. . . to something more in line with expectations. For the ESR patches, number them 10.0.1, 10.0.2, etc, while the mainline goes 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc. until the new ESR (currently planned to be 17) gets version 11.
IBM has a big enough arsenal and enough cross-licensing agreements that they can afford to sell part of the arsenal for money. Google isn't interested in a license, because a license wouldn't let Google use the patents as part of Google's patent defense arsenal.
Parts of Texas, sure. But Texas is the size of (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island) combined, and Austin is pretty well inland.
Which still has nothing to do with the federal government. He's a state judge, and the only Federal requirement of his job is that he take an oath to the US Constitution.
Even there the math doesn't work. There's only so much reducing electricity prices could do to promote the alternatives. But even if we went hog-wild and projected cheap geothermal would result replacing of one in four US passenger vehicle miles with trips on electricity-fueled transport, it would reduce US oil consumption by . . . 10%.
Not an insubstantial cut, but not the sort of thing that would count as getting the US off oil.
If the workers were a contractor company instead of a union, the employer would not be legally obligated by Federal law to negotiate with the contractor company after a contract expired; they could freely negotiate with rival contractor companies, choose to refuse to negotiate with the current contractor company just because they were unpleasant, and even close the plant in one state and open one in another so that it could deal with different contractor companies.
All of those actions are, when done by an employer with relation to a union instead of a contractor company, grounds for an "unfair labor practices" complaint before the NLRB, and possible legal sanctions.
Australia's an industrialized English-speaking federation of states with a dedicated capital territory that fought at our side in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, and Iraq II. And we've got a defense agreement and a free trade agreement with them.
Why would we bother to invade? They're already US!
And in 1985, I guess you would have said: "Pepsi now outsells Coke? Just goes to show New Coke is not losing drinkers because it tastes more like Pepsi than old Coke."
Not impossible, as I understand it. There have been physicists proposing a tachyonic neutrino in the past, though it's never become a mainstream theory.
Our current minimum mass for the neutrino is based on oscillation, and as I understand it the number itself is a result of the ratio between squares of the masses of neutrinos and the assumption that the mass is non-imaginary. If the ratio is between negative masses, then we instead wind up with a minimum mass of at least one type of neutrino of 0.04i eV instead of 0.04 eV.
(Somebody who actually knows the physics will now come along and mention exactly what actually rules out everything I just said.)
And there's an old-fashioned security & stability patch to.23 coming up in a few days.
If 3.6 stops getting patches before the dev team figures out there should be an official LTS branch (preferably with a one-place "Use the goddamn traditional interface, assholes, there's a reason I didn't switch to Chrome" preference), well, then I'll have to consider alternatives.
it's part of a trend I've been seeing more and more over the last, say, 20 years. People are more and more rejecting technology and technological progress altogether.
Highlighted the inaccurate bits in your statement.
Ever since technological and related social change has been visible in a lifetime, there's been a significant section of the populace rejecting it. Complaints in the last 20 years are very similar to complaints in the 1960s, which were very similar to complaints in the 1920s, which were very similar to ones made in the 1880s, which were very similar to ones made in the 1840s.
If I want to cross-reference three documents at once, it's a heck of a lot easier to do it on three screens than by switching windows on one screen. If I could afford a dozen Kindles . . .
Back in the 19th Century, we had two known planets with orbital oddities, Mercury and Uranus. Based on these oddities and Newtonian mechanics, the scientist Le Verrier predicted the existence of two other planets. When people looked, they found the one that explained Uranusâ"the planet Neptune, right where Le Verrier said it would be. So they went and they looked intently for the planet that would explain Mercury, the hypothetical planet Vulcan.
It wasn't until after 56 years of searching that Einstein finally provided a modified gravity theory that explained Mercury's orbit without the existence of Vulcan.
Unless and until the MOND family of theories produces an Einstein-level revolution in gravity theory, people will keep looking for the dark matter to make General Relativity work.
It's not actually helping to go around writing checks to people to individually compensate them for damages done by a drunk. What you're actually doing is enabling the drunk to continue his bad behavior.
So we will end up with objects that are in hyrdostatic equilibrium that are smaller in diameter / size than other objects that are not.
The former are massive enough to be planets, the latter are not.
I think you at a minimum need to add "and orbit around an object which is massive enough for fusion to occur"
Nope. The path of the orbit of Luna around the Sun is a fully convex shape. So clearly Luna is still a planet under that rule . . . unless you start adding a whole bunch of additional qualifications regarding dominating the orbit or barycenters. And you have the problem of bodies in interstellar space too small to fuse (sub-brown dwarfs, rogue planets) but which don't orbit any stars, except in the sense they orbit the galactic center of mass.
The only rule that avoids dozens of special clauses is to stick with mass. Luna, Ceres, Io, Pluto, Charon? Planets one and all.
The problem with the barycenter rule is that the Jupiter-Sun barycenter is outside the Sun. Do you delist it as a planet because it doesn't orbit the Sun, but a point outside the Sun?
What we really need to do is get rid of the idea that planets are going to be a short, enumerable list that elementary school students can memorize, and instead use it to mean any object, wherever it is, that's too small for its gravity to make it fuse but big enough to wind up in a round shape under its own gravity.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . to something more in line with expectations. For the ESR patches, number them 10.0.1, 10.0.2, etc, while the mainline goes 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc. until the new ESR (currently planned to be 17) gets version 11.
IBM has a big enough arsenal and enough cross-licensing agreements that they can afford to sell part of the arsenal for money. Google isn't interested in a license, because a license wouldn't let Google use the patents as part of Google's patent defense arsenal.
Parts of Texas, sure. But Texas is the size of (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island) combined, and Austin is pretty well inland.
