Because a training document based on an invasion by China would be politically embarrasing, and one based on an invasion by North Korea would be legitimizing a megalomaniac. So "zombie" is code for "asian" without having anything embarrassing happen if the game plan is leaked.
No, the replies were not studied, only moderation. +1 has no effect on the poster's future comments, but -1 makes them more troll-like. The "solution" seems to be only allow +1, and not downvotes (or mask downvotes past 0). That will result in the best evaluation of comments, while not encouraging bad behavior.
They launder the money into other accounts, and they "campaign" however they want, whenever they want. They can "campaign" by taking a trip around the world to increase their "visibility" or whatever they want to say, staying in the best hotels or whatever they want. They just have to keep it on separate books, unless they've already laundered it.
Newsflash, Lobbyists pay for "consideration" not votes. The effect is the same, so buying votes is legal in the USA. So long as you pay *before* the vote and don't try to take it back if they don't vote how you "request" (don't worry, then never vote against you).
"Lobbying" is "paid lobbying", so there's no problem with you writing a letter or scheduling a meeting. The problem is when someone pays $$$ for "special access". That is bribery and should be illegal. But paying for "access" and hinting at a preferred outcome is currently legal. It's only illegal to link the payment for a vote. Payment for "consideration" is legal (though still bribery).
1) in civilized countries[1] sealed cases are very much the exception.
So (nearly) every country is uncivilized when it comes to treating children? Most have some manner of purging or hiding (sealing) juvenile convictions.
this clearly wasn't a sealed case, or it wouldn't have been in the newspaper record to start with.
Show me where I stated this case was or should have been sealed. Oh, I didn't. You are strawmaning me. Why can't you just address what I say, not what you lie about to make me look bad because you are always wrong?
Why don't you go out and do some heel-toe gearchanges in your automatic while running red lights and falling asleep, you fat imbecile?
Oh, so you are the AC that was stalking me with those lies for so long. Why do you feel the need to lie in your ad hominems? Offended that I'm smarter than you?
It wasn't until I was a consultant, coming in behind other consultants until I realized how unscrupulous some consultants are. The biggest mutterers of "core competency" are consultants (financial and marketing ones first). Note, the "security expert" (likely a consultant) who couldn't even spell the regulations he deals with regularly correctly hasn't spoken up since it was pointed out he doesn't know what he's doing.
I worked for a company that was losing $2,000,000 a year, and they called in PWC, and paid about $1,000,000 to have PWC tell them they weren't profitable. Sometimes it just boggles the mind.
So, what exactly is wrong with "loading" all of a file when it is opened at once? Your argument seemed to be that it wastes RAM, but it doesn't actually waste RAM as you acknowledge since the OS manages what actually ends up in RAM.
When was virtual RAM first supported in DOS?
As for what's wrong with it, ask video editors back before 64-bit was common. It was *impossible* to edit a 4 GB file (at least with some editors). I guess that was never a problem, was it?
Should we go the route of WordPerfect back in the day and put the print drivers in the word processor as well?
That was required under DOS. Why? I know, and you obviously think you know everything, but demonstrate very little. WYSIWYG was a "big feature" in Windows (yes, I forget which version). In DOS, there was no WYSIWYG, so if you wanted to see what would be printed, you had to have the print drivers loaded in the processor for proper rendering.
I'm not saying it was good. I'm saying it was required.
So, what exactly is wrong with "loading" all of a file when it is opened at once?
Ask Microsoft. They used to work Excel that way, but stopped it. In Excel 1997 (Excel 8.0, if you prefer that numbering) they loaded 100% of the file into memory when opened. They no longer do in the most recent version. Obviously, large files open quicker if you don't open the whole thing at once. Maybe they did it when they raised the size limit. I don't know or care, I just know that at least one major maker went the opposite of what you indicate is better.
As for sensitivity - really what difference would you expect it make whether the sensor was 10% as likely to respond to an individual photon, or if it responded to every photon that reached it, but 90% of them got absorbed by the layers of other tissue between it and the light source instead? Either way you're responding to 10% of the photons that make it to the retina. (though I would guess the actual number is higher than 10%)
Some people already have significant issues with flicker. And a non-detrministic result would have other effects (our eyes trigger on every event), perhaps it would decrease speed estimation or motion detection.
He committed a crime that enabled another crime. There was someone in Florida tried for "murder" for loaning their car to someone. So under Florida's rules, you should be tried for murder for committing a crime related to a murder. I never claimed anything made sense. I just stated that's how it works.
