Honestly no one probably ever conceived of someone writing a program that didn't use libc, because who would really not need parts of it? If you're not writing something to the screen or a file your program is not really doing anything, and both of those operations require libc. A program with no output is one that is saying "Hello World" to itself silently and then exiting at some point. Everything that it did during its execution might as well have been skipped, because it has nothing to show for it.
I'm also curious if someone wrecks into them and is determined to be at fault, aren't they (or their insurance) going to have to pay for the motorcyclist's higher hospital costs?
but wasn't part of the reason that they were better was that they had support from the people that wrote the OS, and early access to what to expect from the OS? undocumented API calls, preloaded libraries to enable faster launching, and such?
unfortunately the second category contains too many platforms that become tedious when you want "the code that you didn't have to write" to work differently, since they don't bother to give you very good tools to reimplement those features differently since "no one will need those"
since when does "I'm giving you the chance to find salvation by not doing the things I don't want you to do" not authoritarian?
If you go on the basis that God literally created everything from himself, isn't it authoritarian by nature?
Even if God created everything and a nanosecond later said "Laters, I'm gone, do what you will" the actual act of creation is still authoritarian. When you really get down to it, if you believe in creation, he demanded that the universe 'be'.
Only in the sense that we have physical limitations based on how he made us, but I don't think that would generally be regarded as "not having free will". Because if it were a prerequisite for free will that you couldn't have physical limitations, then you couldn't ever have it. There's a big difference between a world where a God is judging you on your actions, and one where he just creates everything and lets it run its course. It's like the difference between someone buying a fish tank, putting fish in it, and just watching them, and someone buying a fish tank and putting a piranha into the water if the fish don't behave the way that they want them to.
Getting back to your original statement, would it be authoritarian to say "Do not swallow an entire bottle of Tylenol and wash it down with a liter of vodka or you will die." That consequences exist for a given choice does not mean the choice ceases to exist. (Of course, I agree with you on the concept of the consequences being delivered by the same person offering the choice)
No, I don't think that would be authoritarian. Unless the person saying it is the one who's going to be the one doing the killing, then that's just "providing a safety warning."
"I always find it funny that people who risk jail time for a drug claim they haven't got a problem.
Laws against doing something don't make something wrong to do, laws can at most reflect a judgement by society that something is wrong to do. The US, like most countries, wouldn't exist if people only did things that are legal. Slavery wasn't the right thing to do before it was illegal. And drinking alcohol wasn't fine to do, then not fine to do, then fine to do depending on the decade you're in.
Maybe the problem isn't that people's alcohol problem compelled them to drink alcohol with rat poison in it, maybe the problem was that people were *secretly* putting rat poison in alcohol in a deliberate effort to kill enough people that the rest would be forced to toe the line.
Ever since the consequences are brought by the same person who is supposedly giving the free will? This is not one entity giving you freedom to do what you want and some third entity deciding that you shouldn't have been doing that thing you chose to do. It's one entity deciding you have some freedom to roam within the boundaries that he chooses with the consequences of wandering further are chosen by that same entity.
since when does "I'm giving you the chance to find salvation by not doing the things I don't want you to do" not authoritarian?
The argument is about whether there are Android phones that are stuck unable to upgrade to the latest version that other Android phones are using, and nothing that you said refutes that. Apple may not release big or small upgrades as often as Android (and it's been out 2 years longer, so really who is surprised that Android is changing faster?), but it is clearly an advantage for app compatibility that all of the iPhones and iTouches can upgrade immediately to the latest version. There are plenty of disadvantages to not having iPhone choices, but incompatibility and fragmentation isn't one of them
About 45 minutes after this happened, my CC company calls me to check on purchases that were made not five minutes ago at a "discount clothing store in the Bronx" (I live in Boston). Now, I am certain that this is the source of the theft, because prior to that, I had not used the card in several months.
Then it can't possibly be the dude. 45-minutes is nowhere near enough time. You think if the pizza delivery guy is running a scam getting credit card imprints that he's just going to get ONE and then run off and start using it? And at a store? Do you think he just took your receipt and handed it over to the cashier when she told him how much the purchase was?
You're assuming this guy's card wasn't just the last one in a large batch. The "discount clothing store in the Bronx" wasn't just an item bought online from Target.com and picked up at a Target in the Bronx or something similar. It looks like Target.com doesn't let you buy online and then pickup at a store, but some stores do that. And if the clothing store cashier was in on it too, couldn't they just do what you just described?
