Not if they are using an Epson they don't. Bloody thing simply refuses to print if *it* thinks you are getting too low on ink. Something about damaging the heads if ink actually runs out, allegedly.
Interesting. Since a number of the search criteria are mutually exclusive (if I have selected F-stop as my first criteria, I am unlikely to want to select key signature=F# in the same search) - how does the UI handle this?
Do I always have all choices available as I navigate through search choices, or do earlier choices reduce the later options?
Anyone who has used the instantly updated searches in Mail.app or iTunes will have a feel for how useful a system-wide approach could be. However I too am concerned about resource usage. I think I'll wait and see how big the metadata index tends to get and how big the CPU/memory hit is.
I believe though that the indexing is done during saves, so you'll not notice a general system slow down. What you will notice is a slow down on file saves.
Why should I bother about China or India's pollution problems? They are local to China and India (he said, pragmatically and hard-heartedly).
Now if China started dumping its waste in my backyard then I would get interested. In the same way that I am interested in the U.S and Europe dumping their waste into the global atmospheric system.
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
I've had people seriously question the theory of evolution, and I've been interested in what they had to say, and talked to them about it. At the end though, the creationist side tends to fall back on some piece of axiomatic dogma, and the discussion can go no further.
By contrast If you can show a scientist definitive facts that demolish their theory, they (should) gleefully embrace the problem and either fix up the theory or go back to the drawing board.
OK, so you agree that evolution through natural selection has shaped Homo sapiens.
Once you accept that, you are close to accepting divergent evolution - that a population of animals can split into two or more species when presented with different environmental conditions and isolated from one another.
So that's speciation covered. That just leaves understanding what you mean by 'giving the human race its start'.
What is this 'start' that you are struggling with?
Just a thought, can anyone think of any product dubbed the 'X kiler' that has actually ever killed product X? I can't? It seems a sure-fire way to ensure the 'killer product' fails.
Hmmm, there was the IBM 9370 Vax killer, of course - woo, that did well. Not.
So let's get this clear. You believe my allergy to tree pollen is an appropriate immune response, and it is telling me that I should go out and cut down some trees?
No, thought not. There are many plausible reasons for my tree allergy, including other environmental factors, the antigens I was subjected too as a baby etc.
But it has nothing to do with the trees. Likewise an allergic response to cat spit.
And yes, I am dubious about unregulated GM - but your argument is pretty specious.
What's new on the Web was hosted as SAIC, I think, required daily reading. Ah yes, I remember when the Cambridge University Trojan Room coffee-pot cam was put on-line, how cool was that?
I'd like to take issue with the original poster's assertion that Netscape was the first major piece of commercial software to go Open... It may have been available for sale, but Netscape would never reveal how many licenses were sold. I don't think you could call it 'major commercial' judged from the commercial revenues.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if they are using an Epson they don't. Bloody thing simply refuses to print if *it* thinks you are getting too low on ink. Something about damaging the heads if ink actually runs out, allegedly.
Or look at the status line at the bottom of the screen where the number of words is always displayed.
I'm intrigued by your .sig - what would you prefer to be called - U.San or U.S.ish?
Interesting. Since a number of the search criteria are mutually exclusive (if I have selected F-stop as my first criteria, I am unlikely to want to select key signature=F# in the same search) - how does the UI handle this?
Do I always have all choices available as I navigate through search choices, or do earlier choices reduce the later options?
Anyone who has used the instantly updated searches in Mail.app or iTunes will have a feel for how useful a system-wide approach could be. However I too am concerned about resource usage. I think I'll wait and see how big the metadata index tends to get and how big the CPU/memory hit is.
I believe though that the indexing is done during saves, so you'll not notice a general system slow down. What you will notice is a slow down on file saves.
You *do* know that Kyoto imposes restrictions on China in the future, don't you?
Just to get this into context, in 2001 the U.S produced 24% of the world's carbon emissions. China 13%, Western Europe as a whole 16%.
By 2025 China is expected to be up to 17.8% - still well well behind China.
Each U.S citizen consumes roughly 11x the energy pf each Chinese citizen.
Why should I bother about China or India's pollution problems? They are local to China and India (he said, pragmatically and hard-heartedly).
Now if China started dumping its waste in my backyard then I would get interested. In the same way that I am interested in the U.S and Europe dumping their waste into the global atmospheric system.
Much as I feel for the Chinese and their local pollution problem, the U.S is exporting its current pollution problem across the planet.
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
Indeed. HP's decision to rebadge the iPod can be seen in a similar context.
"Invent"
Sheeyeh, right,
No. Sorry, you're wrong.
I've had people seriously question the theory of evolution, and I've been interested in what they had to say, and talked to them about it. At the end though, the creationist side tends to fall back on some piece of axiomatic dogma, and the discussion can go no further.
By contrast If you can show a scientist definitive facts that demolish their theory, they (should) gleefully embrace the problem and either fix up the theory or go back to the drawing board.
OK, so you agree that evolution through natural selection has shaped Homo sapiens.
Once you accept that, you are close to accepting divergent evolution - that a population of animals can split into two or more species when presented with different environmental conditions and isolated from one another.
So that's speciation covered. That just leaves understanding what you mean by 'giving the human race its start'.
What is this 'start' that you are struggling with?
Just a thought, can anyone think of any product dubbed the 'X kiler' that has actually ever killed product X? I can't? It seems a sure-fire way to ensure the 'killer product' fails.
Hmmm, there was the IBM 9370 Vax killer, of course - woo, that did well. Not.
Any other examples?
This action actually speaks volumes about the man's foreign policy and his understanding of the need to win the hearts and mind of non-USians.
So let's get this clear. You believe my allergy to tree pollen is an appropriate immune response, and it is telling me that I should go out and cut down some trees?
No, thought not. There are many plausible reasons for my tree allergy, including other environmental factors, the antigens I was subjected too as a baby etc.
But it has nothing to do with the trees. Likewise an allergic response to cat spit.
And yes, I am dubious about unregulated GM - but your argument is pretty specious.
If you want to get a good quick overview of his thoughts on interfaces and how they can be redesigned, there is a review of his book here:
h ol lands_review.html
http://humane.sourceforge.net/humane_interface/
Malthus, presumably.
Why does this tedious MS bashing get modded insightful. Funny, at a push. But insightful?
Well, *I* think your post was funny secolactico
>Do we start cloning babies to kill them for the cure to AIDS? I
No. We start cloning stem cells. As far as I am concerned a stem cell is not a baby. The people dying of AIDS, are, however people.
FWIW, I'm pro theraputic cloning (as you have probably deduced) and anti the creation to to-term human clones.
A shame that the new radio series is curiously chuckle free. Just goes to show how adept Adams was at writing for radio.
What's new on the Web was hosted as SAIC, I think, required daily reading. Ah yes, I remember when the Cambridge University Trojan Room coffee-pot cam was put on-line, how cool was that?
I'd like to take issue with the original poster's assertion that Netscape was the first major piece of commercial software to go Open... It may have been available for sale, but Netscape would never reveal how many licenses were sold. I don't think you could call it 'major commercial' judged from the commercial revenues.
Well, he could save himself a lot of work by recommending his own oevre.
Probably not exactly what you meant, though.
Well now. There is no indication as to
1. How many apes per lion we are talking about
2. The method of attack.
So, assuming, one lion, and 20 apes up trees dropping large stones, and following up with a branch-carrying beating, I'm not so sure.