Are you just mad at someone wanting to drive a bit faster than you because they have a performance car and you do not?
No, he's mad because he perceives those drivers as having a sense of entitlement, despite not having the right of way!
The people already on the highway have the right of way. It is the responsibility of the people merging from the on-ramp to wait until there's a gap and then merge safely. If they try to shove themselves in, and get forced off the road as a result, I have no sympathy!
The energy needed seems proportional to the cosine of the angle.
First of all, you're a bit confused: the formula you're thinking of is work = force * distance.
Also, congratulations, you discovered calculus! That formula is the result of an integral: work = integral(dot product(force, distance)) = force * distance * cos(angle) where force and distance are vector quantities. If the angle between the force and distance vectors is 0 degrees, then cos(angle) = cos(0) = 1 and the cosine term drops out of the equation.
Five, your cooling system may no longer be working, and if you are riding the edge of an overheat (considering you're driving far enough to consider killing the engine on coast) this may push you over the edge.
That makes absolutely no sense: if your engine is off, then it's not generating heat anymore!
I cannot sit at a desk and type at a computer for more than 10 or 20 minutes without intense pain.
Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU POSTING ON SLASHDOT, LIAR?!
If McCain can't sit at a desk to use a computer, then he should fucking STAND to do it instead!
Being a POW is no excuse. Unless he's a damn quadraplegic, I have no sympathy! And if he's that damn disabled, he's unfit to run for President in the first place!
They don't exactly shine as examples of why drug use should be extended. You can argue personal choice, but those who do not wish to live in an anarchic system and instead maintain social structure and cohesion...
But illegal drugs are worse for the social structure, because you get a whole bunch of ancillary crime that's not caused by the drugs themselves, but merely the fact that they're illegal. If you could buy pot at the 7-11, then you'd put not only the local dealer, but the whole smuggling infrastructure up to and including Columbian drug lords, out of business. Street gangs would no longer have a means to raise money to buy guns. The prisons would stop being overcrowded because we'd no longer be stuffing them full of non-violent, petty drug offenders. Taxes would go down because we'd be spending much less money on enforcement, and revenue would go up because we'd tax the drugs!
One other issue is that with free supply it's likely that drug production would push out food production in many areas where that would cause a calamity. Again you might argue that the increased income from selling drugs would pay for food - but those [in the developing world] that produce the drugs at the moment get a very small cut and with the price pushed down...
You say the drug farmers are getting a very small cut, but I guarantee that's still more profit than they'd make growing food instead. Why? By the simple fact that if food were more profitable then they'd grow it instead of the drugs! That's Economics 101. And by the same argument, the illegality of drugs drives the price of them up (because the dealers demand more profit to compensate for the legal risk). If they were legalized, then prices would drop and the developing-world farmers would be more likely to grow food (because the drugs wouldn't be as profitable anymore).
Imagine if school children were getting addicted to opiates, as they mature think how that is going to impact society as a whole.
Sorry, irrational appeals to emotion ("OMG, think of the children!!") don't fly with me. If you want to make a well-reasoned argument
that children, on a large scale, actually would get addicted to opiates, and
why, specifically, that would be bad,
then I look forward to reading it.
However, I'm going to go ahead with my rebuttal: think of Europe. If I recall, alcohol is generally not age-restricted there. Are European school children alcoholics? No? Then why would opiates be any different?
Besides, responsible parenting would solve that problem anyway, and the law is not and should not be a substitute for responsible parenting, for that way lies totalitarianism!
Free [libre] availability of drugs arguably destroyed Chinese society in the late 19th Century.
[Citation needed]
Drugs (whether legal or not) tend to bring moral decay if you think society can cope with a large degree of moral decay I guess is the question.
Do they? Are you sure? I ask because, if you look at history, "moral decay" was almost always a euphemism for "we need an excuse to oppress minorities."
Whether it's kids breaking into your house and stealing stuff to pay off a drugs habit, or youths robbing you at knife point (we don't have many guns here thankfully) to pay off a drug habit,.. drugs have a tendency to wide reaching effects. Yes I speak from experience.
And if the drugs were legalized, they'd be cheaper. And if they were cheaper, then people would be less likely to have to resort to crime to pay for them!
There are two choices: either drugs are legal, or they are illegal. They will always exist regardless. So the question is, which causes less crime, legal drugs or illegal ones? If there is more crime associated with legal drugs, then crime could be reduced by prohibiting them. On the other hand, if there is more crime associated with illegal drugs, then crime could be reduced by legalizing them!
BTW, if you think the Bush administration is "far right" you've missed a huge slice of the American political landscape. Bush is at best weakly moderate.
Bush is dangerously authoritarian. "Left" and "right" is irrelevant bullshit!
But the government we're talking about is fascist (c.f. bank bailout, etc.). Is it really that bad to describe an action taken by a fascist government as fascist, even though the particular action wouldn't be considered fascist by itself?
