So many sites nowadays try to set cookies, I presume for advertising tracking. It is really annoying to visit a blog or general news site and find they want to set several cookies. Then stores --- yes, cookies are good once you have a shopping cart, but if I'm only browsing, they don't need a cookie. But apparently the Boy's Grand Book Of Websites says Thou Shalt Use Cookies and boy o boy do the students take that religiously.
It's strange that I got a better score on Math II than Math I. But maybe, if they grade on a curve and cap the top like you say, there weren't as many people taking Math II.
When I took SAT scores, way back in 1969, you paid for them in sets of three, and there were only 5 I wanted or needed to take. So I signed up for Math II, why not, if I was paying for six tests, I was damn well going to take six tests!
Skipped many questions going for the ones I knew. It was common knowledge that skipped questions did not coutn, only wrong answers. One I guessed at, and remembered it well enough to ask my math teacher. He showed me and I had guessed wrong.
But when the scores came in, I got 800 (perfect; SAT scores range from 200 to 800) on Math II. Not on Math I, and not on any of the other 4 tests, only on Math II. I told the counselor it was wrong. He called me back a few days later, they claimed they had hand scored it, and yes I got 800.
Haven't had much faith in big automated tests since.
I think the poster will have no luck with the Colemak keyboard, since he doesn't read very well to start with. How will he ever tell he has mistyped anything? May as well use the ABCDE keyboard and forget learning to touch type.
For new intersections, where it would require only wiring between signals and ramp, maybe that is a significant savings over running underground power to every intersection. But since power has to run to all the nearby buildings anyway, I doubt it would save much there. It might only be good for out in the rural areas, where there may be a light every few miles. But if there is so little traffic that there is no power out there, there probably isn't enough traffic to justify a signals intersetion anyway, just the standard stop sign.
The people that know it are cleared to know it, and not us.
Yes, that's wingnut thinking for you. Trust me, I know there are people who knows these secret things that back up my story, but I don't have the security clearance to know what those things are or who knows them. But, wink wink, nudge nudge, they exist!
I love wingnuts, they are so eager to spout off on the damnedest things about which they know nothing, but they know that someone knows the truth, which just happens to be what they know without knowing how they know it. Know what I mean?
Oops, sorry about that. I forgot that the GOP, in their (1994?) Contract On America promised to limit themselves to just a few terms before voluntarily not running for office again. So it must be only two terms he has been in office, eh? My mistake. My most humble pie apologies.
The Dems want to CHANGE the past, as has been proven over and over
To think, only the Dems are so stupid. GOPpers are enlightened and always forward looking. Why, the whole Clinton impeachment for lying about his zipper was so VASTLY more important than merely lying about the reasons for going to war. Heaven forbid those pesky Dems might actually want to turn back the clock on abortion, that would be a matter of trying to redo the past.
Yes, let's get rid of those old fucks too, like Cheney (a retread from Nixon and Bush the elder) and Rumsfeld (a retread from GOP admins past) and DeLay (how many terms has he got?).
And Nixon, he sure did straighten out that Vietnam mess, didn't he. Boy o boy that was a close call, we might have left sooner and not won... refresh me, please, I can't remember what we won from his getting us out so much sooner than those pesky Dems would have. Well, other than Kissinger's memoirs.
*snickers at someone who thinks there's a difference between parties*
It's one thing to try to redo the past, as the atom bomb apologists try. It's another thing entirely to learn from the past. Dubya didn't learn beans about exit strategy from his papa, Republicans didn't learn beans about deficit spending from the Democrats. To claim the current Democrats want to redo the past is a big stretch. They may be disorganized, but that's the worst that can be said.
What the war critics are saying is that we need to learn from the past. Specifically Vietnam. Both wars started from fraud, both persist under fraud, both have glib slogans about things getting better (light at the end of the tunnel; mission accomplished, turning the corner), both have paper plans to turn things over to the local, both promote corrupt elections as a sign of progress, both label the local enemy as foreign devils, both have an occupying army turn more and more of the undecided locals into enemies out of their own inept plans, both hide war crimes and prosecute only the scapegoats (Mai Lai, Abu Ghraib), both increase domestic spending beyond all reason to try to trick the public, those in power label all dissidence as treason.
The comparisons go on and on. We should never have gotten into this war, just as we should never have gotten into the Vietnam war, the only difference being that an idiot president should have known better this time around because he had an example that his father did learn from. I would add idiot congress critters to the idiot list, both Democrat and Republican, but they only had fraudulent intelligence to go on, so they weren't the complete fraudulent idiot the president is.
