You engineers carry on like your esoteric rules about significant figures and tolerances are actually important. A little rounding error never killed anyone. Oh wait a minute, yes it it.
Even if there is, would it make a difference? The industry that exists for data recovery only exists because people don't know to backup. Drive failure is inevitable, there should never be reliance on any single device, whether it is 10 minutes or 10 years old.
Perhaps, just as a maybe, the quarter of a million troops currently deployed don't all follow the rules. Furthermore, just because the scenario you describe is the norm for the bottom of the food chain troops does not mean that is the way it happens when one of those guys you mention with PhDs in non-violent interrogation decides this guy knows something but is not talking. Then perhaps a few months would go by and just another body is found on a road somewhere.
Tell me, you veteran military officer you, how would you know if such a thing were to happen. You think you'd hear about it over coffee and MREs? If you genuinely believe that one side are the "good guys" and only do "good things" and the other side is "evil" and they are all "bad guys" then really, all I have to say about you is JARHEAD.
Headline reading "Single photon server" + the supercomputing article logo = Confused readers
Before I read the sumary I was thinking they'd managed to install Apache on a photon. So yea, with regards to photons, they're cool and all, but do they run Linux?
I'm glad you don't sight your sources, coz they'd look pretty stupid if you did. So stupid in fact, that they'd be shot on cite.
Furthermore, the magnetic field is not what holds the building blocks of life together. Unless of course you're talking about The Wizard of Oz and the tin man is what is being held.
What holds "stuff" to the Earth's surface, including the atmosphere, is gravity.
It is only a word if you consider recognized non-words to be words. The only reason irregardless has any entry in a dictionary is to say "this is not a real word, but lots of people use it mistakenly believing it is".
This is where people who sat linguistics 101 chime in with "language evolves so who knows if it will be accepted in the future" or something equally silly. I don't know if it will be accepted in the future, but I know that it is not accepted *now* and will stay that way for a long time given that the word itself makes no friggin' sense. So cut with the crap. It's not a word.
As an honest-to-goodness consumer, I can tell you that after driving a diesel VW and an equivalent petrol model, I wouldn't give two hoots what kind of fuel the thing uses as long as I buy less of it.
I don't know why spin doctors with lots and lots of letters after their names can't get it through their thick as a university textbook skulls that all the BS about engineering compromise and economic considerations don't change the fact that consumers don't care about the technology getting them from A to B, so long as it gets them from A to B.
For the overwhelming majority of applications, diesel does that as well as petrol, and don't tell me otherwise or I'll run you over with any of the hundreds of diesel vehicles available in Europe from tiny hatchbacks through to heavy earth moving equipment.
Sysadmin: By order of The Shareholders, from now on all security incidents resulting from post-its, forgotten laptops and other stupid mistakes made by managers with an IQ too low to allow them to operate a human sized hamster wheel will result in the person responsible being thrown into a pool filled with sharks. With lasers on their heads.
I havent actually tried that, although I hear what you are saying about more vertical content. Personally, I just use a smaller font, as I need to display several files side by size at once.
And yes, I am sure web browsing like that would be better too. I really should give it a shot.
I used to use 2 * 1600x1200 screens. I agree that two is always better than one. My main PC has a 24" 1920x1200 Dell and a 21" 1600x1200. I am thinking of getting a second 21" screen to provide symmetry, but I'm finding that there appears to be an optimal point in screen real estate. Once you go past it, I find that the time saved in app switching starts to be offset by the time spent hunting for the information you want, turning your head left and right. If, like me, you code in high res with small screen fonts, having a dozen files open at once can make it a non-negligible time to find the file you want, up to several seconds.
I code in 1920x1200 now, and I find it very hard to code on anything less. I never would have thought a laptop would become anything other that a "holy crap I just MUST fix that shell script now" type device. Then I bought one of these. I code on it. I like coding on it. I have that laptop as well as a Athlon X2 based machine with a 24" Dell 1920x1200 res screen, and the desktop is badly in need of a Wiondows reinstall. I can't be bothered, as the laptop is *almost* as good. Of course, I will eventually, but the fact that the "CBF reinstalling" factor outweighs the "coding on the laptop" factor made me realize that coding on the laptop is surprisingly not bad.
I think that 17" laptops, while not as portable as a notebook or subnotebook, are best described as "Portable PCs". As I was after a workstation that was portable rather than a device I could dash around with every day, it suits me fine, and I can now code comfortably when I'm not at my main workstation. Furthermore, I actually prefer notebook keyboards to standard keyboards, and I have a good Logitec keyboard. Does anyone know if you can buy standard keyboards with a notebook keyboard feel?
