then the hitman can insist that you first buy murder of judge's children, and then downgrade to the murder of their parent, as long as the hitman doesn't benefit from the murder of the children.
Of course selling or buying murder is still a crime in itself, while selling or buying Windows isn't so much... But that doesn't mean you're "good" in either case;-)
Er, but what are we going to do with all the people who just don't "have" the brains?
Mmmm, brains...
Indeed. Whatever they "have", I bet the stuff tastes just the same and provides just the same proteins, prions and other nutrients a growing child needs!
There is no "life", there is only cohesiveness over time. The magical attribute called "alive" does not actually exist anywhere in our Universe;) We just don't happen to fall apart for a while while we compute.
According to same argument, there are no "molecules", there's only cohesiveness of atom groups over time.
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
The GPL provides the only conditions under which someone may prepare and distribute derivative works of covered software, the conditions have to be met with their redistribution of it. You can contract with them to provide the software, then they would be obligated under contract to provide the contracted services.
But if the contract contains any restrictions, conditions, or requirements on your use of GPL software you receive from them, then their distribution to you is in violaton of the GPL, due to those conditions. And the copyright owner could take action against them, then.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation,
Distributing GPL'ed software to someone with a requirement that they report on usage or do other things or meet additional conditions not provided in the GPL, with respect to the GPL covered software, is a violation of the GPL.
I think it's a bit of a gray area. I'm pretty sure it's ok under GPL to ask how many computers you're using the patch on, and then determine the cost of service (of providing you the patches in a timely manner) based on that. I'm also pretty sure that lying here is a breach of contract law, and GPL certainly doesn't give you the right to break the law.
So the question becomes, is it ok to provide GPL software with a service, when cost is tied to number of installations? Or does this kind of billing model void GPL, and thus remove the right to provide GPL software as part of the service in the first place.
I think the service provider / GPL code distributor would be allowed to terminate the contract on the spot and stop providing the service (including the code), if the customer was caught lying. Getting damages, or even it being legal under GPL to sue for damages, that's less clear.
Since when has Linux ever become useful? And useful is defined beyond the needs of a bunch of neckbeards.
Flamebait? More like "funny"...
Indeed, since when has Linux ever become useful?
I think it may have been sometime around... 1994 with maturing NCSA httpd? At least Linux became useful by the time web became useful for people beyond a bunch of neckbeards, ie. in the 90's for sure.
Actually, i'm more interested in paying $5 to get one GPL'ed copy of hot patches in both binary and source, instead of $50 to get copies of the same binary patches for 10 identical systems.
(G)
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation, but it would be a breach of contract, if it was clear that you intentionally lied. But IANAL.
Of course then there could be fake companies that would truthfully disclose how many computers they had, but would distribute the patches to the real company under GPL... But at some point all that becomes more hassle than it's worth, and it'd be easier to just pay what they ask, and get the whole package hassle-free. I mean, if you don't want hassle-free, why use their patches instead of rolling your own...
You assume far too much. I don't trust an analysis of anything, by anyone, who doesn't know what they are actually looking at. In your example you can look and analyze but you don't need to understand what it is....
I'm seeing a pretty clear parallel between your view of how the code can be analyzed and the AGW ignoramus skeptic view of AGW science as a whole. I don't trust arguments for or against AGW that aren't by people with educations to demonstrate they at least *might* know what they are talking about.
You're basically saying you're qualified to analyze and discuss a topic you do not understand simply because you know a language. That is just B.S.
So if the scientist who wrote the computer model isn't a qualified software engineer and doesn't have intimate knowledge of the workings of processor architectures, computer languages and all that, then any results he gets using a computer program of his own making are not to be trusted?
I think you just threw out a significant portion of latest science...
For the same reason that you do not take a buggy, unfinished mess and call it "v4.0."
I don't think you quite "get" open source. The idea is to "release early and release often." This means releasing code even when it's buggy or not fit for human consumption. And a number is just a number. We won't run out of them. The v4.0 means exactly that.. New features, but not bug-free.
Apparently a lot of people don't "get" open source then, and I think that was his point exactly... If most people "got" it in they way you mean, there wouldn't have been all this moaning about KDE 4.x...
And public perceptions are one thing where truth is determined by a popularity vote.
Games are for computers, whether that be a regular desktop/laptop, or a gaming system.
Phones are not gaming systems. Not to mention stuff like the battery life would need to be much much better.
In other words: Why can't my toaster play games?
Because it's a toaster.
Actually your toaster can't play games because it doesn't have ability to install applications, interactively display video and play audio, or have a sufficiently general UI for controlling games.