Yeah, it's not like I've driven a Chrysler with a Mitsubishi engine in it, or a Ford with a Mazda engine in it, or a Mazda with a Ford engine in it. And there were Mitsubishis with Chrysler engines, but I never drove that one. And nearly everyone has hired Lotus for help with something, at some point or another. And Lotus makes cars.
At worst, they should sell off the car-making side and just make batteries. But until they have multiple buyers, it'll be like an ACDelco/GM separation. They functioned as one, but had the overhead of two. Worst of both worlds. Unless they get contracts from Nissan and Toyota for batteries, I'd never consider separation a good idea.
The car is doing fine, as are the batteries. Keep them both together for now.
Cheap crap like Act II was the benchmark. In my current microwave, Act II pops fine. Oh, and yes, I did try Orville in my old microwave. It also failed to pop properly, but was better than Act II. I just don't like it because it's over-flavored. I actually prefer air popped to buttered. Orville is only good for those that like the over-buttered movie popcorn.
It was begging the question. He stated he assumed that it isn't an admission of guilt, thus not a reason to pull someone over, when saying it isn't a reason to pull someone over.
He said, very clearly, that a sticker on your car espousing something the police in your neighborhood might find unpopular in and of itself wasn't something that would get you pulled over, but could certainly be the trigger that caused police to scrutinize your car and behavior until they found some nitpicking reason to pull you over.
You missed any nuance. The cop will pull you over solely for having the sticker. They will say "I thought your inspection was expired" (it wasn't) or "I saw you weaving within your lane" (I wasn't, and even if I was, it's legal). Both are actual reasons given when I was pulled over for not fitting in (100% illegal, but impossible to prove, as the cops get training in how to lie to people whose rights they are violating to reduce lawsuits). He was confusing "reason" with "stated reason".
He said they won't pull you over solely for having a sticker. I'm saying he's wrong. They'll pull you over for the sticker, but they'll say something different when they pull you over. Most of the time I've been pulled over, I was 100% legal, but the cops made up a reason on the spot for having pulled me over for an illegal reason.
You are confusing the rules as written with the rules as practiced. I've been pulled over for "weaving within my lane" (doing nothing wrong, but attracting the attention of local cops by not being from there). I doubt a challenge of that stop would have stood up in court, but fighting for your rights is very very expensive, and I was a poor student at the time.
The cop will *never* state "I had no reason to pull you over, other than a sticker on your car." But having the sticker will increase your odds of being pulled over.
Where do you live where the police would pull DNA for a robbery? I gave the police the stolen moblile phone number that the burglar was still using, and they still couldn't find him.
In Texas, it's legal to shoot a fleeing thief in the back, so long as you don't know the thief (if you know the thief, then you could go after him legally and non-fatally).
Look at the nonsense applied to George Zimmerman. there we had a man who was attacked and had an attacker trying to bash his head apart on the concrete and people still got upset that he shot the trash that was attacking him.
He's a man who claimed to be lost one block from home on a route he's taken hundreds of times, and grabbed his gun to pursue a "dangerous" person down a dead end alley as a habit, and had no intent to use it. Even if I believed his story 100%. As he told it, it contradicted common sense and reasonableness enough that I'd have convicted him. THat, and as he was on the ground, being beat senseless with the gashes to his head, he stated that Martin went for the gun first, but he was faster than the taller, stronger guy above him with no wounds who grabbed for it first, and got a clean shot off while pinned to the ground.
More plausible, he went hunting Nigger, and banged his own head on the ground after the execution of Martin. The forensics doesn't support a shot at the distance Zimmerman asserts. There was no Martin blood on Zimmerman, despite Zimmerman being under Martin as Martin bled out.
That's seriously why elevator music got its name. It was designed to do two things: play music in public (so it was Public Domain or low cost- classical or covers), and soothe those with claustrophobia. Really, soothing people that are afraid of elevators, but get in them anyway.
They don't do #2 as well as you'd think. Either that, or we were better secured than we thought. I grew up in an unlocked house. It would *only* be locked if my mother expected to get home after dark alone. It was unlocked in the day almost all day with nobody home. We were never broken into. But everyone else on the road was broken into, at least once. I lived in the worst house in a nice neighborhood. It was the best defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a training document based on an invasion by China would be politically embarrasing, and one based on an invasion by North Korea would be legitimizing a megalomaniac. So "zombie" is code for "asian" without having anything embarrassing happen if the game plan is leaked.