The point is to learn from the past, not ignore it, not try to relive it. You blame Democrats for trying to relive the past that you ignore.
They wanted to stop the fighting and keep the status quo. Their remaining conquered lands would remain conquered --- huge chunks of China and Manchuria, former Dutch, British, and French colonies include Indochina, Singapore, Burma...
You call that a peace feeler?
As for battleships shelling the coast at will, yes that happened a few times, but only with massive air cover, and only temporarily. That is equivalent to someone driving by your house and throwing a few rolls of toilet paper, complete different from stopping and spending the next several days pulling your house down with no intervention. Embarassing, maybe even humiliating, but by no means dangerous or threatening.
As for casualties! 200,000 casualties may not seem like much to you, but that is MORE than the casualties from both bombs, and does not include Japanese casualties. Japanese casualties on both Okinawa and Iwo Jima were 5 or 10 times American casualties. You seem to be making the racist determination that Japanese lives were worthless. Surely losing 150,000 in two bomb attacks is better than losing 1,000,000 in an invasion.
Anyone can argue about what might have happened if the bombs had not been dropped. Maybe the emperor would have started the surrender process anyway, who knows? But AT THE TIME, all they knew was that there had been horrendous casualties on both sides at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. More than one ship a day was sunk by kamikazes, even tho the islands were hundreds of miles away. Invasion of the home islands would have taken place in, you guessed it, the home islands, and the fleet would have remained sitting ducks for much longer. They knew there were thousands of planes left in the home islands, just waiting for the invasion; they had photographed them and intercepted secret communications about them. They knew there were thousands of short range kamikaze speed boats. They fully expected a blood bath.
Dropping those bombs was the best option available. It saved lives on both sides under the quite reasonable assumption that the Japanese were not going to surrender any time soon. The initial home island invasion was scheduled for November. Were they supposed to wait to the last minute before dropping them?
You hindsight apologists live in a dream world where one can wait years after the fact to go back and redo history. I wonder how you can even survive in the reality of the present where one has to make decisions NOW, not years later.
The wars between France and Britain, from say 1750 to 1815, were certainly more global than WW I, which was pretty much a European only war. The carnage in absolute terms may have been worse in WW I, but relative to its times, I'd say the earlier wars were worse.
Guns equalized the playing field, introduced a form of democracy to warfare and even self protection. Before guns, you had swords, which required so much practice that only those with lots of leisure time (ie, the nobility) to become good at. They could easily cow peasants. Guns enabled anyone with a bit of cash to threaten the sword wielding nobility. At first this was only lesser nobility, but as the price dropped, guns proliferated and nobility lost its edge.
I blame the printing press for making information available and the gun for allowing its readers to act on that information.
If you would rather never have had the gun, you are an elitist. Democracy would never have arisen without the gun.
Well, let's consider the most common color combination for text and its background: black on white. In a subtractive color system (i.e. print), this is a perfectly suitable practice. The contrast of black on white is as stark and clear as possible, making for good legibility and comfortable reading. However, with an additive color system (i.e. on screen), the color white is produced by mixing red, green, and blue at full intensity. This is why the black on white combination can be overly luminous and too harsh on the eyes to allow extended reading on screen. There is never more light radiating from a screen than when it displays pure white, and this intensity can affect the clarity of fine detail in typefaces and other intricate patterns.
Pardon me for thinking here. A screen actively generates white at full power and black at 0. Paper reflects white at full power and black at 0. Wtf is the difference? Is this guy full of shit or am I missing something?
Please don't tell me paper white is not 100% reflection. It doesn't change the basic fact that white is the most reflective and black is the lest reflective just as white is full light and black is 0. Additive, subtractive (I keep wanting to say subtractitive), it makes no difference, white is maximum, black is minimum.
You may think it a success, and 99.9999% of internet users may consider it a success, but in the eyes of monopolists who can't make a dime off that dumb internet, it is a colossal failure. You have to see their point of view to defeat them. Fuck what is right and good for people, they only care about what increases their bottom line for the next quarter. Fuck five years from now too. They want to be a bigger frog even if it means shrinking the pond to squeeze everybody else out.
