You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The "crime" of consuming alcohol, which was created by the 18th ammendment, was stopped by the 21st ammendment, by making it no longer a crime. Idiot.
After I see a movie, I usually end up buying the DVD to see the deleted and behind-the-scenes bonus material
You like every movie you see so much that you need to own the DVD? Can't you rent it once from blockbuster to see "The Making of Rocky V" and "Home Alone 3: Director's Commentary version"?
So I not only pay for $20 the DVD, but also $24 for a pair of tickets,
You pay twelve bucks for a movie ticket? Does the matre 'd come and pour your soda refills from a lead crystal caraffe?
Lots of movie theatres allow you to buy discount movie coupons in advance in books of ten. Look into it.
$8 for parking
Where do you go to see movies? Broadway?
and $12 for popcorn & drinks.
In the old days, you had to pay cash for movie theatre food. There's a reason they take credit cards now. Nobody carries enough cash to see a movie with popcorn and drinks. Go out to dinner first. For that $12 you can get two bourbon chicken combo plates at the food court. It's actually pretty good.
I've mostly stopped going to the movies and just wait half a year for the DVD
RENT IT. Unless you're talking about Star Wars, or LOTR, or something of that ilk, RENT it. There are a lot of movies that are worth seeing but not worth owning. All that money you're wasting could be going into a Roth IRA.
I'd be just like the real God. I'd create a couple of people and make them happy. Then I'd curse them for eating an apple, and shun all their descendents from heaven for thousands of years. Many generations later, I'd make a bet with Satan as to whether or not we can make a good man named "Job" turn bad by royally fucking up his life, just like the Dukes did to Dan Ackroyd in "Trading Places". And then when I got fed up with mankind, I'd pull a handful of them aside, along with a pair of each kind of animal, and put them on a big boat while I drowned the rest. And then I'd find another one of my faithful servants and I'd play games with his head too. I'd tell him that if he wants my love, he has to slit his son's throat to prove his love to me. And just before he does it, I'd stop him. And instead of bitch-slapping him for believing I could be so cruel, I'd praise him for his devotion. After a while, I'd decide it was lonely up here all one in heaven, so I'd have to start letting people in. But I won't make it easy. They're all sinners, and vengeance is mine. So, I'd send someone to "save" them all by allowing himself to pay for everyone's sins by being nailed to a cross and die a slow asphyxiating death. And I'd play more head games with all mankind, by ambiguously "revealing" myself in differet ways to different groups of people, so that they can kill each other over who knows me best. And because I'm such a nut for irony, I'd let a bunch of them colonize a New World (except that it's only new to them and not to the indiginous people they drove onto "reservations") and start a country based on the belief that all men are created equal, and that I endowed them with the inalienable right of liberty, and then I'd sit back and laugh at their hypocrisy as they hauled a bunch of people out of their homes in Africa to come and work for them for free. And I'd keep them guessing with "miracles" in places like Lourdes and Fatima that might or might not have a natural explanation, just to stir up more controversy. And I'd sit by and let six million of my people get slaughtered by a fucking nut. and then I'd let the survivors get all cocky and kick followers of one of my other Prophets out of their homes on the grounds that it's My will that the land is really theirs and that they should form a state there. And just to bring the religious hatred full circle, I'll sit back while followers of this other prophet fly planes into buildings on one side of the world and kill 150 hostage school-children on the other side of the world.
Then I'd look at my little creation and call it good.
ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".
Not "I feel that...". Rather, "I think that". Opinions are not feelings. Emotions are feelings. People say "I feel that..." when they know their opinions are on shaky ground, because people don't have to justify "feelings". You're entitled to feel however you want to about something and there's no wrong way to "feel". But thoughts and opinions can be disputed and shown to be wrong, so people try to let their thoughts off the hook, and make them not subject to dispute, by calling them "feelings". It's a cop-out. You can say "I feel happy", or "I feel angry", but if you start off saying "I feel that", chances are that you're trying to disguise your belief as an impugnable feeling.
older people (30years and older) want tube amplifiers. So why is that? It's because of the things the people grew up with.