In that case, no further discussion is helpful or necessary.
I suppose you ignored the fact that I pointed out that the violence and "bringing low" part was bits you made up.
No, thinking of it that way is specifically what I refuse to do.
Err... why? Islamic jurisprudence simply assumes that all Muslims are citizens of a Muslim nation, and that non-citizens have extra obligations. Seems quite reasonable to me.
...from their own land.
Well, after land is acquired, after either treaty or conquest, the new government will change the rules. I suggest you look to Native Americans, Australian Aboriginies, South African blacks and South American civilizations at the hands of European conquerors before you get all high horse saddled about this issue. Then find me an example from history (and don't refer me to some revisionist Internet trash) where a Muslim nation (and I don't mean one of these modern day middle eastern basket cases) has done anything remotely comparable. I think you'll find that historically (i.e., prior to the 20th century) Muslim nations were looked to as the place to go if you were a people in need of shelter from tyranny. There's a reason that the phrase "Arab hospitality" has survived to this day, despite the image that modern Arabs have of being an obtuse exclusive bunch.
Then, according to you, the Quran is just plain wrong. Unless the fighting refered to in Sura 9:29 is really an armwrestling tournament perhaps? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps decades of studying the Quran will make it mean debating?
Please remember that I am Muslim, and while you may disagree with me I would appreciate it if you remained at least polite.
In any case, that whole chapter refers to actions to be taken in a war against non-Muslims who are belligerent and will not live peacefully. I have had this discussion already with someone, so I will only point out the following:
The very first line of that chapter states that it is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-". In other words, if you have an agreement with non-Muslims to live peacefully, be they implicit or explicit, they are immune from attack.
With regards to non-Muslims who ask for help it says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.". Doesn't sound all that bloodthirsty to me.
"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." So honor agreements you make with non-Muslims.
"Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?" Yes, I agree, them's fightin' words. But I believe that it's pretty clear from the lines immediately preceding it that the fightin' is to be done in defense, and not just 'coz you're in a bad mood.
Feel free to read the whole thing rather than taking a single line out of context. It's pretty easy to take a single line from practically any text and make it sound like the text is saying something completely contrary to what it is actually saying.
I think you really have misunderstood many things, your understanding of Muslims and Islam seems to be coloured more by media sensationalism rather than the reality.
Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.
By birth, but not by default. I have had plenty of opportunity to exercise choice, my parents are not by any means concerned about my exercise of religious discretion. I have not found any inconsistencies in the Quran as yet, but as I said earlier, I am not well versed enough in it to say anything about it with any degree of authority.
... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low.
I don't see why this is such an issue. Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed. This is pretty similar to any modern state, only the criteria for citizenship are different. In Australia where I live to become a citizen you need to either be born into it or bring in around $500,000 in business capital. Non-citizens who do not pay the higher taxes or work without paying any tax are rounded up, processed on Christmas Island or any of many other offshore detention centers, usually held for several months (as a deterrent) and then sent packing. I don't see much of a distinction between the modern idea of citizenship and what is described there, except that there are different ways to define those who are a part of the nation. Incidentally, the dhimmi tax more or less corresponds exactly to the zakat payable by Muslims anyway, so it's not like they are paying hugely in excess of what citizens pay anyway, it's just called something else, and the reason it is payed is as a tax instead of as a religious requirement.
Nowhere does it say to "kill pagans" just because they are pagans, there are however many instances where it says offer help and civility to all who offer you the same. Nowhere does it say anything about other non-warring people more severe than "they are mislead". You are taking it a bit far in the your quote above.
However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.
All I can say about this is that it is not Islam, but political dealings of corrupt governments (if it's the middle east, most likely governments supported by the US or UK). It is not as widespread as the media would have you believe, and any Muslim you meet will tell you that the middle eastern puppet regimes do not represent Islam any more than George W. Bush represents Christianity.
Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"
See above on citizenship, and no, you are misquoting him when you say the options were "pay tax, become Muslim or be killed". The last option was "be deported", and anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong. All countries today deport immigrants who don't pay their taxes or perform whatever extra duties are required of immigrants (registering with vario
Slashdot Mirror
You engineers carry on like your esoteric rules about significant figures and tolerances are actually important. A little rounding error never killed anyone. Oh wait a minute, yes it it.
How much does an IDE weigh and where can I exchange it for some bullion?