The idea that Firefox's development has been driven by consumer demand at any point in the last year is utterly ridiculous.
The fairly fast degredation in capacity is a lot more relevant for something that gets replaced more slowly than portable electronics.
Really, what we should do is evacuate all of Israel's Jews to Iraan.
Nothing wrong with it. It's just not the standard text editor. Check the man page in, for example, OpenSolaris:
ed(1) User Commands ed(1)
NAME
ed, red - text editor
SYNOPSIS
/usr/bin/ed [-s | -] [-p string] [-x] [-C] [file]
DESCRIPTION
The ed utility is the standard text editor.
Only in areas where the Federal Government has authority to legislate. Gonna argue that this was an instance of interstate commerce?
Which still has nothing to do with the federal government. He's a state judge, and the only Federal requirement of his job is that he take an oath to the US Constitution.
Because ed is the standard text editor.
Even there the math doesn't work. There's only so much reducing electricity prices could do to promote the alternatives. But even if we went hog-wild and projected cheap geothermal would result replacing of one in four US passenger vehicle miles with trips on electricity-fueled transport, it would reduce US oil consumption by . . . 10%.
Not an insubstantial cut, but not the sort of thing that would count as getting the US off oil.
If the workers were a contractor company instead of a union, the employer would not be legally obligated by Federal law to negotiate with the contractor company after a contract expired; they could freely negotiate with rival contractor companies, choose to refuse to negotiate with the current contractor company just because they were unpleasant, and even close the plant in one state and open one in another so that it could deal with different contractor companies.
All of those actions are, when done by an employer with relation to a union instead of a contractor company, grounds for an "unfair labor practices" complaint before the NLRB, and possible legal sanctions.
Australia's an industrialized English-speaking federation of states with a dedicated capital territory that fought at our side in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, and Iraq II. And we've got a defense agreement and a free trade agreement with them.
Why would we bother to invade? They're already US!
They'll look hard, sure. And then what?
And in 1985, I guess you would have said: "Pepsi now outsells Coke? Just goes to show New Coke is not losing drinkers because it tastes more like Pepsi than old Coke."
Not impossible, as I understand it. There have been physicists proposing a tachyonic neutrino in the past, though it's never become a mainstream theory.
Our current minimum mass for the neutrino is based on oscillation, and as I understand it the number itself is a result of the ratio between squares of the masses of neutrinos and the assumption that the mass is non-imaginary. If the ratio is between negative masses, then we instead wind up with a minimum mass of at least one type of neutrino of 0.04i eV instead of 0.04 eV.
(Somebody who actually knows the physics will now come along and mention exactly what actually rules out everything I just said.)
And there's an old-fashioned security & stability patch to .23 coming up in a few days.
If 3.6 stops getting patches before the dev team figures out there should be an official LTS branch (preferably with a one-place "Use the goddamn traditional interface, assholes, there's a reason I didn't switch to Chrome" preference), well, then I'll have to consider alternatives.
it's part of a trend I've been seeing more and more over the last, say, 20 years. People are more and more rejecting technology and technological progress altogether.
Highlighted the inaccurate bits in your statement.
Ever since technological and related social change has been visible in a lifetime, there's been a significant section of the populace rejecting it. Complaints in the last 20 years are very similar to complaints in the 1960s, which were very similar to complaints in the 1920s, which were very similar to ones made in the 1880s, which were very similar to ones made in the 1840s.
If I want to cross-reference three documents at once, it's a heck of a lot easier to do it on three screens than by switching windows on one screen. If I could afford a dozen Kindles . . .
Remember, Asa Dotzler is a marketroid; he came to prominence in Mozilla through the Firefox marketing project.
Back in the 19th Century, we had two known planets with orbital oddities, Mercury and Uranus. Based on these oddities and Newtonian mechanics, the scientist Le Verrier predicted the existence of two other planets. When people looked, they found the one that explained Uranusâ"the planet Neptune, right where Le Verrier said it would be. So they went and they looked intently for the planet that would explain Mercury, the hypothetical planet Vulcan.
It wasn't until after 56 years of searching that Einstein finally provided a modified gravity theory that explained Mercury's orbit without the existence of Vulcan.
Unless and until the MOND family of theories produces an Einstein-level revolution in gravity theory, people will keep looking for the dark matter to make General Relativity work.
It's not actually helping to go around writing checks to people to individually compensate them for damages done by a drunk. What you're actually doing is enabling the drunk to continue his bad behavior.
So we will end up with objects that are in hyrdostatic equilibrium that are smaller in diameter / size than other objects that are not.
The former are massive enough to be planets, the latter are not.
I think you at a minimum need to add "and orbit around an object which is massive enough for fusion to occur"
Nope. The path of the orbit of Luna around the Sun is a fully convex shape. So clearly Luna is still a planet under that rule . . . unless you start adding a whole bunch of additional qualifications regarding dominating the orbit or barycenters. And you have the problem of bodies in interstellar space too small to fuse (sub-brown dwarfs, rogue planets) but which don't orbit any stars, except in the sense they orbit the galactic center of mass.
The only rule that avoids dozens of special clauses is to stick with mass. Luna, Ceres, Io, Pluto, Charon? Planets one and all.
Actually, it's part of the current IAU definition that a planet must no merely orbit a star, it must orbit the Sun itself.
The problem with the barycenter rule is that the Jupiter-Sun barycenter is outside the Sun. Do you delist it as a planet because it doesn't orbit the Sun, but a point outside the Sun?
What we really need to do is get rid of the idea that planets are going to be a short, enumerable list that elementary school students can memorize, and instead use it to mean any object, wherever it is, that's too small for its gravity to make it fuse but big enough to wind up in a round shape under its own gravity.