To expand, the U.S. occupies about 3,537,418 square miles of land. Only 19% is arable, or about 672,109 square miles.
The current population of the U.S. is about 295,734,134, so if people really need (on average) about 3 acres of arable land for food, we need about 1,386,254 square miles of arable land. So the U.S. can sustain food for about half (49%) of what it needs right now.
At a current population growth rate of 0.92%, we'll be able to sustain food at home for 46% of our needs at 5 years, 44% at 10 years, 40% at 20 years, and 31% at 50 years.
So can we just keep importing more and more? Other countries have limits on their resources as well.
Population control please, no more than two children per family.
Innermost?! Considering that it's a protocol to speak between computers, I'd consider it more like outermost. This isn't their kernel or something. So, they should document it for interoperability. Either that, or continue being stinkheads.
Further, if someone is directly in the middle of the link for your SIP conversation, use SIP over TLS and don't trust any unauthorized certs. Just like you would do with any other protocol.
On the first one (registration hijacking) we have 401 unauthorized and WWW-Authenticate (similar to HTTP digest authentication). So unless you know the peer's shared secret with the registrar, you're out of luck. As well as CSeq to prevent message replay.
On the second one... really? You can listen to completely unencrypted trivially compressed audio packets if you can sniff them? Duh. So you either rely on nobody being in the middle on a switched network, or you encrypt it.
Google beta tests new features on a subset of its regular users, who are identified by cookies. So someone released their cookie which you set with javascript, and voila: the features show up for you.
The article (and the summary) are merely speculating that when close-to-c travel is possible, the radiation might counter the "anti-aging" effect of Einstein's paradox.
It merely provided an example of the radiation possibly causing an acceleration of aging. This does not mean the astronauts in question were majorly affected by relativity.
I mentioned that an absolute belief that no god exists is equally silly, scientifically. The issue is not whether something could be true (anything *could* be true), it's a matter of not deciding things to be true arbitrarily. The formal position I have right now (based on all the evidence that I know to exist) is "I don't know," and, considering that the positive assertion assumes more than the weak negative, my common sense answer is "not as far as I know."
If anyone currently has a formal belief about god other than "I don't know," either they have some bang-up evidence that I'd like to hear or they are just copping out to faith (believing without reason) -- and in the latter case they're just being arbitrary.
God and Science are separated because one doesn't require hard evidence and the other does.
Science advocates the usage of verifiable data and logical thinking to arrive at conclusions.
A belief in any God (or belief that there is no God, for that matter) has, as of yet, not been justified through these means.
Science advocates the epistemological paradigm of "Spartan Meritocracy," or making as few initial assumptions as possible and discarding or revising those assumptions that are shown subsequently to be wrong, dubious or no longer useful. That is paraphrased from The Rejection of Pascal's Wager a wonderful website which explores some of these issues.
Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.
I would say yes to a formal driver API, but I also think source for the drivers should still be released. The two concepts (formal API, open source) aren't mutually exclusive, but I guess being able to use closed source drivers is, in reality, why these companies are pushing for a formal API.
Perfect. But there is a gap between explaining the mechanism and speculating about the origins of said mechanism. One is science, one is faith. So, they are still mutually exclusive. Do you claim to have a falsifiable (ergo scientific) test for your god? That's the only way I could see it your way.
That's only if your school or CS department pays for a subscription to MSDNAA, it is not free.
What sucks is that you end up paying for it even if you explicitly boycott MS software otherwise. Check out those course fees, they're there for a reason. In fact, my school's CS department is such a shill for MS, there's a senior professor that spends all of his class time telling students how much Linux sucks (he *forces* the use of sourcesafe and vs.net for projects, because "that's what the real professionals use"). Sometimes, he actually spreads deliberate disinformation about open source and related topics. It's atrocious.
He also spearheaded the MSDNAA program here. I switched to Mathematics. 'Nuf said.
Re:You can't just throw CPU at the problem.
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
Just a note: that may be a common error to make in OOP (and could very well be in OO.org), but it is definitely not a necessary one. Abstraction doesn't have to mean duplication of the same effort, and it can actually mean less of it.
That appliance doesn't use their cluster file system. It's one standalone machine that uses their crawling/indexing/searching system, not the 10,000s they have back at home.
Slashdot Mirror
To expand, the U.S. occupies about 3,537,418 square miles of land. Only 19% is arable, or about 672,109 square miles.
The current population of the U.S. is about 295,734,134, so if people really need (on average) about 3 acres of arable land for food, we need about 1,386,254 square miles of arable land. So the U.S. can sustain food for about half (49%) of what it needs right now.
At a current population growth rate of 0.92%, we'll be able to sustain food at home for 46% of our needs at 5 years, 44% at 10 years, 40% at 20 years, and 31% at 50 years.