I expect it's our fault; when did you last send back a steak in a restaurant because it wasn't intelligent enough?
More importantly, you don't want to get in the situation where people are sending back steaks because they're too intelligent (see also: THHGTTG, book 2).
Handwriting recognition on a Tablet PC is easier than with old paper scans for the reasons you mentioned, but also for another reason: time. Unlike with paper scans, Microsoft's handwriting recognition system also knows the order and direction in which you wrote each stroke. Because of that, the system may be able to correctly identify different letters even when the completed input looks exactly the same, because they were drawn differently.
Take a "7" and a "T" for instance: maybe in your handwriting they both look exactly the same (e.g., the top and right sides of a rectangle). But the handwriting recognition could still tell the difference because you wrote the "7" as a single stroke (line to the right, line down, no lift of pen) but wrote the "T" as two strokes (line down, lift, line to the right).
(Note: by the same token, my XP Tablet PC has difficulty distinguishing between my "t"s and "+"s. One possible reason for that is that I use the same sequence of strokes for both (line down, lift, line to the right).)
You wouldn't get damages for violating the terms of the contract directly, but not following the terms of the contract means that you are in violation of the copyright that's held by the original author(s).
No, that's exactly the idea the original court rejected, which is what I was talking about!
[I] hope the offeder's reputation is ruined enough that nobody will ever pay for his software again.
Personally, I hope he goes to jail for fraud, extortion, and perjury! But if you're satisfied with just his reputation being ruined, that's your choice...
In the interval between the original ruling and the appellate ruling, you essentially could. The original ruling said that violation of the license was merely breach of contract (not copyright infringement), and that the only remedy for breach of contract was awarding (monetary) damages. But in the case of Free Software, it is given away, so there are no damages. And if there are no damages, then there is no remedy, and the code is, in fact, "free to take with no consequences!"
That's why this is big news: the original ruling was a really fucking bad ruling!
First of all, he's right: it's hypocritical to call it "stealing" just because it's about Free Software, when doing so in (for example) an RIAA article would get you flamed to a crisp.
Second, this point of view is relevant: it matches the original court decision!
If damages are his only remedy, however, then the court isn't supposed to grant injunctions. Even if the trial court had been upheld, that doesn't mean that open source licenses would have been invalidated, just that violating the terms of the license didn't infringe a copyright, but rather a contract.
Actually it essentially did invalidate the license, because it also held that in the case of Free Software no damages were available because the software was given away for free.
No damages -> no remedy -> effectively no license.
I'd like to hear of some of these promising wind and solar technologies that actually exist now.
What, you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years? The normal wind turbines and silicon photovoltaic panels that have existed forever are just fine. And wind, at least, has become cheap enough to be economically competitive: that's what those "Pickens' Plan" TV ads are about.
no, covering the surface of the Earth with solar panels or wind farms is not practical, feasible or desirable).
You don't have to cover the whole Earth; a solar array covering a small fraction of Arizona would be enough to power the entire United States. Or if you picked wind, then you could plop them right on top of farmland (the individual turbines have to be pretty far away from each other anyway, to lose efficiency by being caught in each others' wakes).
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's mad because he perceives those drivers as having a sense of entitlement, despite not having the right of way!
The people already on the highway have the right of way. It is the responsibility of the people merging from the on-ramp to wait until there's a gap and then merge safely. If they try to shove themselves in, and get forced off the road as a result, I have no sympathy!
First of all, you're a bit confused: the formula you're thinking of is work = force * distance.
Also, congratulations, you discovered calculus! That formula is the result of an integral: work = integral(dot product(force, distance)) = force * distance * cos(angle) where force and distance are vector quantities. If the angle between the force and distance vectors is 0 degrees, then cos(angle) = cos(0) = 1 and the cosine term drops out of the equation.
Hey, look on the bright side: at least new truck size got a whole lot worse!
That makes absolutely no sense: if your engine is off, then it's not generating heat anymore!
Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU POSTING ON SLASHDOT, LIAR?!
If McCain can't sit at a desk to use a computer, then he should fucking STAND to do it instead!
Being a POW is no excuse. Unless he's a damn quadraplegic, I have no sympathy! And if he's that damn disabled, he's unfit to run for President in the first place!
Quit being a partisan asshole! He would have been exactly equally "reluctantly heroic" if he'd done the same thing to Biden.
I guess your Ph.D. wasn't in statistics, because otherwise you'd understand that you are the EXCEPTION, not the rule!
Why, was your interest tight before?
But illegal drugs are worse for the social structure, because you get a whole bunch of ancillary crime that's not caused by the drugs themselves, but merely the fact that they're illegal. If you could buy pot at the 7-11, then you'd put not only the local dealer, but the whole smuggling infrastructure up to and including Columbian drug lords, out of business. Street gangs would no longer have a means to raise money to buy guns. The prisons would stop being overcrowded because we'd no longer be stuffing them full of non-violent, petty drug offenders. Taxes would go down because we'd be spending much less money on enforcement, and revenue would go up because we'd tax the drugs!
