1. Yes, you "can be guilty without a trial" -- you're guilty the instant you do something wrong.
2. The Constitution enumerates (and in some cases specifically limits) the powers of the government. If the government is not involved, the Constitution does not apply.
Years ago I was thinking of writing a ray-tracer in 1 bit.
I did this once but after I put in the EULA and a few easter eggs it was bloated all the way out to a byte. Then my disk crashed and I lost that byte... if only I'd made a backup somewhere! I think it was 0xE7 or maybe 0x74? Ah well, so it goes.
In my opinion there's a huge difference between distributing someone else's work (without license) as their work, vs distributing it as your own work. The law might not make that distinction (don't know, not a lawyer) but morally I sure do, and thus I can cheer the GPL-enforcers and boo the RIAA without hypocrisy.
(Disclaimers: I Am Not Slashdot. I did not post those "contradictory" articles. Hypocrisy is always wrong, unless I do it, then it's OK.)
Hey, I've been reading r.h.f since its inception, you insensitive clod!
Old-timers like you and me don't expect online messages to go stale 30 seconds after they're posted. We read them in due time, after a few hours or days, then cogitate for a while before posting.... Thus we never get the +5 moderations, which are reserved for teh fr1st p0strrz.
That attitude is really a 14 year old atheist's one.
Hardly. That attitude is a common one among people of all ages. But only the 14-year-olds are dumb enough to call people who outnumber them "weak-minded" to their faces. Atheists who survive to adulthood learn to use more tact.
Writes aren't really "queued", in the sense of a simple list of writes waiting to be serviced. Rather the application write causes block buffers to be allocated and marked dirty. Periodically dirty buffers are written to the media. Application write latency occurs when there is no free memory available and dirty buffers must be written (or memory pages written to swap) before a new buffer can be allocated. Thus the application must wait for a physical media write to complete before its write can be serviced.
I have found that in some circumstances flushing buffers more frequently (by tuning kernel vm parameters) can completely avoid this write latency and speed up write-heavy applications significantly.
No rational adult would buy a Hello Kitty motorcycle.
My wife is a big Hello Kitty fan, and is a motorcyclist in need of a new 400cc sport bike. I would be first in line to buy one, if it were a good mechanically sound vehicle that just happened to have gaudy Sanrio designs painted all over it. Adult? Yes! Rational? Probably! Is "HELLO KITTY" any worse than "GSZXR-RR-R ULTRA-XTREEM SPORT"?
As for the Akira bike... well, I and all my biker buddies were drooling when we saw that part of the movie, swearing if such a thing ever existed we'd each get one.... Of course it was just talk; given a chance to put down real money for such a mechanical impossibility we'd most likely decline. It was a beautiful dream, now effectively ruined by half-assed pseudo-reality.
My understanding is that farm subsidies accomplish two things:
Help establish a floor on agricultural commodity prices, so free market competition can't force prices below costs, which would drive farmers out of business;
Sustain farms that are not economically sustainable on their own.
The idea is that farms are not something that can be shut down and restarted instantaneously, that we need to maintain our agricultural capacity and diversity through times of decreased demand, to be prepared for the times when demand increases.
Shifting "sit on their butt" farmers out of agriculture and into other industries would reduce our agricultural capacity and diversity, which we could not easily recover. Once someone stops being a farmer all their farming expertise is effectively lost to society. In other words, it's better to pay a few farmers to sit on their butts (and maintain their farms and careers) than to have a very few farmers working feverishly and losing money.
But then, I could be wrong. I don't really know anything about farm subsidies.
But, if they are working for you, I'm sure they'll devote more than 100% of their waking hours to your case.
Uh, didn't you just get done saying they billed a client for several hours they spent having dinner and watching a comedy show, i.e. not working on the client's case? Sounds like they cheerfully screw everybody, including (or even especially) their clients.
All right, so you've got yours, Jack. Now consider what it would take to get every car out there running on biodeisel. There isn't enough "free" waste chip oil for more than 1% of the cars. (Probably more like 0.001%.) Where will the rest come from?
1. Bio-fuels cost as much energy to plant, harvest, and process as we get by burning them. In other words, you can't (or can just barely) run a bio-fuel producing farm using just bio-fuel.
2. We can't produce enough bio-fuel to meet the current petro-fuel demand and still provide enough food without accelerated environmental incursion. Even if bio-fuel were sufficiently energy positive to be worthwhile, it would require vast increases in agricultural land use, i.e. cutting down more rain forests, and associated increases in agricultural side-effects on the surrounding environment.