I've never been in a server top guild, but I've been in a guild that was close. And I've known several people who have left my smaller guilds to join a top guild. In the guilds I've been in it wasn't necessarily the best of the best that left to go to the top guilds and it wasn't the worst who stayed. I've known people who could easily have been in the top guild but chose to stay in the one they were in because they either A. would rather be a guild or raid leader in a small guild than a peon in a big one, B. just had too many friends to want to leave, or C. liked the smaller guild atmosphere. I would imagine that the decision on a PVP server is a lot different, with way more advantages to being in *the top guild* on your server. Back in the MC/BWL days I remember hearing how hard it was to even get your raid force into the zone if another group wanted to keep you out, let alone all the open world raid targets they had back then. That's not really the same now, but I bet there are still a lot of advantages that a top guild gets on a PVP server that they don't get on a PVE one. So it doesn't surprise me that the top guild on a PVP server would have a denser collection of good players than the top guild on a PVE server, and that there would therefore be more of them in the list of top guilds overall.
I remember another interesting twist on your calculus back when EQ was running all-server Test of Tactics PVP events. A lot of hardcore PVP players figured that would be their opportunity to eat the lunch of the PVE guildmembers who got all the "world first kill" headlines. The PVE top players certainly had a gear edge on the PVP guys, but the PVP guys were sure that their day-to-day experience in PVP would let them win handily. From what I remember it didn't turn out that way at all, as some of the PVE regulars were extremely good at PVP because they were smart players in general.
EverQuest had a death system that involved loss of experience and running back naked to try to get your possessions. Before everyone had a monk friend that could drag bodies (heck you couldn't even drag bodies at game launch) and a cleric friend to give you 96% of your experience loss back, deep dungeon diving or going on a raid where you'd most likely die a lot was really painful.
I know for a fact that the system bothered people, because several aspects of that were changed and the other parts that weren't changed were part of the reason that WoW ate EQ's lunch. Most people don't like their characters to regress in games, they want a good night to be solid progression and the worst night to be staying in place. They definitely don't want to spend 4 hours playing one night and be worse off than if they hadn't logged in at all. It tends to make them start evaluating just how fun the things that they do while moving forward are, and it tends to make them weigh that backsliding game experience with every other thing that they could have spent that 4 hours doing. The people that made the game don't want you to spend a lot of time weighing those options either, because even the most fun game in the world will grow tiresome and they'd rather you kept playing anyway even if it is only because of how much you have invested in your characters.
[v]enue for federal obscenity prosecutions lies "in any district from,
through, or into which" the allegedly obscene material moves,
according to 18 U.S.C. 3237. This may result in prosecutions of
persons in a community to which they have sent materials which is
obscene under that community's standards though the community from which it is sent would tolerate the same material.
The question is, should it be a website's burden to know every local law? Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps it is reasonable to expect websites keep track of state laws that pertain to their business. That's still 49 additional states to keep track of, though, plus DC, the Virgin Islands, and other US territories. Not really an easy task, especially for smaller businesses.
It's not even possible to know every local obscenity law, because it's not like there's some statute out there listing everything that's obscene in that area
Several of the articles on this seem to indicate that the Lancet was only able to retract it now because of the recent finding of ethical breaches, and this isn't coming because of the contradictory studies that have been around for a while. They tried to get the author to retract it in the past because of the contradictory studies, but he would not do so (though 10 of the other 12 contributors did retract their support for it in 2004). They needed this judgement to override his refusal to retract it himself (from WSJ)
The Lancet decided to issue a complete retraction after an independent regulator for doctors in the U.K. concluded last week that the study was flawed. The General Medical Council's report on three of the researchers, including Dr. Wakefield, found evidence that some of their actions were conducted for experimental purposes, not clinical care, and without ethics approval. The report also found that Dr. Wakefield drew blood for research purposes from children at his son's birthday party, paying each child £5 (about $8).
Retractions are rare in medical journals and usually occur as a result of fraud or plagiarism, said Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
"It is a major event when there is a retraction like this," she said. "It sounds like there was a misleading design of the study... patients not randomly chosen. There were ethical violations."
William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, described the journal's level of action as "unprecedented."