Even if there is, would it make a difference? The industry that exists for data recovery only exists because people don't know to backup. Drive failure is inevitable, there should never be reliance on any single device, whether it is 10 minutes or 10 years old.
The Slashdot department apologizes for any inconvenience.
Perhaps, just as a maybe, the quarter of a million troops currently deployed don't all follow the rules. Furthermore, just because the scenario you describe is the norm for the bottom of the food chain troops does not mean that is the way it happens when one of those guys you mention with PhDs in non-violent interrogation decides this guy knows something but is not talking. Then perhaps a few months would go by and just another body is found on a road somewhere.
Tell me, you veteran military officer you, how would you know if such a thing were to happen. You think you'd hear about it over coffee and MREs? If you genuinely believe that one side are the "good guys" and only do "good things" and the other side is "evil" and they are all "bad guys" then really, all I have to say about you is JARHEAD.
If mankind is wiped out, who writes the last headline?
Headline reading "Single photon server" + the supercomputing article logo = Confused readers
Before I read the sumary I was thinking they'd managed to install Apache on a photon. So yea, with regards to photons, they're cool and all, but do they run Linux?
I'm glad you don't sight your sources, coz they'd look pretty stupid if you did. So stupid in fact, that they'd be shot on cite.
Furthermore, the magnetic field is not what holds the building blocks of life together. Unless of course you're talking about The Wizard of Oz and the tin man is what is being held.
What holds "stuff" to the Earth's surface, including the atmosphere, is gravity.
-- Joke
-- You
there != their
And you did it twice to!
43 hours? That must be some kind of record!
It is only a word if you consider recognized non-words to be words. The only reason irregardless has any entry in a dictionary is to say "this is not a real word, but lots of people use it mistakenly believing it is".
This is where people who sat linguistics 101 chime in with "language evolves so who knows if it will be accepted in the future" or something equally silly. I don't know if it will be accepted in the future, but I know that it is not accepted *now* and will stay that way for a long time given that the word itself makes no friggin' sense. So cut with the crap. It's not a word.
IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD!!
Use either "irrespective" or "regardless" but you can't use both at once!
*Falls to the floor frothing at the mouth*
As an honest-to-goodness consumer, I can tell you that after driving a diesel VW and an equivalent petrol model, I wouldn't give two hoots what kind of fuel the thing uses as long as I buy less of it.
I don't know why spin doctors with lots and lots of letters after their names can't get it through their thick as a university textbook skulls that all the BS about engineering compromise and economic considerations don't change the fact that consumers don't care about the technology getting them from A to B, so long as it gets them from A to B.
For the overwhelming majority of applications, diesel does that as well as petrol, and don't tell me otherwise or I'll run you over with any of the hundreds of diesel vehicles available in Europe from tiny hatchbacks through to heavy earth moving equipment.
But the Muslims are coming! They want to eat your babies and blow up the Statue of Liberty! I saw it in a movie!
I didn't know that it was even halfway effective, does that count?
It's the Muslim terrorists who want to destroy the infidel west. Anonymously.
Firstly, that Hawkeye quote has nothing to do with what you're saying, and what you're saying is absolute rubbish. You're part of the problem.
The hell there isn't.
Sysadmin: By order of The Shareholders, from now on all security incidents resulting from post-its, forgotten laptops and other stupid mistakes made by managers with an IQ too low to allow them to operate a human sized hamster wheel will result in the person responsible being thrown into a pool filled with sharks. With lasers on their heads.
I havent actually tried that, although I hear what you are saying about more vertical content. Personally, I just use a smaller font, as I need to display several files side by size at once.
:)
And yes, I am sure web browsing like that would be better too. I really should give it a shot.
Thanks for the tip
I used to use 2 * 1600x1200 screens. I agree that two is always better than one. My main PC has a 24" 1920x1200 Dell and a 21" 1600x1200. I am thinking of getting a second 21" screen to provide symmetry, but I'm finding that there appears to be an optimal point in screen real estate. Once you go past it, I find that the time saved in app switching starts to be offset by the time spent hunting for the information you want, turning your head left and right. If, like me, you code in high res with small screen fonts, having a dozen files open at once can make it a non-negligible time to find the file you want, up to several seconds.