You say the drug farmers are getting a very small cut, but I guarantee that's still more profit than they'd make growing food instead. Why? By the simple fact that if food were more profitable then they'd grow it instead of the drugs! That's Economics 101. And by the same argument, the illegality of drugs drives the price of them up (because the dealers demand more profit to compensate for the legal risk). If they were legalized, then prices would drop and the developing-world farmers would be more likely to grow food (because the drugs wouldn't be as profitable anymore).
Sorry, irrational appeals to emotion ("OMG, think of the children!!") don't fly with me. If you want to make a well-reasoned argument
then I look forward to reading it.
However, I'm going to go ahead with my rebuttal: think of Europe. If I recall, alcohol is generally not age-restricted there. Are European school children alcoholics? No? Then why would opiates be any different?
Besides, responsible parenting would solve that problem anyway, and the law is not and should not be a substitute for responsible parenting, for that way lies totalitarianism!
[Citation needed]
Do they? Are you sure? I ask because, if you look at history, "moral decay" was almost always a euphemism for "we need an excuse to oppress minorities."
And if the drugs were legalized, they'd be cheaper. And if they were cheaper, then people would be less likely to have to resort to crime to pay for them!
There are two choices: either drugs are legal, or they are illegal. They will always exist regardless. So the question is, which causes less crime, legal drugs or illegal ones? If there is more crime associated with legal drugs, then crime could be reduced by prohibiting them. On the other hand, if there is more crime associated with illegal drugs, then crime could be reduced by legalizing them!
Bush is dangerously authoritarian. "Left" and "right" is irrelevant bullshit!
But the government we're talking about is fascist (c.f. bank bailout, etc.). Is it really that bad to describe an action taken by a fascist government as fascist, even though the particular action wouldn't be considered fascist by itself?
Ha! The Bush Administration "cherish[es] public credit" just fine; that's why they're bailing out banks!
(And yes, I'm perfectly aware that Washington was writing metaphorically -- but Bush wouldn't be!)
To be fair, you have to admit that Johnson was right on that issue.
More importantly, you don't want to get in the situation where people are sending back steaks because they're too intelligent (see also: THHGTTG, book 2).
Handwriting recognition on a Tablet PC is easier than with old paper scans for the reasons you mentioned, but also for another reason: time. Unlike with paper scans, Microsoft's handwriting recognition system also knows the order and direction in which you wrote each stroke. Because of that, the system may be able to correctly identify different letters even when the completed input looks exactly the same, because they were drawn differently.
Take a "7" and a "T" for instance: maybe in your handwriting they both look exactly the same (e.g., the top and right sides of a rectangle). But the handwriting recognition could still tell the difference because you wrote the "7" as a single stroke (line to the right, line down, no lift of pen) but wrote the "T" as two strokes (line down, lift, line to the right).
(Note: by the same token, my XP Tablet PC has difficulty distinguishing between my "t"s and "+"s. One possible reason for that is that I use the same sequence of strokes for both (line down, lift, line to the right).)
...not you. Netcraft confirms it!
No shit, Sherlock! That's why the ruling got overturned!
No, that's exactly the idea the original court rejected, which is what I was talking about!
Personally, I hope he goes to jail for fraud, extortion, and perjury! But if you're satisfied with just his reputation being ruined, that's your choice...
In the interval between the original ruling and the appellate ruling, you essentially could. The original ruling said that violation of the license was merely breach of contract (not copyright infringement), and that the only remedy for breach of contract was awarding (monetary) damages. But in the case of Free Software, it is given away, so there are no damages. And if there are no damages, then there is no remedy, and the code is, in fact, "free to take with no consequences!"
That's why this is big news: the original ruling was a really fucking bad ruling!
First of all, he's right: it's hypocritical to call it "stealing" just because it's about Free Software, when doing so in (for example) an RIAA article would get you flamed to a crisp.
Second, this point of view is relevant: it matches the original court decision!
Actually it essentially did invalidate the license, because it also held that in the case of Free Software no damages were available because the software was given away for free.
No damages -> no remedy -> effectively no license.
What, you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years? The normal wind turbines and silicon photovoltaic panels that have existed forever are just fine. And wind, at least, has become cheap enough to be economically competitive: that's what those "Pickens' Plan" TV ads are about.
You don't have to cover the whole Earth; a solar array covering a small fraction of Arizona would be enough to power the entire United States. Or if you picked wind, then you could plop them right on top of farmland (the individual turbines have to be pretty far away from each other anyway, to lose efficiency by being caught in each others' wakes).
That said, I support nuclear too.