If it had these things, it could play games.
I think there are fridges that do play games...;-)
0; dark matter isn't normal matter that we just can't see, it's an entirely different form of matter (at least according to the theory).
Actually "dark matter" refers to an matter we don't see. So brown dwarfs etc. (that are sufficiently far to be undetectable) qualify as dark matter. But current understanding is, that baryonic dark matter (ie. brown dwarfs and stuff) is tiny fraction of non-baryonic dark matter, which is what you're talking about above.
Nobody out there not convinced by the existing lines of evidence proving birds are dinosaurs is going to be convinced by this. And don't kid yourself, there are lots of such people.
But what if dinosaurs are birds, while modern birds (and as well as theropods, currently classified as dinosaurs) are not dinosaurs? Has that been conclusively proven to not be the case?
Yah, I think your definition of "know" is a bit too esoteric for my taste. Reminds me of the people who argue that, since we can't test for the existence of gods, nobody can know that they don't exist. If making arguments based on pedantic technicalities makes you happy, then fill your boots.
I think this is more of a case "There's a door in a hallway we can't see through. But since it's hallway on this side, the hallway must continue on the other side of the door.". No, we just don't know, it could as well be a room or a balcony. In black hole evaporation "the door" is at the threshold where both relativistic and quantum phenomenon become significant. We don't know what's beyond that door, and I'm pretty sure final stages of black hole evaporation happen on the other side.
Or a car analogy. You're driving a car and you run out of gas a few miles before you get home. It's common knowledge that then they'll probably start walking to go find more gas. Except today, maybe not, because they may be driving a Prius and have enough charge in the batteries so you get home anyway. You just don't know, if you don't know what car they're driving.
If you call lack of knowledge a pedantic technicality, then science is about pedantic technicalities and not much else...
It may be "proven" that Hawking radiation exists in classical-scale (mass or size) black holes, but it says nothing about quantum-scale black holes. It's not know what happens to black holes at the final stages of evaporation, it's not known if they explode in a burst of radiation or if something else happens.
Sure, just like we don't know what happens to a fire in it's last stages. Does it continue to burn out? Does it magically cross into a different dimension where it continues to exist in the form of a unicorn? Nobody knows!
Eh. But we do know pretty well what happens to a fire in it's last stages, we have pretty good theories on both chemical and physical level, and we can do direct experimentation with burning stuff.
With final stages of black hole evaporation, we don't know, we don't have and we can't do.
Slashdot Mirror
Bottom of the slippery slope? Funny :-).
Besides, the bottom part of the slope isn't even slippery... It's covered with sharp stones and poison ivy, it's just steep enough and there's already enough momentum, that those won't provide much of a slowdown, they just hurt more.
It's pretty easy to say that when you're not facing a terminal illness. No one can truthfully say how they will react to a very difficult decision like that until it actually happens. We can say how we would hope to react, but to suppose we would make a better choice than someone else is dishonest and arrogant.
Of course, if you're not especially rich (to some degree even in countries with "socialist" health care, more so in countries like USA, and especially in developing/3rd world countries), it doesn't matter much how you react, 'cos you can't afford the treatment anyway...
No hangover - Good
Faster sober - Bad
You're not done mister, get back to the lab.
I don't know... A common problem, especially when drinking cocktails or shots, but also when being in a bar that serves a lot of different beers you want to try, is that you want to drink more, but you're already so drunk that drinking more will be a bad idea in oh so many ways.
I have followed this rule religiously once I started drinking socially. As a result, I have never gotten a hangover. Here it is:
For every three beers or three shots you drink, drink a glass of water. Also, try to make sure you drink a glass of water before falling asleep.
You will be hangover free...guaranteed. Simple, safe, and effective.
Safe... Absolutely.
Effective... Well... depends on person, and total amount of alcohol, and type of alcohol, not 100% effective in all cases. But is pretty sure to at least reduce the hangover dramatically.
Simple... Uh, sure, as long as you haven't drank so many glasses of water that you no longer can count how much alcohol you drink between glasses of water ;-).
And thermonuclear warfare...
That's just a spacial case of "hand grenade".
Productivity = yes that thing that you gain from good design, unlike vis7a which has retarded design is so many areas and crap changes, so much so that settings and changes I could get to and make in a few clicks, suddenly becomes an effort of extra clicks all because of the crap UI layout/position/ location of settings options etc once again in the Explorer shell! how many times do I need to bring up that heap of shit.
