cropping the top and bottom a tad, and stretching a tad to end up with 16:9.
I sure hope you are kidding. This is the kind of BS that studios do because someone complains that it doesn't fill their entire TV. As though all recorded video must be modified to fit whatever particular TV the person bought. It was recorded for 4:3! I don't need to see Picard's head cropped-off and his butt widened just because someone doesn't understand the concept of an aspect ratio. I would love to see someone do that to their family photos. "Dad, why is Mom's head cut out of the picture? And why is everyone fat?"
I remember DVD and Blu-ray. I wonder when this will be available on Netflix? That's where I watch ST:TNG now. Hopefully they will start streaming the HD versions instead.
I love how HotHardware went out of their way to use Javascript to prevent you from opening them in pop-up windows. You have to click the image, then copy the URL, then open a tab, then paste the URL. Did they not think that comparing screen shots might be something the reader wants to do??? It would also be a bit easier without 3 flash ads on every single picture. Thank God for flashblock. That is not a site I will be visiting often.
Not to be pedantic but that definition of "eye of a needle" is completely unproven.
Thanks. I was about to take it as fact. I should know better.
It is obviously impossible for a camel to go through the actual eye of a needle which fits that biblical quote exactly.
How do you know it fits the quote exactly?
It sounds like you took the literal meaning, it seemed to make sense, and assumed that was correct. Instead, you should instead be asking yourself "Why is the literal interpretation sufficient here?" And the proof would be in looking into the meanings of the words "camel" and "eye of a needle."
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing
For many people, this would be proof that we should respect all people regardless of their appearance and sexual orientation. It would perfectly align with their pre-conceived ideas of the world. And they would ask the same question you did.
What I don't understand is why some OTHER definition is required.
There is nothing "OTHER" about it. Your interpretation is on equal footing to the "OTHER" interpretation. This is in part because someone translated it for you. So even your literal reading isn't literally what he really said. Perhaps he never said the words camel or eye or needle, and someone translating it 500 years ago thought that this was a more helpful interpretation. This is what is so maddening about reading the bible without knowing the source of the translation.
I also think the literal meaning here is good enough, but it has always struck me as an odd analogy. I was excited to hear someone actually make sense of it. Oh well, maybe I'll just have to ask the original author one day...:-)
Thin sliced meat (beef or pork), onion, green pepper, soy sauce, ginger, garlic, mushrooms, sweet mirin, and a bit of sake, serve over white rice with a fried egg on top and you're all set.
It takes time to gather these ingredients, slice them, chop them, etc. It sounds to me like you enjoy the process, and are proud of the result: so perhaps the time does not seem that long to you. But what you just listed take significantly longer than microwaving a premade lasagna.
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going. 2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.
I see that you are trying to write network neutrality in here, but it won't work with these rules. I suspect you are trying to make sure that an ISP doesn't charge the user some kind of special premium for a packet that goes to a particular web site or competing ISP. That is a good rule. But it isn't that they can't charge for data: they simply must charge equally for all data. So I propose a revision:
Rule 2: All packets are charged equally, regardless of source, destination, or content.
Otherwise, your rule 2 violates routing rules (some packets must be discarded). Internet backbones wouldn't work with rule 2A since their entire business model is charging per packet. Peering agreements would also be in a gray area of rule 2A since the count the transference of data but don't explicitly charge for it. Those are good things we would not want to interfere with.
Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.
The greater of two evils is still evil. By not voting for the 3rd party you continue to grant the two main parties the power that keeps them as the two main parties. Many of those "good" candidates you see on the primary really want to run under other parties but they can't because nobody would pay attention to them. So even voting for Ron Paul in the primary gives the Republican party undeserved power. Much of this is psychology that must be broken.
Less than half the eligible US population votes. If those lazy bums would just go out to the polls, close their eyes, and pick a candidate at random, we would no longer have a two party system. Those ignored, independent, irrelevant, 3rd-party candidates would be given federal funding! The media would be forced to pay attention to them, and so would the other candidates. Getting enough people to vote for those 3rd parties breaks the hold. Get enough of them in there, and we could have a constitutional amendment to change the first past the post system.
But if you continue to "vote for the lesser of two evils" then you continue to give the power to those evils. The original poster wanted to get habeas corpus back. Voting Republican or Democratic in the general election will help him achieve this or send that message.