For that matter, there is a logical reason for their attitude. The people in charge, from middle managers on up, never knew real competition, where you try to please your customers, where you have to fight to get custmers and to keep them. No, they grew up career-wise in a monopoly, where customers are guaranteed, all you have to fight is the government regulators, and the only decisions are how to squeeze ever more money out of your customers. The very idea of having to retain customers and get new ones is not even in their vocabulary.
Suppose they put DRM into all new equipment, or even just all new kinds of equipment (blue-ray etc). If it talks to old equipment, they have lost the battle and the war. If it doesn't talk to old equipment, then no one will upgrade. Someone asks the salesman about the new whizbang camcorder, learns they will have to buy all new stereo, tv, speakers, everything, so that $1000 camera turns into $10,000, and walks out the door, cursing every store employee in sight.
There is no way to phase people over to the DRM generation. They just can't see that.
As the others have said, the head needs air to float. In fact, last time I checked, hard drives actually list a maximum operating altitude, I think only 15,000 feet usually, not all that high. But I could be wrong about the actual altitude.
I always thought of Australians as being a pretty loose bunch. Then "mate" becomes a no-no in parliament, there have been a bunch of nanny laws coming into effect, and all in all, it looks like the nuts that have made such a mockery of what the US Republican party used to pretend to stand for (small government, individual over the state) have been at work down under.
The preident of a company I worked at took a stable 120 employee firm, ran the head count up to 170 on a crazy whim of a project before it crashed down to 35 when I left. He had been newly hired when it was stable, and took a year to cook up his crazy scheme and pack the board of directors, so it was 100% attributable to him, no ifs ands or buts. I did not want to ever be able to work for such a nutjob again, so I intentionally burned that bridge by making it crystal clear during the exit process that he was the sole reason I was leaving, and that the only way I would ever come back was if he were not associated with the company in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously he saw the subscriber-only article in red and prepared his post beforehand.
Am I the only one wondering how a subscriber such as yourself could not know this?
Station wagon equivalents per fortnight.
So many sites nowadays try to set cookies, I presume for advertising tracking. It is really annoying to visit a blog or general news site and find they want to set several cookies. Then stores --- yes, cookies are good once you have a shopping cart, but if I'm only browsing, they don't need a cookie. But apparently the Boy's Grand Book Of Websites says Thou Shalt Use Cookies and boy o boy do the students take that religiously.
It's strange that I got a better score on Math II than Math I. But maybe, if they grade on a curve and cap the top like you say, there weren't as many people taking Math II.
Still don't trust tests like that.
When I took SAT scores, way back in 1969, you paid for them in sets of three, and there were only 5 I wanted or needed to take. So I signed up for Math II, why not, if I was paying for six tests, I was damn well going to take six tests!
Skipped many questions going for the ones I knew. It was common knowledge that skipped questions did not coutn, only wrong answers. One I guessed at, and remembered it well enough to ask my math teacher. He showed me and I had guessed wrong.
But when the scores came in, I got 800 (perfect; SAT scores range from 200 to 800) on Math II. Not on Math I, and not on any of the other 4 tests, only on Math II. I told the counselor it was wrong. He called me back a few days later, they claimed they had hand scored it, and yes I got 800.
Haven't had much faith in big automated tests since.
... it's spelled Colemak.
I think the poster is an idiot.
I think the poster will have no luck with the Colemak keyboard, since he doesn't read very well to start with. How will he ever tell he has mistyped anything? May as well use the ABCDE keyboard and forget learning to touch type.
For new intersections, where it would require only wiring between signals and ramp, maybe that is a significant savings over running underground power to every intersection. But since power has to run to all the nearby buildings anyway, I doubt it would save much there. It might only be good for out in the rural areas, where there may be a light every few miles. But if there is so little traffic that there is no power out there, there probably isn't enough traffic to justify a signals intersetion anyway, just the standard stop sign.
This really sounds like a useless invention.
The people that know it are cleared to know it, and not us.
Yes, that's wingnut thinking for you. Trust me, I know there are people who knows these secret things that back up my story, but I don't have the security clearance to know what those things are or who knows them. But, wink wink, nudge nudge, they exist!
I love wingnuts, they are so eager to spout off on the damnedest things about which they know nothing, but they know that someone knows the truth, which just happens to be what they know without knowing how they know it. Know what I mean?
Trust me, there's a whole SHITELOAD of stuff we *don't* know
And you do know it?
That says boatloads for your credibility right there. Heard it from the fat guy on radio? Or was it Art Bell? Some reliable source, no doubt.