I don't mean to discount the idea out of hand -- perhaps there are techniques that can obviate my two objections -- but moving away from petroleum energy to currently feasible alternative energy sources will have huge effects on our way of life. Extinction of the human race? Certainly not. Total collapse of civilization? Probably not. Big economic crises? Almost certainly. There will be a lot of bad news as a direct result of the oil "running out" (becoming less and less viable as an energy source) that will affect you and me personally. There is also the very real possibility (some would say near-certainty) that we will have to accept a steadily declining energy supply over the foreseeable future. Our high-energy, high-technology, rapid-advance economy is fundamentally based on cheap and ever-increasing energy supply. Declining energy supplies will at the very least force an economic revolution of some sort.
ecological writers tend to have a hopeless anti-human perspective: we're a sinful blight upon the environment; we mess it up accidentally, and anything we try to do to fix it will probably go horribly wrong; best thing we can do is curl up and die.
Not at all! The environmentalist credo is that we (humans) cannot exist apart from our natural environment, and that by altering that environment we put our own survival at great risk. Compared to other places, Earth is a very very very very human-friendly place. We need it to stay very much like it is in order to live happily.
Environmentalists are selfish too, just with a somewhat broader sense of self. I suppose there are probably also some who would like to see most other humans curl up and die so that they can keep the remaining human-friendly environment to themselves.... But I don't think they write about that much. That kind of plan is best kept to oneself!
Ah, so dealers can be every bit as superstitious and irrational as gamblers. Interesting.
If you knew any probability theory you'd realize that any uneven distribution of the shuffle does not affect card-counting at all unless the shuffle is designed systematically to defeat card-counting, which makes it highly predictable in other ways. Any systematic non-randomness in the shuffling would be quickly noticed and exploited by the players.
Blackjack dealers don't have a lot of discretion in how they deal or play their hands. Are you suggesting that they memorize the order of the played cards then shuffle them in such a way to produce hands that will surprise players? That seems extremely unlikely.
I'm an atheist because I see no direct evidence of any gods. IMO, there is no good reason to believe that any particular accounts of any god are true, and lots of good reasons to believe those accounts are fictitious.
I don't believe in any god because I have no reason to believe in any god. I can't prove that no god exists, the entire concept just seems silly. I don't argue about gods, I don't violently reject religion, and I'm not from a religious background. By your criteria I'm an agnostic.
My wife is agnostic. She's pretty sure there is a god of some kind but she doesn't know much about it. No faith, no religion, just some direct brief contact with a godlike entity that was enough to convince her it exists in some form.
My labels, "atheist" and "agnostic", are consistent with how people label themselves. Yours are not.
% host 192.168.0.1 1.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hosta.example.com. 1.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hostb.example.com. 1.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hostc.example.com.
Similarly one hostname can resolve to multiple IP addresses.
% host mx1.mail.yahoo.com. mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 64.156.215.7 mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 64.157.4.78 mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 64.157.4.79 mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 67.28.114.33 mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 64.156.215.5 mx1.mail.yahoo.com has address 64.156.215.6
What mess? You can fix the DNS problem by creating your own root zone, or by using one of the existing alternatives. No wrapper protocol needed.
The big routers all seem to be playing by the original internet rules, so as far as I can tell the Internet is working fine. There are some problems out near the leaf nodes (mostly involving Comcast and their ilk) but you're not going to fix that with a wrapper protocol.
Open relays are hardly a problem any more -- 99% of them have been shut down already, and the few remaining ones will be gone soon enough. If the.mail idea works like I think it does (I can only speculate based on the extremely scant info in TFA) then it would indeed take care of the compromised machines problem, because those compromised machines would not have reverse DNS in the.mail TLD. That's not to say it sounds like a good idea -- who would be responsible for administering the TLD? What qualifications would be necessary to obtain a.mail domain? How would spammers be kept out?
So what, exactly, is your idea of a ground-up overhaul? Please, write up an RFC and a reference implementation. If it works, people will start using it right away (alongside good old SMTP) because they desperately need a spam-free alternative.
Just having voice control doesn't mean you have to disconnect and throw away your keyboard, mouse, foot pedal, remote control, etc. Even if you use the keyboard/mouse 99% of the time, it would still be occasionally convenient to be able to operate the computer without having to touch it. E.g., getting to the next page on homesurgery.com while both your hands are up to the elbows in the dog's giblets.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Yes, you "can be guilty without a trial" -- you're guilty the instant you do something wrong.
2. The Constitution enumerates (and in some cases specifically limits) the powers of the government. If the government is not involved, the Constitution does not apply.
(Disclaimers: I Am Not Slashdot. I did not post those "contradictory" articles. Hypocrisy is always wrong, unless I do it, then it's OK.)
Blood-red. More commonly spelled incarnadine.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
I have found that in some circumstances flushing buffers more frequently (by tuning kernel vm parameters) can completely avoid this write latency and speed up write-heavy applications significantly.