Consider this: If you had two organized crime syndicates offering protection services, would paying one of them -vs- the other one somehow break the hold? No, you have to refuse. Their only power comes from the individuals who continue to support them.
If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.
By the time they get to my state, they have mostly dropped out.:-(
If this story is true, you are truly a hero. To have endured this and used the system each time to prove they are wrong, without flying off the handle or doing something that really did get you in trouble - that is an amazing amount of discipline. You are tenacious. And good job on finding 2 bad guys and getting them off the street - maybe they will learn a lesson?
Actually, the entire reason we have captcha is because the techniques you just listed don't work any more. Bots learned to run Javascript and ignore hidden fields years ago. Even if the bots could not do those things, it still wouldn't matter because whoever codes the routine to submit the form will pick up on those things. The best you can do is make it inconvenient enough that they will pick another target instead. But if you are Yahoo or Google or Wordpress, that won't deter them.
Where the goal was to have only 10% of projects rated high, within a year nearly 50% of projects are rated as such.
You need to have definitions for terms like priority, high, and goal. If "high priority" is defined as "The most important 3 projects" then you will only have 3 projects that are high priority. If it is defined by a democratic vote of what people think sounds important, everything will be priority.
Priority is really a consequence of other factors such as deadline, cost, or opportunity. So you could define "high priority" as anything where a schedule slip of more than 10% jeopardizes the viability of the project.
Wrong. Regulations exist to try and minimize harm, not indemnify the regulated. Following regulations is never a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Legal precedent says otherwise. There are many many cases where following the regulations indemnifies you. For example, a pontoon boat overturned in Baltimore harbor a few years ago, while ferrying a few dozen passengers. A nearby coast guard boat responded immediately but several people died. They sued the captain, who sued the taxi company, who sued the coast guard. Final result: since the boat was carrying the proper number of passengers and was current in its coast guard inspection, the coast guard was not liable. And the stack unwinds: the taxi company was this not liable, and the captain was thus not liable, and the defendents were innocent.
This same thing happens to pharma companies all the time. If the drug was unsafe, but it was shown to be safe in the FDA trials, the only way the company will be liable for damages is if you can prove that either the FDA knew it was unsafe, or the phramaceutical company lied or withheld information in their FDA filing.
This also happens with EPA regulations and there was a recent case that was on Slashdot about it. The company did damage the waterway, but it was okay because it was within EPA regs. Oh yeah! And another case like this involving a recycling plant that had some enormously bad outputs - the problem was that the plant was too big. But the ratio of nasty outputs to inputs was within the specs, so the soot-covered town lost their case. I heard this one on NPR but I forget what kind of recycling it was. Not like paper/plastic - something industrial like they produced concrete from other companies waste.
A warp core really isn't a power source. It is more like an alternator. The power source is the matter-antimatter reactions. Similarly people confuse dilithium crystals with being a power source when they are really just a matter-antimatter regulator.
Anything you do to pre-cool the water would be better done after the water has been heated by the plant. Ex: If you can air cool the water, then do it afterward. The temperature gradient is higher so it will be more efficient. Also, the idea of the American South implies you are thinking of evaporative cooling, which uses water to cool something else. You don't cool the water itself that way.
But when you peel back the data, things like high test scores mean next to nothing about school quality – isn’t it likely that socioeconomics and not the school itself created these high test scores?
That's about as in-depth as this article gets. The author has no statistics to back-up his guess. He doesn't actually provide any data at all in the article. This is part of a chain of bloggers reiterating the often accepted yet statistically unproven assertion that test scores are useless. The reality is that they are the best measure we have of the quality of education. So before evaluating a school based on one person's opinion of how to do it, make sure you look at the currently accepted best science.
Based on the headline, I expected an article comparing student outcomes against various statistics, and evidence pointing out which statistics are best at picking the quality schools. But this article is merely someone throwing out guesses with no evidence to back it up. This is not worthy of posting on Slashdot.
This isn't a problem unless the law allows government and private companies more power than individuals. Someone must watch the watchers. Is anyone here familiar with the bill?
because Chrome and most other browsers establish the connection even when the services aren't able to ensure a certificate hasn't been tampered with.