Vista has one saving grace that works out of the box: easily starting programs with keyboard. Just hit "Windows"-key and start typing away, and it'll give you smaller and smaller list of possible programs and documents, and most of the time the program you're after will be at the top of the list after a few keystrokes, so you can just press enter to launch it.
As an example, I'm sure you know how to get to modifying environment variables in XP?. Well, in Win7, just hit "Win-key", type "environ" and select it from menu (ie. just press enter, IIRC). No more navigating stupid control panel.
The rest of changes are pretty good too after getting used to them, I especially like being able to easily set up two half-screen windows side-by-side and being able to maximize window vertically. But that "command line like" launching of programs, that's enough reason for any Linux-user to start hating XP (when compared to Win7, I mean).
So if I murder that judge’s children, I’m good, as long as I don’t benefit from it? ;)
What an idiot.
No, if you want to buy murder of the judge from a hitman, then the hitman can insist that you first buy murder of judge's children, and then downgrade to the murder of their parent, as long as the hitman doesn't benefit from the murder of the children.
Of course selling or buying murder is still a crime in itself, while selling or buying Windows isn't so much... But that doesn't mean you're "good" in either case ;-)
Er, but what are we going to do with all the people who just don't "have" the brains?
Mmmm, brains ...
Indeed. Whatever they "have", I bet the stuff tastes just the same and provides just the same proteins, prions and other nutrients a growing child needs!
There is no "life", there is only cohesiveness over time. The magical attribute called "alive" does not actually exist anywhere in our Universe ;) We just don't happen to fall apart for a while while we compute.
According to same argument, there are no "molecules", there's only cohesiveness of atom groups over time.
Except then there are no atoms either...
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
The GPL provides the only conditions under which someone may prepare and distribute derivative works of covered software, the conditions have to be met with their redistribution of it. You can contract with them to provide the software, then they would be obligated under contract to provide the contracted services.
But if the contract contains any restrictions, conditions, or requirements on your use of GPL software you receive from them, then their distribution to you is in violaton of the GPL, due to those conditions.
And the copyright owner could take action against them, then.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to
require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation,
Distributing GPL'ed software to someone with a requirement that they report on usage or do other things or meet additional conditions not provided in the GPL, with respect to the GPL covered software, is a violation of the GPL.
I think it's a bit of a gray area. I'm pretty sure it's ok under GPL to ask how many computers you're using the patch on, and then determine the cost of service (of providing you the patches in a timely manner) based on that. I'm also pretty sure that lying here is a breach of contract law, and GPL certainly doesn't give you the right to break the law.
So the question becomes, is it ok to provide GPL software with a service, when cost is tied to number of installations? Or does this kind of billing model void GPL, and thus remove the right to provide GPL software as part of the service in the first place.
I think the service provider / GPL code distributor would be allowed to terminate the contract on the spot and stop providing the service (including the code), if the customer was caught lying. Getting damages, or even it being legal under GPL to sue for damages, that's less clear.
Move to a country with free healthcare?
Seriously, paying for medicine is so 19th century.
I fear it may turn out to be very 21st century, as well... :-(
Since when has Linux ever become useful? And useful is defined beyond the needs of a bunch of neckbeards.
Flamebait? More like "funny"...
Indeed, since when has Linux ever become useful?
I think it may have been sometime around... 1994 with maturing NCSA httpd? At least Linux became useful by the time web became useful for people beyond a bunch of neckbeards, ie. in the 90's for sure.
Actually, i'm more interested in paying $5 to get one GPL'ed copy of hot patches in both binary and source, instead of $50 to get copies of the same binary patches for 10 identical systems.
(G)
As long as you get them to believe you're only going to use it on one, and are willing to sell you $5/month service. I mean, they are under no obligation to give you anything what so ever, and GPL kicks in only after they're giving you something.
Also, I think it might be legally okay to require you to periodically disclose how many computers you plan to install the patches on. Installing on more would not be a copyright violation, but it would be a breach of contract, if it was clear that you intentionally lied. But IANAL.
Of course then there could be fake companies that would truthfully disclose how many computers they had, but would distribute the patches to the real company under GPL... But at some point all that becomes more hassle than it's worth, and it'd be easier to just pay what they ask, and get the whole package hassle-free. I mean, if you don't want hassle-free, why use their patches instead of rolling your own...
Computers ARE perfect mathematicians, delta hardware errors.
...and software bugs!
So end result is, computers are far from perfect mathematicians.
I'll give you that they're pretty good calculators, delta hardware errors and software bugs.
You assume far too much. I don't trust an analysis of anything, by anyone, who doesn't know what they are actually looking at. In your example you can look and analyze but you don't need to understand what it is....