I think he is referring to the fact that print subscribers can view the website for free. So you can pay the lower print subscription price to allow you to view the website if that's your preferred viewing medium, and just throw the papers into the recycler.
I’m not going to give you the exact password, but with upper and lower case, symbols, numbers, all of the above, it spelled out ‘Chuck Norris,’ more or less. It was pretty fantastic.
Slashdot Mirror
the main advantage of land speed records is that they're not top secret
no way, engineer a treadmill that drives it a hundred miles an hour, and stack treadmill machines on top of each other as high as you want
Honestly no one probably ever conceived of someone writing a program that didn't use libc, because who would really not need parts of it? If you're not writing something to the screen or a file your program is not really doing anything, and both of those operations require libc. A program with no output is one that is saying "Hello World" to itself silently and then exiting at some point. Everything that it did during its execution might as well have been skipped, because it has nothing to show for it.
I'm also curious if someone wrecks into them and is determined to be at fault, aren't they (or their insurance) going to have to pay for the motorcyclist's higher hospital costs?
but wasn't part of the reason that they were better was that they had support from the people that wrote the OS, and early access to what to expect from the OS? undocumented API calls, preloaded libraries to enable faster launching, and such?
unfortunately the second category contains too many platforms that become tedious when you want "the code that you didn't have to write" to work differently, since they don't bother to give you very good tools to reimplement those features differently since "no one will need those"
since when does "I'm giving you the chance to find salvation by not doing the things I don't want you to do" not authoritarian?
If you go on the basis that God literally created everything from himself, isn't it authoritarian by nature? Even if God created everything and a nanosecond later said "Laters, I'm gone, do what you will" the actual act of creation is still authoritarian. When you really get down to it, if you believe in creation, he demanded that the universe 'be'.
Only in the sense that we have physical limitations based on how he made us, but I don't think that would generally be regarded as "not having free will". Because if it were a prerequisite for free will that you couldn't have physical limitations, then you couldn't ever have it. There's a big difference between a world where a God is judging you on your actions, and one where he just creates everything and lets it run its course. It's like the difference between someone buying a fish tank, putting fish in it, and just watching them, and someone buying a fish tank and putting a piranha into the water if the fish don't behave the way that they want them to.
Getting back to your original statement, would it be authoritarian to say "Do not swallow an entire bottle of Tylenol and wash it down with a liter of vodka or you will die." That consequences exist for a given choice does not mean the choice ceases to exist. (Of course, I agree with you on the concept of the consequences being delivered by the same person offering the choice)
No, I don't think that would be authoritarian. Unless the person saying it is the one who's going to be the one doing the killing, then that's just "providing a safety warning."
They significantly streamlined the iphone backup process sometime in the last year, just synching your phone to itunes used to be beastly
It *is* a killer apartment. It's got a killer view, and it just radiates charm
"I always find it funny that people who risk jail time for a drug claim they haven't got a problem.
Laws against doing something don't make something wrong to do, laws can at most reflect a judgement by society that something is wrong to do. The US, like most countries, wouldn't exist if people only did things that are legal. Slavery wasn't the right thing to do before it was illegal. And drinking alcohol wasn't fine to do, then not fine to do, then fine to do depending on the decade you're in.
Maybe the problem isn't that people's alcohol problem compelled them to drink alcohol with rat poison in it, maybe the problem was that people were *secretly* putting rat poison in alcohol in a deliberate effort to kill enough people that the rest would be forced to toe the line.
Ever since the consequences are brought by the same person who is supposedly giving the free will? This is not one entity giving you freedom to do what you want and some third entity deciding that you shouldn't have been doing that thing you chose to do. It's one entity deciding you have some freedom to roam within the boundaries that he chooses with the consequences of wandering further are chosen by that same entity.
since when does "I'm giving you the chance to find salvation by not doing the things I don't want you to do" not authoritarian?
The argument is about whether there are Android phones that are stuck unable to upgrade to the latest version that other Android phones are using, and nothing that you said refutes that. Apple may not release big or small upgrades as often as Android (and it's been out 2 years longer, so really who is surprised that Android is changing faster?), but it is clearly an advantage for app compatibility that all of the iPhones and iTouches can upgrade immediately to the latest version. There are plenty of disadvantages to not having iPhone choices, but incompatibility and fragmentation isn't one of them
it looks like there is a Target store in the Bronx
About 45 minutes after this happened, my CC company calls me to check on purchases that were made not five minutes ago at a "discount clothing store in the Bronx" (I live in Boston). Now, I am certain that this is the source of the theft, because prior to that, I had not used the card in several months.