Oh right, you can't tell me, I forgot.
DeLay (how many terms has he got?)
Oops, sorry about that. I forgot that the GOP, in their (1994?) Contract On America promised to limit themselves to just a few terms before voluntarily not running for office again. So it must be only two terms he has been in office, eh? My mistake. My most humble pie apologies.
The Dems want to CHANGE the past, as has been proven over and over
... refresh me, please, I can't remember what we won from his getting us out so much sooner than those pesky Dems would have. Well, other than Kissinger's memoirs.
To think, only the Dems are so stupid. GOPpers are enlightened and always forward looking. Why, the whole Clinton impeachment for lying about his zipper was so VASTLY more important than merely lying about the reasons for going to war. Heaven forbid those pesky Dems might actually want to turn back the clock on abortion, that would be a matter of trying to redo the past.
Yes, let's get rid of those old fucks too, like Cheney (a retread from Nixon and Bush the elder) and Rumsfeld (a retread from GOP admins past) and DeLay (how many terms has he got?).
And Nixon, he sure did straighten out that Vietnam mess, didn't he. Boy o boy that was a close call, we might have left sooner and not won
*snickers at someone who thinks there's a difference between parties*
It's one thing to try to redo the past, as the atom bomb apologists try. It's another thing entirely to learn from the past. Dubya didn't learn beans about exit strategy from his papa, Republicans didn't learn beans about deficit spending from the Democrats. To claim the current Democrats want to redo the past is a big stretch. They may be disorganized, but that's the worst that can be said.
What the war critics are saying is that we need to learn from the past. Specifically Vietnam. Both wars started from fraud, both persist under fraud, both have glib slogans about things getting better (light at the end of the tunnel; mission accomplished, turning the corner), both have paper plans to turn things over to the local, both promote corrupt elections as a sign of progress, both label the local enemy as foreign devils, both have an occupying army turn more and more of the undecided locals into enemies out of their own inept plans, both hide war crimes and prosecute only the scapegoats (Mai Lai, Abu Ghraib), both increase domestic spending beyond all reason to try to trick the public, those in power label all dissidence as treason.
The comparisons go on and on. We should never have gotten into this war, just as we should never have gotten into the Vietnam war, the only difference being that an idiot president should have known better this time around because he had an example that his father did learn from. I would add idiot congress critters to the idiot list, both Democrat and Republican, but they only had fraudulent intelligence to go on, so they weren't the complete fraudulent idiot the president is.
The point is to learn from the past, not ignore it, not try to relive it. You blame Democrats for trying to relive the past that you ignore.
They wanted to stop the fighting and keep the status quo. Their remaining conquered lands would remain conquered --- huge chunks of China and Manchuria, former Dutch, British, and French colonies include Indochina, Singapore, Burma ...
You call that a peace feeler?
As for battleships shelling the coast at will, yes that happened a few times, but only with massive air cover, and only temporarily. That is equivalent to someone driving by your house and throwing a few rolls of toilet paper, complete different from stopping and spending the next several days pulling your house down with no intervention. Embarassing, maybe even humiliating, but by no means dangerous or threatening.
As for casualties! 200,000 casualties may not seem like much to you, but that is MORE than the casualties from both bombs, and does not include Japanese casualties. Japanese casualties on both Okinawa and Iwo Jima were 5 or 10 times American casualties. You seem to be making the racist determination that Japanese lives were worthless. Surely losing 150,000 in two bomb attacks is better than losing 1,000,000 in an invasion.
Anyone can argue about what might have happened if the bombs had not been dropped. Maybe the emperor would have started the surrender process anyway, who knows? But AT THE TIME, all they knew was that there had been horrendous casualties on both sides at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. More than one ship a day was sunk by kamikazes, even tho the islands were hundreds of miles away. Invasion of the home islands would have taken place in, you guessed it, the home islands, and the fleet would have remained sitting ducks for much longer. They knew there were thousands of planes left in the home islands, just waiting for the invasion; they had photographed them and intercepted secret communications about them. They knew there were thousands of short range kamikaze speed boats. They fully expected a blood bath.
Dropping those bombs was the best option available. It saved lives on both sides under the quite reasonable assumption that the Japanese were not going to surrender any time soon. The initial home island invasion was scheduled for November. Were they supposed to wait to the last minute before dropping them?
You hindsight apologists live in a dream world where one can wait years after the fact to go back and redo history. I wonder how you can even survive in the reality of the present where one has to make decisions NOW, not years later.