I'm seeing a pretty clear parallel between your view of how the code can be analyzed and the AGW ignoramus skeptic view of AGW science as a whole. I don't trust arguments for or against AGW that aren't by people with educations to demonstrate they at least *might* know what they are talking about.
You're basically saying you're qualified to analyze and discuss a topic you do not understand simply because you know a language. That is just B.S.
So if the scientist who wrote the computer model isn't a qualified software engineer and doesn't have intimate knowledge of the workings of processor architectures, computer languages and all that, then any results he gets using a computer program of his own making are not to be trusted?
I think you just threw out a significant portion of latest science...
For the same reason that you do not take a buggy, unfinished mess and call it "v4.0."
I don't think you quite "get" open source. The idea is to "release early and release often." This means releasing code even when it's buggy or not fit for human consumption. And a number is just a number. We won't run out of them. The v4.0 means exactly that.. New features, but not bug-free.
Apparently a lot of people don't "get" open source then, and I think that was his point exactly... If most people "got" it in they way you mean, there wouldn't have been all this moaning about KDE 4.x...
And public perceptions are one thing where truth is determined by a popularity vote.
Mostly agree.
Games are for computers, whether that be a regular desktop/laptop, or a gaming system.
Phones are not gaming systems. Not to mention stuff like the battery life would need to be much much better.
In other words: Why can't my toaster play games?
Because it's a toaster.
Actually your toaster can't play games because it doesn't have ability to install applications, interactively display video and play audio, or have a sufficiently general UI for controlling games.
If it had these things, it could play games.
I think there are fridges that do play games... ;-)
Really so. I buy a phone for talking and texting, same as most of the people I know.
No no, phones are for talking. Tele-P-H-O-N-E. Sound only. No texting allowed. Heretic!
So then those Linksys routers that run Linux really don't because the functionality isn't the same. Cool.
Uh... What Linux OS functionality is missing from the Linksys routers you mention?
By your logic, my 8088 was running a version of Windows 7, just a different flavor of it.
Or to put it the other way, quadrillion core i753 will still be running a version of PC-DOS 1.0.
And it won't run smoothly.
Users of AmigaOS would disagree with you.
To be more accurate: Those users of AmigaOS who enjoy meditation and are interested in virology would disagree...
0; dark matter isn't normal matter that we just can't see, it's an entirely different form of matter (at least according to the theory).
Actually "dark matter" refers to an matter we don't see. So brown dwarfs etc. (that are sufficiently far to be undetectable) qualify as dark matter. But current understanding is, that baryonic dark matter (ie. brown dwarfs and stuff) is tiny fraction of non-baryonic dark matter, which is what you're talking about above.
Nobody out there not convinced by the existing lines of evidence proving birds are dinosaurs is going to be convinced by this. And don't kid yourself, there are lots of such people.
But what if dinosaurs are birds, while modern birds (and as well as theropods, currently classified as dinosaurs) are not dinosaurs? Has that been conclusively proven to not be the case?
Yah, I think your definition of "know" is a bit too esoteric for my taste. Reminds me of the people who argue that, since we can't test for the existence of gods, nobody can know that they don't exist. If making arguments based on pedantic technicalities makes you happy, then fill your boots.
I think this is more of a case "There's a door in a hallway we can't see through. But since it's hallway on this side, the hallway must continue on the other side of the door.". No, we just don't know, it could as well be a room or a balcony. In black hole evaporation "the door" is at the threshold where both relativistic and quantum phenomenon become significant. We don't know what's beyond that door, and I'm pretty sure final stages of black hole evaporation happen on the other side.
Or a car analogy. You're driving a car and you run out of gas a few miles before you get home. It's common knowledge that then they'll probably start walking to go find more gas. Except today, maybe not, because they may be driving a Prius and have enough charge in the batteries so you get home anyway. You just don't know, if you don't know what car they're driving.
If you call lack of knowledge a pedantic technicality, then science is about pedantic technicalities and not much else...
It may be "proven" that Hawking radiation exists in classical-scale (mass or size) black holes, but it says nothing about quantum-scale black holes. It's not know what happens to black holes at the final stages of evaporation, it's not known if they explode in a burst of radiation or if something else happens.
Sure, just like we don't know what happens to a fire in it's last stages. Does it continue to burn out? Does it magically cross into a different dimension where it continues to exist in the form of a unicorn? Nobody knows!
Eh. But we do know pretty well what happens to a fire in it's last stages, we have pretty good theories on both chemical and physical level, and we can do direct experimentation with burning stuff.
With final stages of black hole evaporation, we don't know, we don't have and we can't do.