He's talking about the extra charge for anonymity. That's right, Godaddy charges $7 for the domain then another $9 to keep your info private.
As for the Akira bike... well, I and all my biker buddies were drooling when we saw that part of the movie, swearing if such a thing ever existed we'd each get one.... Of course it was just talk; given a chance to put down real money for such a mechanical impossibility we'd most likely decline. It was a beautiful dream, now effectively ruined by half-assed pseudo-reality.
- Help establish a floor on agricultural commodity prices, so free market competition can't force prices below costs, which would drive farmers out of business;
- Sustain farms that are not economically sustainable on their own.
The idea is that farms are not something that can be shut down and restarted instantaneously, that we need to maintain our agricultural capacity and diversity through times of decreased demand, to be prepared for the times when demand increases.Shifting "sit on their butt" farmers out of agriculture and into other industries would reduce our agricultural capacity and diversity, which we could not easily recover. Once someone stops being a farmer all their farming expertise is effectively lost to society. In other words, it's better to pay a few farmers to sit on their butts (and maintain their farms and careers) than to have a very few farmers working feverishly and losing money.
But then, I could be wrong. I don't really know anything about farm subsidies.
One squirt and you're south of the border! Mmm, incapacitating...
This story is eminently newsworthy. See America's Finest News Source for similar stories.
2. We can't produce enough bio-fuel to meet the current petro-fuel demand and still provide enough food without accelerated environmental incursion. Even if bio-fuel were sufficiently energy positive to be worthwhile, it would require vast increases in agricultural land use, i.e. cutting down more rain forests, and associated increases in agricultural side-effects on the surrounding environment.
I don't mean to discount the idea out of hand -- perhaps there are techniques that can obviate my two objections -- but moving away from petroleum energy to currently feasible alternative energy sources will have huge effects on our way of life. Extinction of the human race? Certainly not. Total collapse of civilization? Probably not. Big economic crises? Almost certainly. There will be a lot of bad news as a direct result of the oil "running out" (becoming less and less viable as an energy source) that will affect you and me personally. There is also the very real possibility (some would say near-certainty) that we will have to accept a steadily declining energy supply over the foreseeable future. Our high-energy, high-technology, rapid-advance economy is fundamentally based on cheap and ever-increasing energy supply. Declining energy supplies will at the very least force an economic revolution of some sort.
Environmentalists are selfish too, just with a somewhat broader sense of self. I suppose there are probably also some who would like to see most other humans curl up and die so that they can keep the remaining human-friendly environment to themselves.... But I don't think they write about that much. That kind of plan is best kept to oneself!
What about simple incandescence from the meltdown itself? Wouldn't the uncooled fuel and melting/burning building structures give off a red glow?
If you knew any probability theory you'd realize that any uneven distribution of the shuffle does not affect card-counting at all unless the shuffle is designed systematically to defeat card-counting, which makes it highly predictable in other ways. Any systematic non-randomness in the shuffling would be quickly noticed and exploited by the players.
Blackjack dealers don't have a lot of discretion in how they deal or play their hands. Are you suggesting that they memorize the order of the played cards then shuffle them in such a way to produce hands that will surprise players? That seems extremely unlikely.
I'm an atheist because I see no direct evidence of any gods. IMO, there is no good reason to believe that any particular accounts of any god are true, and lots of good reasons to believe those accounts are fictitious.
I don't believe in any god because I have no reason to believe in any god. I can't prove that no god exists, the entire concept just seems silly. I don't argue about gods, I don't violently reject religion, and I'm not from a religious background. By your criteria I'm an agnostic.
My wife is agnostic. She's pretty sure there is a god of some kind but she doesn't know much about it. No faith, no religion, just some direct brief contact with a godlike entity that was enough to convince her it exists in some form.
My labels, "atheist" and "agnostic", are consistent with how people label themselves. Yours are not.
The big routers all seem to be playing by the original internet rules, so as far as I can tell the Internet is working fine. There are some problems out near the leaf nodes (mostly involving Comcast and their ilk) but you're not going to fix that with a wrapper protocol.
So what, exactly, is your idea of a ground-up overhaul? Please, write up an RFC and a reference implementation. If it works, people will start using it right away (alongside good old SMTP) because they desperately need a spam-free alternative.
Just having voice control doesn't mean you have to disconnect and throw away your keyboard, mouse, foot pedal, remote control, etc. Even if you use the keyboard/mouse 99% of the time, it would still be occasionally convenient to be able to operate the computer without having to touch it. E.g., getting to the next page on homesurgery.com while both your hands are up to the elbows in the dog's giblets.