Because the 'wrong link' has a legitimate purpose -- to direct somebody who is already in your network (i.e. lives in your city, goes to your school) and already on Facebook to your FULL profile, not your publically neutered one. But if someone who is NOT already in your network clicks the link, it should go to the public profile, not a "You cannot access this" page.
There is absolutely no reason the full profile and public profile cannot have the same URI. (well, there is if you want people who are in your network to be able to see the public profile separately, but then you can just have two URIs, _either_ of which go to the public profile when accessed by an outsider).
So which mechanism of slowing down uses more energy than continuing at the same speed? Yes, you're still using gas (at least the amount for idling) if you use engine braking or let air resistance do it, but that gas isn't being used to provide energy for "negative acceleration". It's not like you're in a rocket that needs to reverse thrust to slow down. In all cases (as far as I know), it's friction that provides the force to "negatively accelerate".
And that decceleration is negative acceleration. True, but irrelevant, unless you expect me to believe the engine is running backwards when you brake. The energy for that 'negative acceleration' comes from the brake pads, not the gas tank.
It didn't appear next to it for me, and even if it had, that might not indicate that it wasn't just acting on the content of the post as edited by an editor - and, it _is_ the same link that's at the bottom of the page under "terms of service". Slashdot is owned by Sourceforge, didn't you know?
They don't deliver _any_ fuel until you squeeze the trigger - you've got no guarantee of being able to get the fuel out of the hose _without_ also paying for additional fuel, as suggested by the GP.
(also, in my experience, the meter does count the fuel going into your car rather than coming out of their tank - i've continued putting gas in and it's continued metering, after the pump itself shuts off about half a gallon short of my 20 bucks. They've had over half a century to design these things, and the content of the hose is nontrivial.)
And i can assure you the price isnt going down when its hotter in the summer. I assumed they meant the sensors change the metering (so a "gallon" by the meter is 1.02 physical gallons in hot weather, 0.98 in cold weather)
The oil company isn't stealing money either, they just decided not to fit a sensor which would save you 2% tops, assuming the gas is 20 degrees C hotter, which seems highly implausible. 20 degrees C hotter than 60 F is 96 F. I'm not sure where you're getting "implausible" from.
I missed this statement: "Yes. The chemical family was developed as an appetite suppressant. One particular member of the family had very different effects. That member was redeveloped as a theraputic drug for recall therapy." if it was redeveloped, then that's not the original reason it was created.
"this [the memory thing that this article is about] is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck"
and
"The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant"
CONTRADICT each other. they CANNOT both be true. Even if one is right, the other must be wrong. You claimed both. Therefore, one of your claims MUST be incorrect.
Oh, and this rule does not "reduce the expressiveness" of the language - there are no concepts/situations/etc that can only be expressed by using this phrasing to mean what you want it mean that can't be expressed in some other way. This is like saying that array indexing from zero reduces the expressiveness of C because you expect it to be indexed from one.
And, what, because he has a website means he's right? This isn't the first non-error I've seen on that site.
[quote]Yes, it is syntactically perfectly valid. But it is semantically utterly and completely fucking wrong because it doesn't say what is meant.[/quote]
It does say what is meant. The fact that you don't understand (or pretend not to understand) what is said does not mean it is in fact different from what is meant.
Putting "not" after the verb negates the sentence as a whole. "X does not Y" means !("X does Y") - "one individual did not invent every part of the compact disc" means !("one individual did invent every part of the compact disc"). The fact that you don't understand this rule does not mean that it is not valid.
[This post was removed for violating Slashdot's Terms of Service.] Um... is this some kind of hoax? I've _never_ seen this happen before. Is this the beginning of the end of slashdot's moderation system?
In your original post you claimed "this is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck". In this post you claim "The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant", so it seems like you are contradicting yourself.
You're not very bright, are you? The original reason for the development of internal combustion was to provide a torque source to power automated tooling machines (initially lathes if I remember correctly.) However, once the utility of a driven axle was realized, smaller versions were developed to power automobiles. Right, but you can't use the phrase "the specific reason that * was originally developed" to refer to other stuff, only the real original reason.
That's perfectly valid english. Natural languages don't work like computer languages. (ZOMGWTF--I'm saying that both natural languages and computer languages fail to work? No. If you have an obsolete or incorrectly-implemented parser module that does not fully support english, try the sentence "Natural languages and computer languages work differently.")
Furthermore if the 115mm cd's were first to the market most CD players would have a 115mm depression to support them even better. But no space for the 120 mm version. We'd be stuck with the maximum of 115 mm. He's saying it would be like how there's now a depression in the middle of the tray for the 80mm mini cds, not that they'd support 115 and not 120.
Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.
So why not charge _him_ with it, since he's preventing charging anyone else?
There are companies that sell metallic fabric...and shielded baseball caps. Handmade tinfoil beanies mark you as a cheap paranoid nutter. For only $29.95 (plus tax and shipping), you can appear outwardly normal, while protecting your precious brain cells from CIA control rays.
You can't trust them unless you can see the foil - they might have *gasp* put the shiny side on the inside, thus amplifying the mind control rays instead of deflecting them
Slashdot Mirror
=SIN(30 degrees) What version of excel is this?
"The word you is after"?
How's that glass house treating you? How about "the word you are after is"?
Don't criticize people for imagined mistakes, they make plenty of real ones anyway.
glass houses, etc.
There is absolutely no reason the full profile and public profile cannot have the same URI. (well, there is if you want people who are in your network to be able to see the public profile separately, but then you can just have two URIs, _either_ of which go to the public profile when accessed by an outsider).
It's poor design.
Why doesn't it automatically redirect from the 'wrong link' to the right one?
So which mechanism of slowing down uses more energy than continuing at the same speed? Yes, you're still using gas (at least the amount for idling) if you use engine braking or let air resistance do it, but that gas isn't being used to provide energy for "negative acceleration". It's not like you're in a rocket that needs to reverse thrust to slow down. In all cases (as far as I know), it's friction that provides the force to "negatively accelerate".
The combustion engine is PERFECTLY clear - the internal combustion engine was not "originally" developed for automobiles.
Do you have any particular reason for believing increased mass (in a car with the same cross-sectional area) reduces fuel economy?
It didn't appear next to it for me, and even if it had, that might not indicate that it wasn't just acting on the content of the post as edited by an editor - and, it _is_ the same link that's at the bottom of the page under "terms of service". Slashdot is owned by Sourceforge, didn't you know?
They don't deliver _any_ fuel until you squeeze the trigger - you've got no guarantee of being able to get the fuel out of the hose _without_ also paying for additional fuel, as suggested by the GP.
(also, in my experience, the meter does count the fuel going into your car rather than coming out of their tank - i've continued putting gas in and it's continued metering, after the pump itself shuts off about half a gallon short of my 20 bucks. They've had over half a century to design these things, and the content of the hose is nontrivial.)
In many stations, the pump can tell when you've picked up the nozzle and it starts pumping (and metering) automatically.
I missed this statement: "Yes. The chemical family was developed as an appetite suppressant. One particular member of the family had very different effects. That member was redeveloped as a theraputic drug for recall therapy."
if it was redeveloped, then that's not the original reason it was created.
I don't think you understand.
The following two statements:
"this [the memory thing that this article is about] is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck"
and
"The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant"
CONTRADICT each other. they CANNOT both be true. Even if one is right, the other must be wrong. You claimed both. Therefore, one of your claims MUST be incorrect.
Oh, and this rule does not "reduce the expressiveness" of the language - there are no concepts/situations/etc that can only be expressed by using this phrasing to mean what you want it mean that can't be expressed in some other way. This is like saying that array indexing from zero reduces the expressiveness of C because you expect it to be indexed from one.
Your suggested rephrasing was awkward.
And, what, because he has a website means he's right? This isn't the first non-error I've seen on that site.
[quote]Yes, it is syntactically perfectly valid. But it is semantically utterly and completely fucking wrong because it doesn't say what is meant.[/quote]
It does say what is meant. The fact that you don't understand (or pretend not to understand) what is said does not mean it is in fact different from what is meant.
Putting "not" after the verb negates the sentence as a whole. "X does not Y" means !("X does Y") - "one individual did not invent every part of the compact disc" means !("one individual did invent every part of the compact disc"). The fact that you don't understand this rule does not mean that it is not valid.
That's perfectly valid english. Natural languages don't work like computer languages. (ZOMGWTF--I'm saying that both natural languages and computer languages fail to work? No. If you have an obsolete or incorrectly-implemented parser module that does not fully support english, try the sentence "Natural languages and computer languages work differently.")
I think it was intended as a subtle dig at the usability of the iPhone "keyboard".
Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.
So why not charge _him_ with it, since he's preventing charging anyone else?
There are companies that sell metallic fabric...and shielded baseball caps. Handmade tinfoil beanies mark you as a cheap paranoid nutter. For only $29.95 (plus tax and shipping), you can appear outwardly normal, while protecting your precious brain cells from CIA control rays.
You can't trust them unless you can see the foil - they might have *gasp* put the shiny side on the inside, thus amplifying the mind control rays instead of deflecting them
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
No, but the fact that it was copied from the FSF website would seem to at least somewhat imply it is endorsed by the FSF.