The wars between France and Britain, from say 1750 to 1815, were certainly more global than WW I, which was pretty much a European only war. The carnage in absolute terms may have been worse in WW I, but relative to its times, I'd say the earlier wars were worse.
Otherwise it is inherently Good. That should be clear :-)
Guns equalized the playing field, introduced a form of democracy to warfare and even self protection. Before guns, you had swords, which required so much practice that only those with lots of leisure time (ie, the nobility) to become good at. They could easily cow peasants. Guns enabled anyone with a bit of cash to threaten the sword wielding nobility. At first this was only lesser nobility, but as the price dropped, guns proliferated and nobility lost its edge.
I blame the printing press for making information available and the gun for allowing its readers to act on that information.
If you would rather never have had the gun, you are an elitist. Democracy would never have arisen without the gun.
Well, let's consider the most common color combination for text and its background: black on white. In a subtractive color system (i.e. print), this is a perfectly suitable practice. The contrast of black on white is as stark and clear as possible, making for good legibility and comfortable reading. However, with an additive color system (i.e. on screen), the color white is produced by mixing red, green, and blue at full intensity. This is why the black on white combination can be overly luminous and too harsh on the eyes to allow extended reading on screen. There is never more light radiating from a screen than when it displays pure white, and this intensity can affect the clarity of fine detail in typefaces and other intricate patterns.
Pardon me for thinking here. A screen actively generates white at full power and black at 0. Paper reflects white at full power and black at 0. Wtf is the difference? Is this guy full of shit or am I missing something?
Please don't tell me paper white is not 100% reflection. It doesn't change the basic fact that white is the most reflective and black is the lest reflective just as white is full light and black is 0. Additive, subtractive (I keep wanting to say subtractitive), it makes no difference, white is maximum, black is minimum.
You may think it a success, and 99.9999% of internet users may consider it a success, but in the eyes of monopolists who can't make a dime off that dumb internet, it is a colossal failure. You have to see their point of view to defeat them. Fuck what is right and good for people, they only care about what increases their bottom line for the next quarter. Fuck five years from now too. They want to be a bigger frog even if it means shrinking the pond to squeeze everybody else out.
For that matter, there is a logical reason for their attitude. The people in charge, from middle managers on up, never knew real competition, where you try to please your customers, where you have to fight to get custmers and to keep them. No, they grew up career-wise in a monopoly, where customers are guaranteed, all you have to fight is the government regulators, and the only decisions are how to squeeze ever more money out of your customers. The very idea of having to retain customers and get new ones is not even in their vocabulary.
Suppose they put DRM into all new equipment, or even just all new kinds of equipment (blue-ray etc). If it talks to old equipment, they have lost the battle and the war. If it doesn't talk to old equipment, then no one will upgrade. Someone asks the salesman about the new whizbang camcorder, learns they will have to buy all new stereo, tv, speakers, everything, so that $1000 camera turns into $10,000, and walks out the door, cursing every store employee in sight.
There is no way to phase people over to the DRM generation. They just can't see that.
They have provided us with this dup. Nobody expects the Slashdot duplication!
(A similar thing happened at Intel years ago, but I don't think it lead to very many heart attacks.)
.00010183 heart attacks, but I think it's estimating.
Actually, my Pentium tells me there were
As the others have said, the head needs air to float. In fact, last time I checked, hard drives actually list a maximum operating altitude, I think only 15,000 feet usually, not all that high. But I could be wrong about the actual altitude.
You are attributing far too much intelligence to them. Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.
I always thought of Australians as being a pretty loose bunch. Then "mate" becomes a no-no in parliament, there have been a bunch of nanny laws coming into effect, and all in all, it looks like the nuts that have made such a mockery of what the US Republican party used to pretend to stand for (small government, individual over the state) have been at work down under.
What the heck is going on down there?
The preident of a company I worked at took a stable 120 employee firm, ran the head count up to 170 on a crazy whim of a project before it crashed down to 35 when I left. He had been newly hired when it was stable, and took a year to cook up his crazy scheme and pack the board of directors, so it was 100% attributable to him, no ifs ands or buts. I did not want to ever be able to work for such a nutjob again, so I intentionally burned that bridge by making it crystal clear during the exit process that he was the sole reason I was leaving, and that the only way I would ever come back was if he were not associated with the company in any way.
Sometimes burning a bridge has a purpose.