This is just a case of unsafe defaults. To fix this in Firefox go to Tolls - Options - Advanced - Encryption - Validation and check the box that says "When an OCSP server connection fails, treat the certificate as invalid."
This is probably what the default should be anyway. I cannot imagine a fingerprint scanner that just assumed everyone was authorized if the database went down. If it can't validate, then it isn't valid!
I understand with that philosophy, and I would agree if it had not already been available on the iPhone 4 for over a year then pulled it from the market after Apple bought the company.
Possibly true: Siri uses a unique feature of the iPhone 4S. False: Siri won't run on the iPhone 4
Siri runs just fine on jailbroken a iPhone 4, and it ran just fine on an iPhone 4 Before apple removed it. Kudos to the authors for enhancing Siri to use new features of the A5 chip. Good job to the researcher who figured this out. But shame on anyone who uses this as FUD to make Apple look like they didn't cripple their own product to force people to upgrade.
This sounds like the author has never heard of the word smarmy before. Define: smarmy
Adjective: Ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive; unctuous. Synonyms: sycophantic - adulatory - oily - obsequious - fawning
Verb: Behave in an ingratiating way in order to gain favor: "I smarmed my way into the air force". Noun: Ingratiating behavior: "it takes smarm and confidence".
Mitt Romney looks like someone who forced himself to smile so long that it is stuck on his face like a sticker. The guy probably sleeps with that grin. It looks weird and painful. It screams "used car salesman" which is the essence of smarmy. I suspect that everyone realizes this, but many don't seem to understand that this is a common shared concept and there is a word for it.
Welcome to Slashdot: where just because something is technologically possible, it is always being implemented constantly everywhere.
Although it may be *possible* to do this, not all soldiers, terrorists, drones, and bystanders have a system constantly watching for IR LEDs in a 720 radius at a distance of 5 miles. Now personally speaking, *I* do, but not everyone can afford such luxuries.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
cropping the top and bottom a tad, and stretching a tad to end up with 16:9.
I sure hope you are kidding. This is the kind of BS that studios do because someone complains that it doesn't fill their entire TV. As though all recorded video must be modified to fit whatever particular TV the person bought. It was recorded for 4:3! I don't need to see Picard's head cropped-off and his butt widened just because someone doesn't understand the concept of an aspect ratio. I would love to see someone do that to their family photos. "Dad, why is Mom's head cut out of the picture? And why is everyone fat?"
I remember DVD and Blu-ray. I wonder when this will be available on Netflix? That's where I watch ST:TNG now. Hopefully they will start streaming the HD versions instead.
I love how HotHardware went out of their way to use Javascript to prevent you from opening them in pop-up windows. You have to click the image, then copy the URL, then open a tab, then paste the URL. Did they not think that comparing screen shots might be something the reader wants to do??? It would also be a bit easier without 3 flash ads on every single picture. Thank God for flashblock. That is not a site I will be visiting often.
Not to be pedantic but that definition of "eye of a needle" is completely unproven.
Thanks. I was about to take it as fact. I should know better.
It is obviously impossible for a camel to go through the actual eye of a needle which fits that biblical quote exactly.
How do you know it fits the quote exactly?
It sounds like you took the literal meaning, it seemed to make sense, and assumed that was correct. Instead, you should instead be asking yourself "Why is the literal interpretation sufficient here?" And the proof would be in looking into the meanings of the words "camel" and "eye of a needle."
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing
For many people, this would be proof that we should respect all people regardless of their appearance and sexual orientation. It would perfectly align with their pre-conceived ideas of the world. And they would ask the same question you did.
What I don't understand is why some OTHER definition is required.
There is nothing "OTHER" about it. Your interpretation is on equal footing to the "OTHER" interpretation. This is in part because someone translated it for you. So even your literal reading isn't literally what he really said. Perhaps he never said the words camel or eye or needle, and someone translating it 500 years ago thought that this was a more helpful interpretation. This is what is so maddening about reading the bible without knowing the source of the translation.
I also think the literal meaning here is good enough, but it has always struck me as an odd analogy. I was excited to hear someone actually make sense of it. Oh well, maybe I'll just have to ask the original author one day... :-)
This statement:
Does not take time.