I code in 1920x1200 now, and I find it very hard to code on anything less. I never would have thought a laptop would become anything other that a "holy crap I just MUST fix that shell script now" type device. Then I bought one of these. I code on it. I like coding on it. I have that laptop as well as a Athlon X2 based machine with a 24" Dell 1920x1200 res screen, and the desktop is badly in need of a Wiondows reinstall. I can't be bothered, as the laptop is *almost* as good. Of course, I will eventually, but the fact that the "CBF reinstalling" factor outweighs the "coding on the laptop" factor made me realize that coding on the laptop is surprisingly not bad.
I think that 17" laptops, while not as portable as a notebook or subnotebook, are best described as "Portable PCs". As I was after a workstation that was portable rather than a device I could dash around with every day, it suits me fine, and I can now code comfortably when I'm not at my main workstation. Furthermore, I actually prefer notebook keyboards to standard keyboards, and I have a good Logitec keyboard. Does anyone know if you can buy standard keyboards with a notebook keyboard feel?
You mean United 93 the movie?
I suppose you ignored the fact that I pointed out that the violence and "bringing low" part was bits you made up.
Err... why? Islamic jurisprudence simply assumes that all Muslims are citizens of a Muslim nation, and that non-citizens have extra obligations. Seems quite reasonable to me.
Well, after land is acquired, after either treaty or conquest, the new government will change the rules. I suggest you look to Native Americans, Australian Aboriginies, South African blacks and South American civilizations at the hands of European conquerors before you get all high horse saddled about this issue. Then find me an example from history (and don't refer me to some revisionist Internet trash) where a Muslim nation (and I don't mean one of these modern day middle eastern basket cases) has done anything remotely comparable. I think you'll find that historically (i.e., prior to the 20th century) Muslim nations were looked to as the place to go if you were a people in need of shelter from tyranny. There's a reason that the phrase "Arab hospitality" has survived to this day, despite the image that modern Arabs have of being an obtuse exclusive bunch.
Please remember that I am Muslim, and while you may disagree with me I would appreciate it if you remained at least polite.
In any case, that whole chapter refers to actions to be taken in a war against non-Muslims who are belligerent and will not live peacefully. I have had this discussion already with someone, so I will only point out the following:
The very first line of that chapter states that it is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-". In other words, if you have an agreement with non-Muslims to live peacefully, be they implicit or explicit, they are immune from attack.
With regards to non-Muslims who ask for help it says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.". Doesn't sound all that bloodthirsty to me.
"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." So honor agreements you make with non-Muslims.
"Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?" Yes, I agree, them's fightin' words. But I believe that it's pretty clear from the lines immediately preceding it that the fightin' is to be done in defense, and not just 'coz you're in a bad mood.
Feel free to read the whole thing rather than taking a single line out of context. It's pretty easy to take a single line from practically any text and make it sound like the text is saying something completely contrary to what it is actually saying.
I think you really have misunderstood many things, your understanding of Muslims and Islam seems to be coloured more by media sensationalism rather than the reality.
By birth, but not by default. I have had plenty of opportunity to exercise choice, my parents are not by any means concerned about my exercise of religious discretion. I have not found any inconsistencies in the Quran as yet, but as I said earlier, I am not well versed enough in it to say anything about it with any degree of authority.
I don't see why this is such an issue. Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed. This is pretty similar to any modern state, only the criteria for citizenship are different. In Australia where I live to become a citizen you need to either be born into it or bring in around $500,000 in business capital. Non-citizens who do not pay the higher taxes or work without paying any tax are rounded up, processed on Christmas Island or any of many other offshore detention centers, usually held for several months (as a deterrent) and then sent packing. I don't see much of a distinction between the modern idea of citizenship and what is described there, except that there are different ways to define those who are a part of the nation. Incidentally, the dhimmi tax more or less corresponds exactly to the zakat payable by Muslims anyway, so it's not like they are paying hugely in excess of what citizens pay anyway, it's just called something else, and the reason it is payed is as a tax instead of as a religious requirement.
Nowhere does it say to "kill pagans" just because they are pagans, there are however many instances where it says offer help and civility to all who offer you the same. Nowhere does it say anything about other non-warring people more severe than "they are mislead". You are taking it a bit far in the your quote above.
All I can say about this is that it is not Islam, but political dealings of corrupt governments (if it's the middle east, most likely governments supported by the US or UK). It is not as widespread as the media would have you believe, and any Muslim you meet will tell you that the middle eastern puppet regimes do not represent Islam any more than George W. Bush represents Christianity.
See above on citizenship, and no, you are misquoting him when you say the options were "pay tax, become Muslim or be killed". The last option was "be deported", and anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong. All countries today deport immigrants who don't pay their taxes or perform whatever extra duties are required of immigrants (registering with vario