30? Dude, I'm almost 38, and when I was really little (6-8 years old), I had a Winnie-The-Pooh transistor radio that took an ordinary 9-volt battery. You need to go back a little further to find people who feel all comfy from their tube-filled childhood.
Now, disgruntled ex-employees won't return to the office to "go postal", so to speak. They'll just run up and down the hallway yelling "File! Exit! No!".
Dude, I *did* read the article, and I know what it was about. Nevertheless, the posted story conjured up the mental image of a gigapixel handheld digital camera by comparing it to today's state-of-the-art handhelds. That's what I was responding to.
Rather than try to fit a billion pixels in a handheld camera, why not try to make sensors that operate much faster. If you could capture a hundred images at current resolutions in the same amount of time as it takes to capture a single image, you could rely on vibration-induced motion of the camera, and use motion estimation techniques to calibrate the images. Then you could use a splatting technique to sum up the images on a higher resolution grid to create an effective 100-fold resolution increase.
Of course, you wouldn't want to use a tripod with this, or perhaps you'd need a special tripod which intentionally generates random vibrational motion. Sorry if this is stupid, I'm just brainstorming here.
I believe you are missing my point. It's not a question of having a winner take all system, or a pro-rated electoral allocation system. The issue at hand is why the electors are given any discretion in the process whatsoever. However the electoral votes are allocated, the only thing that should happen is that those votes are *conveyed* at the electoral level. They shouldn't have the option of overriding the popular vote. They really ought to be couriers, not electors.
The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington
Then why wasn't the system codified to require the elector to merely report the majority vote for the state, and not allow him/her the option to ignore the will of the people?
Lack of parental involvement or interest is probably the biggest problem in US public education right now.
Hmmm... I wonder if tax incentives to the parents of children who perform in the top X percentile of their class would motivate parents to become better involved.
university in Wisconsin's school of engineering awarded Doohan an honorary degree when they found out half their student body had been inspired into engineering by Scotty.
And were they all disappointed when they found out what engineering really is?
Seriously, as much of a trek fan as I am, Scotty is hardly an engineer, (Though, I heard him speak at my university about 17 years ago, and the actor fancies himself an engineer in real life, which, sadly, seemed to foreshadow his present condition. But I digress...) I don't recall ever seeing Scotty do anything that remotely resembled engineering, at least not the kind of engineering that "engineering students" study. He would more accurately be described as a technician, or a repairman.
Are there situations where two caches might be better? For example, a multi-threaded application with two memory-intensive threads, each locked down onto a specific CPU?
(This is just off the top of my head, so I won't be surprised if you find a way to nitpick it.)
To obtain, by your own actions and in a manner that enriches your own personal enjoyment, utility, or profit. In other words, if at time t0 you don't have it, and at time t1 you do have it, then sometime between t0 and t1, you obtained it. And if you obtained it through your own actions (as opposed to, say, being given it by its rightful owner), then you took it.
If I sell copies of a recording of a song I performed, and you like it, you might buy it, and I'll make money that I can use to pay my rent or feed my kids. If you copy it, I won't make money. See the difference? The point isn't whether I'll still have the tangible item after you take it. The point is whether or not you have the right to usurp my ownership rights of something, thereby depriving me of something of value.
Slashdot Mirror
No problem, buddy. Apology accepted.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The "crime" of consuming alcohol, which was created by the 18th ammendment, was stopped by the 21st ammendment, by making it no longer a crime. Idiot.
Well, what law has ever stopped a crime
The 21st ammendment.
Can you list three?
1) My right to check out any book I like from a library without having to worry that my taste in literature is going to get my name on a "watch list".
2) The library's right not to divulge my reading habits.
3) The library's right to tell its patrons when the government has begun forcing it to disclose our reading habits.