No, the replies were not studied, only moderation. +1 has no effect on the poster's future comments, but -1 makes them more troll-like. The "solution" seems to be only allow +1, and not downvotes (or mask downvotes past 0). That will result in the best evaluation of comments, while not encouraging bad behavior.
They launder the money into other accounts, and they "campaign" however they want, whenever they want. They can "campaign" by taking a trip around the world to increase their "visibility" or whatever they want to say, staying in the best hotels or whatever they want. They just have to keep it on separate books, unless they've already laundered it.
Newsflash, Lobbyists pay for "consideration" not votes. The effect is the same, so buying votes is legal in the USA. So long as you pay *before* the vote and don't try to take it back if they don't vote how you "request" (don't worry, then never vote against you).
"Lobbying" is "paid lobbying", so there's no problem with you writing a letter or scheduling a meeting. The problem is when someone pays $$$ for "special access". That is bribery and should be illegal. But paying for "access" and hinting at a preferred outcome is currently legal. It's only illegal to link the payment for a vote. Payment for "consideration" is legal (though still bribery).
1) in civilized countries[1] sealed cases are very much the exception.
So (nearly) every country is uncivilized when it comes to treating children? Most have some manner of purging or hiding (sealing) juvenile convictions.
this clearly wasn't a sealed case, or it wouldn't have been in the newspaper record to start with.
Show me where I stated this case was or should have been sealed. Oh, I didn't. You are strawmaning me. Why can't you just address what I say, not what you lie about to make me look bad because you are always wrong?
Why don't you go out and do some heel-toe gearchanges in your automatic while running red lights and falling asleep, you fat imbecile?
Oh, so you are the AC that was stalking me with those lies for so long. Why do you feel the need to lie in your ad hominems? Offended that I'm smarter than you?
It wasn't until I was a consultant, coming in behind other consultants until I realized how unscrupulous some consultants are. The biggest mutterers of "core competency" are consultants (financial and marketing ones first). Note, the "security expert" (likely a consultant) who couldn't even spell the regulations he deals with regularly correctly hasn't spoken up since it was pointed out he doesn't know what he's doing.
I worked for a company that was losing $2,000,000 a year, and they called in PWC, and paid about $1,000,000 to have PWC tell them they weren't profitable. Sometimes it just boggles the mind.
Aw, no links to videos of it?
So, what exactly is wrong with "loading" all of a file when it is opened at once? Your argument seemed to be that it wastes RAM, but it doesn't actually waste RAM as you acknowledge since the OS manages what actually ends up in RAM.
When was virtual RAM first supported in DOS?
As for what's wrong with it, ask video editors back before 64-bit was common. It was *impossible* to edit a 4 GB file (at least with some editors). I guess that was never a problem, was it?
Should we go the route of WordPerfect back in the day and put the print drivers in the word processor as well?
That was required under DOS. Why? I know, and you obviously think you know everything, but demonstrate very little. WYSIWYG was a "big feature" in Windows (yes, I forget which version). In DOS, there was no WYSIWYG, so if you wanted to see what would be printed, you had to have the print drivers loaded in the processor for proper rendering.
I'm not saying it was good. I'm saying it was required.
So, what exactly is wrong with "loading" all of a file when it is opened at once?
Ask Microsoft. They used to work Excel that way, but stopped it. In Excel 1997 (Excel 8.0, if you prefer that numbering) they loaded 100% of the file into memory when opened. They no longer do in the most recent version. Obviously, large files open quicker if you don't open the whole thing at once. Maybe they did it when they raised the size limit. I don't know or care, I just know that at least one major maker went the opposite of what you indicate is better.
For $15 on sale, an air popper wasn't a bad thing, but it throws the popped corn all over the place.
Many cops do say that a pro-cop sticker of some kind does help.
As for sensitivity - really what difference would you expect it make whether the sensor was 10% as likely to respond to an individual photon, or if it responded to every photon that reached it, but 90% of them got absorbed by the layers of other tissue between it and the light source instead? Either way you're responding to 10% of the photons that make it to the retina. (though I would guess the actual number is higher than 10%)
Some people already have significant issues with flicker. And a non-detrministic result would have other effects (our eyes trigger on every event), perhaps it would decrease speed estimation or motion detection.