Conflicts with this statement:
Thin sliced meat (beef or pork), onion, green pepper, soy sauce, ginger, garlic, mushrooms, sweet mirin, and a bit of sake, serve over white rice with a fried egg on top and you're all set.
It takes time to gather these ingredients, slice them, chop them, etc. It sounds to me like you enjoy the process, and are proud of the result: so perhaps the time does not seem that long to you. But what you just listed take significantly longer than microwaving a premade lasagna.
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.
I see that you are trying to write network neutrality in here, but it won't work with these rules. I suspect you are trying to make sure that an ISP doesn't charge the user some kind of special premium for a packet that goes to a particular web site or competing ISP. That is a good rule. But it isn't that they can't charge for data: they simply must charge equally for all data. So I propose a revision:
Rule 2: All packets are charged equally, regardless of source, destination, or content.
Otherwise, your rule 2 violates routing rules (some packets must be discarded). Internet backbones wouldn't work with rule 2A since their entire business model is charging per packet. Peering agreements would also be in a gray area of rule 2A since the count the transference of data but don't explicitly charge for it. Those are good things we would not want to interfere with.
Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.
The greater of two evils is still evil. By not voting for the 3rd party you continue to grant the two main parties the power that keeps them as the two main parties. Many of those "good" candidates you see on the primary really want to run under other parties but they can't because nobody would pay attention to them. So even voting for Ron Paul in the primary gives the Republican party undeserved power. Much of this is psychology that must be broken.
Less than half the eligible US population votes. If those lazy bums would just go out to the polls, close their eyes, and pick a candidate at random, we would no longer have a two party system. Those ignored, independent, irrelevant, 3rd-party candidates would be given federal funding! The media would be forced to pay attention to them, and so would the other candidates. Getting enough people to vote for those 3rd parties breaks the hold. Get enough of them in there, and we could have a constitutional amendment to change the first past the post system.
But if you continue to "vote for the lesser of two evils" then you continue to give the power to those evils. The original poster wanted to get habeas corpus back. Voting Republican or Democratic in the general election will help him achieve this or send that message.
Consider this: If you had two organized crime syndicates offering protection services, would paying one of them -vs- the other one somehow break the hold? No, you have to refuse. Their only power comes from the individuals who continue to support them.
If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.
By the time they get to my state, they have mostly dropped out. :-(
If this story is true, you are truly a hero. To have endured this and used the system each time to prove they are wrong, without flying off the handle or doing something that really did get you in trouble - that is an amazing amount of discipline. You are tenacious. And good job on finding 2 bad guys and getting them off the street - maybe they will learn a lesson?
Actually, the entire reason we have captcha is because the techniques you just listed don't work any more. Bots learned to run Javascript and ignore hidden fields years ago. Even if the bots could not do those things, it still wouldn't matter because whoever codes the routine to submit the form will pick up on those things. The best you can do is make it inconvenient enough that they will pick another target instead. But if you are Yahoo or Google or Wordpress, that won't deter them.
Where the goal was to have only 10% of projects rated high, within a year nearly 50% of projects are rated as such.
You need to have definitions for terms like priority, high, and goal. If "high priority" is defined as "The most important 3 projects" then you will only have 3 projects that are high priority. If it is defined by a democratic vote of what people think sounds important, everything will be priority.
Priority is really a consequence of other factors such as deadline, cost, or opportunity. So you could define "high priority" as anything where a schedule slip of more than 10% jeopardizes the viability of the project.
Wrong. Regulations exist to try and minimize harm, not indemnify the regulated.
Following regulations is never a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Legal precedent says otherwise. There are many many cases where following the regulations indemnifies you. For example, a pontoon boat overturned in Baltimore harbor a few years ago, while ferrying a few dozen passengers. A nearby coast guard boat responded immediately but several people died. They sued the captain, who sued the taxi company, who sued the coast guard. Final result: since the boat was carrying the proper number of passengers and was current in its coast guard inspection, the coast guard was not liable. And the stack unwinds: the taxi company was this not liable, and the captain was thus not liable, and the defendents were innocent.
This same thing happens to pharma companies all the time. If the drug was unsafe, but it was shown to be safe in the FDA trials, the only way the company will be liable for damages is if you can prove that either the FDA knew it was unsafe, or the phramaceutical company lied or withheld information in their FDA filing.