Then it can't possibly be the dude. 45-minutes is nowhere near enough time. You think if the pizza delivery guy is running a scam getting credit card imprints that he's just going to get ONE and then run off and start using it? And at a store? Do you think he just took your receipt and handed it over to the cashier when she told him how much the purchase was?
You're assuming this guy's card wasn't just the last one in a large batch. The "discount clothing store in the Bronx" wasn't just an item bought online from Target.com and picked up at a Target in the Bronx or something similar. It looks like Target.com doesn't let you buy online and then pickup at a store, but some stores do that. And if the clothing store cashier was in on it too, couldn't they just do what you just described?
I've never been in a server top guild, but I've been in a guild that was close. And I've known several people who have left my smaller guilds to join a top guild. In the guilds I've been in it wasn't necessarily the best of the best that left to go to the top guilds and it wasn't the worst who stayed. I've known people who could easily have been in the top guild but chose to stay in the one they were in because they either A. would rather be a guild or raid leader in a small guild than a peon in a big one, B. just had too many friends to want to leave, or C. liked the smaller guild atmosphere. I would imagine that the decision on a PVP server is a lot different, with way more advantages to being in *the top guild* on your server. Back in the MC/BWL days I remember hearing how hard it was to even get your raid force into the zone if another group wanted to keep you out, let alone all the open world raid targets they had back then. That's not really the same now, but I bet there are still a lot of advantages that a top guild gets on a PVP server that they don't get on a PVE one. So it doesn't surprise me that the top guild on a PVP server would have a denser collection of good players than the top guild on a PVE server, and that there would therefore be more of them in the list of top guilds overall.
I remember another interesting twist on your calculus back when EQ was running all-server Test of Tactics PVP events. A lot of hardcore PVP players figured that would be their opportunity to eat the lunch of the PVE guildmembers who got all the "world first kill" headlines. The PVE top players certainly had a gear edge on the PVP guys, but the PVP guys were sure that their day-to-day experience in PVP would let them win handily. From what I remember it didn't turn out that way at all, as some of the PVE regulars were extremely good at PVP because they were smart players in general.
EverQuest had a death system that involved loss of experience and running back naked to try to get your possessions. Before everyone had a monk friend that could drag bodies (heck you couldn't even drag bodies at game launch) and a cleric friend to give you 96% of your experience loss back, deep dungeon diving or going on a raid where you'd most likely die a lot was really painful.
I know for a fact that the system bothered people, because several aspects of that were changed and the other parts that weren't changed were part of the reason that WoW ate EQ's lunch. Most people don't like their characters to regress in games, they want a good night to be solid progression and the worst night to be staying in place. They definitely don't want to spend 4 hours playing one night and be worse off than if they hadn't logged in at all. It tends to make them start evaluating just how fun the things that they do while moving forward are, and it tends to make them weigh that backsliding game experience with every other thing that they could have spent that 4 hours doing. The people that made the game don't want you to spend a lot of time weighing those options either, because even the most fun game in the world will grow tiresome and they'd rather you kept playing anyway even if it is only because of how much you have invested in your characters.
It's just a need for attention, the same thing that motivates trolls and first posters
Nothing can sense a laser before it has hit.
exactly, nobody expects the laser target acquisition
...and then put it into a blender and post that on Youtube too
The question is, should it be a website's burden to know every local law? Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps it is reasonable to expect websites keep track of state laws that pertain to their business. That's still 49 additional states to keep track of, though, plus DC, the Virgin Islands, and other US territories. Not really an easy task, especially for smaller businesses.
It's not even possible to know every local obscenity law, because it's not like there's some statute out there listing everything that's obscene in that area
the iPod Touch is still the iPod Touch, it's the iPad that should be referred to as the iPod Maxi
More from CNN
I think he is referring to the fact that print subscribers can view the website for free. So you can pay the lower print subscription price to allow you to view the website if that's your preferred viewing medium, and just throw the papers into the recycler.
I’m not going to give you the exact password, but with upper and lower case, symbols, numbers, all of the above, it spelled out ‘Chuck Norris,’ more or less. It was pretty fantastic.