He committed a crime that enabled another crime. There was someone in Florida tried for "murder" for loaning their car to someone. So under Florida's rules, you should be tried for murder for committing a crime related to a murder. I never claimed anything made sense. I just stated that's how it works.
An immigrant-a-pult?
Yeah, it's not like I've driven a Chrysler with a Mitsubishi engine in it, or a Ford with a Mazda engine in it, or a Mazda with a Ford engine in it. And there were Mitsubishis with Chrysler engines, but I never drove that one. And nearly everyone has hired Lotus for help with something, at some point or another. And Lotus makes cars.
At worst, they should sell off the car-making side and just make batteries. But until they have multiple buyers, it'll be like an ACDelco/GM separation. They functioned as one, but had the overhead of two. Worst of both worlds. Unless they get contracts from Nissan and Toyota for batteries, I'd never consider separation a good idea.
The car is doing fine, as are the batteries. Keep them both together for now.
Cheap crap like Act II was the benchmark. In my current microwave, Act II pops fine. Oh, and yes, I did try Orville in my old microwave. It also failed to pop properly, but was better than Act II. I just don't like it because it's over-flavored. I actually prefer air popped to buttered. Orville is only good for those that like the over-buttered movie popcorn.
He said, very clearly, that a sticker on your car espousing something the police in your neighborhood might find unpopular in and of itself wasn't something that would get you pulled over, but could certainly be the trigger that caused police to scrutinize your car and behavior until they found some nitpicking reason to pull you over.
You missed any nuance. The cop will pull you over solely for having the sticker. They will say "I thought your inspection was expired" (it wasn't) or "I saw you weaving within your lane" (I wasn't, and even if I was, it's legal). Both are actual reasons given when I was pulled over for not fitting in (100% illegal, but impossible to prove, as the cops get training in how to lie to people whose rights they are violating to reduce lawsuits). He was confusing "reason" with "stated reason".
He said they won't pull you over solely for having a sticker. I'm saying he's wrong. They'll pull you over for the sticker, but they'll say something different when they pull you over. Most of the time I've been pulled over, I was 100% legal, but the cops made up a reason on the spot for having pulled me over for an illegal reason.
You are confusing the rules as written with the rules as practiced. I've been pulled over for "weaving within my lane" (doing nothing wrong, but attracting the attention of local cops by not being from there). I doubt a challenge of that stop would have stood up in court, but fighting for your rights is very very expensive, and I was a poor student at the time.
The cop will *never* state "I had no reason to pull you over, other than a sticker on your car." But having the sticker will increase your odds of being pulled over.
Where do you live where the police would pull DNA for a robbery? I gave the police the stolen moblile phone number that the burglar was still using, and they still couldn't find him.
In Texas, it's legal to shoot a fleeing thief in the back, so long as you don't know the thief (if you know the thief, then you could go after him legally and non-fatally).
Look at the nonsense applied to George Zimmerman. there we had a man who was attacked and had an attacker trying to bash his head apart on the concrete and people still got upset that he shot the trash that was attacking him.
He's a man who claimed to be lost one block from home on a route he's taken hundreds of times, and grabbed his gun to pursue a "dangerous" person down a dead end alley as a habit, and had no intent to use it. Even if I believed his story 100%. As he told it, it contradicted common sense and reasonableness enough that I'd have convicted him. THat, and as he was on the ground, being beat senseless with the gashes to his head, he stated that Martin went for the gun first, but he was faster than the taller, stronger guy above him with no wounds who grabbed for it first, and got a clean shot off while pinned to the ground.
More plausible, he went hunting Nigger, and banged his own head on the ground after the execution of Martin. The forensics doesn't support a shot at the distance Zimmerman asserts. There was no Martin blood on Zimmerman, despite Zimmerman being under Martin as Martin bled out.
That's seriously why elevator music got its name. It was designed to do two things: play music in public (so it was Public Domain or low cost- classical or covers), and soothe those with claustrophobia. Really, soothing people that are afraid of elevators, but get in them anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 3 minutes of classical that young thugs might enjoy.
They don't do #2 as well as you'd think. Either that, or we were better secured than we thought. I grew up in an unlocked house. It would *only* be locked if my mother expected to get home after dark alone. It was unlocked in the day almost all day with nobody home. We were never broken into. But everyone else on the road was broken into, at least once. I lived in the worst house in a nice neighborhood. It was the best defense.