So can we just keep importing more and more? Other countries have limits on their resources as well.
Population control please, no more than two children per family.
a beefy silcone bit-vomiter
Hey! When did your mother get breast implants?!
Innermost?! Considering that it's a protocol to speak between computers, I'd consider it more like outermost. This isn't their kernel or something. So, they should document it for interoperability. Either that, or continue being stinkheads.
Sorry to reply to myself.
Further, if someone is directly in the middle of the link for your SIP conversation, use SIP over TLS and don't trust any unauthorized certs. Just like you would do with any other protocol.
On the first one (registration hijacking) we have 401 unauthorized and WWW-Authenticate (similar to HTTP digest authentication). So unless you know the peer's shared secret with the registrar, you're out of luck. As well as CSeq to prevent message replay.
... really? You can listen to completely unencrypted trivially compressed audio packets if you can sniff them? Duh. So you either rely on nobody being in the middle on a switched network, or you encrypt it.
On the second one
Is anyone in the biz really unaware of this?
Not everyone gets these features (so it is news to most), and your mom didn't get the new features because of a wide screen.
See my other comment for an explanation.
Google beta tests new features on a subset of its regular users, who are identified by cookies. So someone released their cookie which you set with javascript, and voila: the features show up for you.
Yeah, I could also update the look and feel of codepunk.com in an hour. One css "font-family" and still some time for Doom 3.
I suggest that you consult your local dictionary.
...
"A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true."
For instance, two identical twins who are of different ages might seem strange, but the situation might actually exist because of relativity.
Also, please consult this page so you can stop abusing the apostrophe. Remember, those in glass houses
The article (and the summary) are merely speculating that when close-to-c travel is possible, the radiation might counter the "anti-aging" effect of Einstein's paradox.
It merely provided an example of the radiation possibly causing an acceleration of aging. This does not mean the astronauts in question were majorly affected by relativity.
First Leeloo Dallas mul-ti-pass joke.
I mentioned that an absolute belief that no god exists is equally silly, scientifically. The issue is not whether something could be true (anything *could* be true), it's a matter of not deciding things to be true arbitrarily. The formal position I have right now (based on all the evidence that I know to exist) is "I don't know," and, considering that the positive assertion assumes more than the weak negative, my common sense answer is "not as far as I know."
If anyone currently has a formal belief about god other than "I don't know," either they have some bang-up evidence that I'd like to hear or they are just copping out to faith (believing without reason) -- and in the latter case they're just being arbitrary.
God and Science are separated because one doesn't require hard evidence and the other does.
Science advocates the usage of verifiable data and logical thinking to arrive at conclusions.
A belief in any God (or belief that there is no God, for that matter) has, as of yet, not been justified through these means.
Science advocates the epistemological paradigm of "Spartan Meritocracy," or making as few initial assumptions as possible and discarding or revising those assumptions that are shown subsequently to be wrong, dubious or no longer useful. That is paraphrased from The Rejection of Pascal's Wager a wonderful website which explores some of these issues.
Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.
Solution: get a new girlfriend.
:-p
Or, since this is Slashdot, stop making up such a bitchy girlfriend just to rationalize your point.
Not if they do it by hand.
I would say yes to a formal driver API, but I also think source for the drivers should still be released. The two concepts (formal API, open source) aren't mutually exclusive, but I guess being able to use closed source drivers is, in reality, why these companies are pushing for a formal API.
And what are black holes, the garbage collector?
Because Google is a business.
Tell that to the $100s of millions of profit last fiscal year just for pittly old MSN.
Not that I'm rooting for them, but I think they would still be making money.
Perfect. But there is a gap between explaining the mechanism and speculating about the origins of said mechanism. One is science, one is faith. So, they are still mutually exclusive. Do you claim to have a falsifiable (ergo scientific) test for your god? That's the only way I could see it your way.
That's only if your school or CS department pays for a subscription to MSDNAA, it is not free.
What sucks is that you end up paying for it even if you explicitly boycott MS software otherwise. Check out those course fees, they're there for a reason. In fact, my school's CS department is such a shill for MS, there's a senior professor that spends all of his class time telling students how much Linux sucks (he *forces* the use of sourcesafe and vs.net for projects, because "that's what the real professionals use"). Sometimes, he actually spreads deliberate disinformation about open source and related topics. It's atrocious.
He also spearheaded the MSDNAA program here. I switched to Mathematics. 'Nuf said.
Just a note: that may be a common error to make in OOP (and could very well be in OO.org), but it is definitely not a necessary one. Abstraction doesn't have to mean duplication of the same effort, and it can actually mean less of it.
That appliance doesn't use their cluster file system. It's one standalone machine that uses their crawling/indexing/searching system, not the 10,000s they have back at home.
Unless there's frog DNA involved ... duh!