After I see a movie, I usually end up buying the DVD to see the deleted and behind-the-scenes bonus material
You like every movie you see so much that you need to own the DVD? Can't you rent it once from blockbuster to see "The Making of Rocky V" and "Home Alone 3: Director's Commentary version"?
So I not only pay for $20 the DVD, but also $24 for a pair of tickets,
You pay twelve bucks for a movie ticket? Does the matre 'd come and pour your soda refills from a lead crystal caraffe?
Lots of movie theatres allow you to buy discount movie coupons in advance in books of ten. Look into it.
$8 for parking
Where do you go to see movies? Broadway?
and $12 for popcorn & drinks.
In the old days, you had to pay cash for movie theatre food. There's a reason they take credit cards now. Nobody carries enough cash to see a movie with popcorn and drinks. Go out to dinner first. For that $12 you can get two bourbon chicken combo plates at the food court. It's actually pretty good.
I've mostly stopped going to the movies and just wait half a year for the DVD
RENT IT. Unless you're talking about Star Wars, or LOTR, or something of that ilk, RENT it. There are a lot of movies that are worth seeing but not worth owning. All that money you're wasting could be going into a Roth IRA.
I'd be just like the real God. I'd create a couple of people and make them happy. Then I'd curse them for eating an apple, and shun all their descendents from heaven for thousands of years. Many generations later, I'd make a bet with Satan as to whether or not we can make a good man named "Job" turn bad by royally fucking up his life, just like the Dukes did to Dan Ackroyd in "Trading Places". And then when I got fed up with mankind, I'd pull a handful of them aside, along with a pair of each kind of animal, and put them on a big boat while I drowned the rest. And then I'd find another one of my faithful servants and I'd play games with his head too. I'd tell him that if he wants my love, he has to slit his son's throat to prove his love to me. And just before he does it, I'd stop him. And instead of bitch-slapping him for believing I could be so cruel, I'd praise him for his devotion. After a while, I'd decide it was lonely up here all one in heaven, so I'd have to start letting people in. But I won't make it easy. They're all sinners, and vengeance is mine. So, I'd send someone to "save" them all by allowing himself to pay for everyone's sins by being nailed to a cross and die a slow asphyxiating death. And I'd play more head games with all mankind, by ambiguously "revealing" myself in differet ways to different groups of people, so that they can kill each other over who knows me best. And because I'm such a nut for irony, I'd let a bunch of them colonize a New World (except that it's only new to them and not to the indiginous people they drove onto "reservations") and start a country based on the belief that all men are created equal, and that I endowed them with the inalienable right of liberty, and then I'd sit back and laugh at their hypocrisy as they hauled a bunch of people out of their homes in Africa to come and work for them for free. And I'd keep them guessing with "miracles" in places like Lourdes and Fatima that might or might not have a natural explanation, just to stir up more controversy. And I'd sit by and let six million of my people get slaughtered by a fucking nut. and then I'd let the survivors get all cocky and kick followers of one of my other Prophets out of their homes on the grounds that it's My will that the land is really theirs and that they should form a state there. And just to bring the religious hatred full circle, I'll sit back while followers of this other prophet fly planes into buildings on one side of the world and kill 150 hostage school-children on the other side of the world.
Then I'd look at my little creation and call it good.
ALWAYS preface your opinions with "It is my opinion that..." or "I feel that...".
Not "I feel that...". Rather, "I think that". Opinions are not feelings. Emotions are feelings. People say "I feel that..." when they know their opinions are on shaky ground, because people don't have to justify "feelings". You're entitled to feel however you want to about something and there's no wrong way to "feel". But thoughts and opinions can be disputed and shown to be wrong, so people try to let their thoughts off the hook, and make them not subject to dispute, by calling them "feelings". It's a cop-out. You can say "I feel happy", or "I feel angry", but if you start off saying "I feel that", chances are that you're trying to disguise your belief as an impugnable feeling.
Yes, and oncologists need cancer victims. What's your point?
older people (30years and older) want tube amplifiers. So why is that? It's because of the things the people grew up with.