This also happens with EPA regulations and there was a recent case that was on Slashdot about it. The company did damage the waterway, but it was okay because it was within EPA regs. Oh yeah! And another case like this involving a recycling plant that had some enormously bad outputs - the problem was that the plant was too big. But the ratio of nasty outputs to inputs was within the specs, so the soot-covered town lost their case. I heard this one on NPR but I forget what kind of recycling it was. Not like paper/plastic - something industrial like they produced concrete from other companies waste.
A warp core really isn't a power source. It is more like an alternator. The power source is the matter-antimatter reactions. Similarly people confuse dilithium crystals with being a power source when they are really just a matter-antimatter regulator.
And now, back to reality...
I think that really is a thermodynamics fail.
Anything you do to pre-cool the water would be better done after the water has been heated by the plant. Ex: If you can air cool the water, then do it afterward. The temperature gradient is higher so it will be more efficient. Also, the idea of the American South implies you are thinking of evaporative cooling, which uses water to cool something else. You don't cool the water itself that way.
I'm not so sure. I'd like to see some scientific data to back that up. In the mean time, I will remain skeptical by default.
(Only half joking here)
But when you peel back the data, things like high test scores mean next to nothing about school quality – isn’t it likely that socioeconomics and not the school itself created these high test scores?
That's about as in-depth as this article gets. The author has no statistics to back-up his guess. He doesn't actually provide any data at all in the article. This is part of a chain of bloggers reiterating the often accepted yet statistically unproven assertion that test scores are useless. The reality is that they are the best measure we have of the quality of education. So before evaluating a school based on one person's opinion of how to do it, make sure you look at the currently accepted best science.
Based on the headline, I expected an article comparing student outcomes against various statistics, and evidence pointing out which statistics are best at picking the quality schools. But this article is merely someone throwing out guesses with no evidence to back it up. This is not worthy of posting on Slashdot.
This isn't a problem unless the law allows government and private companies more power than individuals. Someone must watch the watchers. Is anyone here familiar with the bill?
Do not forget that the powder is replaced with capacitors which are similarly volatile.
It could be that OSCP server was up but the virus that was redirecting your DNS decided to block the request so that you would disable the setting.
Granted. Inappropriate use of the term.
because Chrome and most other browsers establish the connection even when the services aren't able to ensure a certificate hasn't been tampered with.
This is just a case of unsafe defaults. To fix this in Firefox go to Tolls - Options - Advanced - Encryption - Validation and check the box that says "When an OCSP server connection fails, treat the certificate as invalid."
This is probably what the default should be anyway. I cannot imagine a fingerprint scanner that just assumed everyone was authorized if the database went down. If it can't validate, then it isn't valid!
I understand with that philosophy, and I would agree if it had not already been available on the iPhone 4 for over a year then pulled it from the market after Apple bought the company.
Possibly true: Siri uses a unique feature of the iPhone 4S.
False: Siri won't run on the iPhone 4
Siri runs just fine on jailbroken a iPhone 4, and it ran just fine on an iPhone 4 Before apple removed it. Kudos to the authors for enhancing Siri to use new features of the A5 chip. Good job to the researcher who figured this out. But shame on anyone who uses this as FUD to make Apple look like they didn't cripple their own product to force people to upgrade.
This sounds like the author has never heard of the word smarmy before.
Define: smarmy
Adjective: Ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive; unctuous.
Synonyms: sycophantic - adulatory - oily - obsequious - fawning
Define: smarm
Verb: Behave in an ingratiating way in order to gain favor: "I smarmed my way into the air force".
Noun: Ingratiating behavior: "it takes smarm and confidence".
Mitt Romney looks like someone who forced himself to smile so long that it is stuck on his face like a sticker. The guy probably sleeps with that grin. It looks weird and painful. It screams "used car salesman" which is the essence of smarmy. I suspect that everyone realizes this, but many don't seem to understand that this is a common shared concept and there is a word for it.
Welcome to Slashdot: where just because something is technologically possible, it is always being implemented constantly everywhere.
Although it may be *possible* to do this, not all soldiers, terrorists, drones, and bystanders have a system constantly watching for IR LEDs in a 720 radius at a distance of 5 miles. Now personally speaking, *I* do, but not everyone can afford such luxuries. :-)