30? Dude, I'm almost 38, and when I was really little (6-8 years old), I had a Winnie-The-Pooh transistor radio that took an ordinary 9-volt battery. You need to go back a little further to find people who feel all comfy from their tube-filled childhood.
I can't think of a single thing to date the chinese have ever created that has benifited humans.
Gunpowder.
He said " benefitted humans".
Now, disgruntled ex-employees won't return to the office to "go postal", so to speak. They'll just run up and down the hallway yelling "File! Exit! No!".
Dude, I *did* read the article, and I know what it was about. Nevertheless, the posted story conjured up the mental image of a gigapixel handheld digital camera by comparing it to today's state-of-the-art handhelds. That's what I was responding to.
Rather than try to fit a billion pixels in a handheld camera, why not try to make sensors that operate much faster. If you could capture a hundred images at current resolutions in the same amount of time as it takes to capture a single image, you could rely on vibration-induced motion of the camera, and use motion estimation techniques to calibrate the images. Then you could use a splatting technique to sum up the images on a higher resolution grid to create an effective 100-fold resolution increase.
Of course, you wouldn't want to use a tripod with this, or perhaps you'd need a special tripod which intentionally generates random vibrational motion. Sorry if this is stupid, I'm just brainstorming here.
I believe you are missing my point. It's not a question of having a winner take all system, or a pro-rated electoral allocation system. The issue at hand is why the electors are given any discretion in the process whatsoever. However the electoral votes are allocated, the only thing that should happen is that those votes are *conveyed* at the electoral level. They shouldn't have the option of overriding the popular vote. They really ought to be couriers, not electors.
The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington
Then why wasn't the system codified to require the elector to merely report the majority vote for the state, and not allow him/her the option to ignore the will of the people?
Yeah, you're probably right.
Lack of parental involvement or interest is probably the biggest problem in US public education right now.
Hmmm... I wonder if tax incentives to the parents of children who perform in the top X percentile of their class would motivate parents to become better involved.
a report in the medical journal Thorax
I wouldn't trust anything in a medical journal made by Dr. Seuss.
Hey, ummmm, Scotty. Yeaaaah, I'm gonna need that warp drive in three minutes or we're all dead, ok? Grrrreat. Thaaaaanks.
university in Wisconsin's school of engineering awarded Doohan an honorary degree when they found out half their student body had been inspired into engineering by Scotty.
And were they all disappointed when they found out what engineering really is?
Seriously, as much of a trek fan as I am, Scotty is hardly an engineer, (Though, I heard him speak at my university about 17 years ago, and the actor fancies himself an engineer in real life, which, sadly, seemed to foreshadow his present condition. But I digress...) I don't recall ever seeing Scotty do anything that remotely resembled engineering, at least not the kind of engineering that "engineering students" study. He would more accurately be described as a technician, or a repairman.
Saddam's abuses were far worse than Slobo's.
Dude, there was a GENOCIDE IN PROGRESS. Please.
The fact is that he's kept in custody for hours without being told why
[Vandal gets yanked off his graffiti-o-matic...]
"Hey, what gives? Where are you taking me? What did I do wrong? Is this about that tag I ripped off my mattress? WTF?"
Are there situations where two caches might be better? For example, a multi-threaded application with two memory-intensive threads, each locked down onto a specific CPU?
Please define 'take'.
(This is just off the top of my head, so I won't be surprised if you find a way to nitpick it.)
To obtain, by your own actions and in a manner that enriches your own personal enjoyment, utility, or profit. In other words, if at time t0 you don't have it, and at time t1 you do have it, then sometime between t0 and t1, you obtained it. And if you obtained it through your own actions (as opposed to, say, being given it by its rightful owner), then you took it.
If I sell copies of a recording of a song I performed, and you like it, you might buy it, and I'll make money that I can use to pay my rent or feed my kids. If you copy it, I won't make money. See the difference? The point isn't whether I'll still have the tangible item after you take it. The point is whether or not you have the right to usurp my ownership rights of something, thereby depriving me of something of value.