Flight plans don't typically list the altitude for every point in the flight. ATC might have some questions though seeing the altitude on the radar if he's not flying VFR.
but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".
Yes. He's saying that they listen to the community at Firefox and they're not the sort who will push things through if the community disagrees with it. If the community had not disagreed with it, then they would have gone ahead.
How hard did you look? I just typed "breadboard" into google and found several under $10 on the first page. Also found some great surfaces for cutting bread at a similar affordable price.
Beats are a fashion accessory, not a critical listening device.
That's what confuses me about this - Apple is sure to like fashion accessories, but people buy it for the brand, so how likely would they change if they became iHeadphones. I don't know if Apple makes headphones already, so this might be just them trying to get that market.
By the way, studio headphones are great when you need to hear the details of audio like when you're mixing sound, but they don't necessarily give the best listening experience. Sometimes headphones or a good sound system can improve a song.
California generates less than 2% of it's power from coal as it is. Natural gas has taken over most a bit over half with nuclear, hydro, and renewables split evenly over the rest. Old tech is pretty much on it's way out. There are ways to balance the load such as pumped storage.
That's kind of irrelevant though, since guns and cars aren't comparable and cars aren't guns.
We're allowed to focus on more than one thing at once to prevent deaths. Are you also going to shut down the agency stopping baby toys with lead paint from being sold because cancer kills a lot more people?
Sure people get hurt with cars, but cars serve a useful purpose that isn't killing. The purpose of guns (the reason 99.9% of them were designed) is killing.
Those things should still be possible. I know in Opera, the domain is shown in black, the page in gray, and the query string is hidden, but when you click on the address bad, it gives you the whole URL.
Most "bad" websites that break things you often can't use the address bar anyways since it's either not pointed to the right page, they have a weird file structure, or the page has changed it.
Yes it is. Most information in the rest of the URL is fairly useless. Take the url of this story: http://tech. slashdot.org/story/14/05/03/007209/could-googles-test-of-hiding-complete-urls-in-chrome-become-a-standard
We've got the protocol, which no one cares about (encryption status needs more information than just https), "tech" which means we're in the technology section (though no functional difference really), the site we're on "slashdot.org", "story" which is useless, a date which is useless (on the page), a story id, which no one cares about, and finally the title of the article, which is also useless (on the page and the window name).
All that information can be found on the web page we're looking at (except the story id). All that really matters is that this is slashdot.org, and even that isn't all that important.
With the rise of ajax, the address bar is becoming less and less needed. Half the time it has a bunch of session id info mixed in or other random ids. It's not something that the user is suppose to be looking at in most cases, the only real use is to when copying it to be able to get back to the same place.
There are a few issues that make this different though. The web is mostly funded by ads, tracked or non-tracked, they're still needed. With tracked ads, sites can get away with fewer of them (fewer ads = better user experience = users stay around more). It's not something that most people want (given the option to add ads, they wouldn't choose it), but on the other hand they prefer ads to having to pay directly.
For the tech-savvy and even past that these days, there are options like ad-block available. Some types of ads were deemed too-obnoxious (like pop-ups) so all the browsers block those. People choosing to not support the websites they visit by blocking ads is their choice. There are usually too few of them to significantly cut down revenues. If everyone did it, either a new revenue source would be needed (such a s subscription services), ads would have to be added in sneakier ways, or websites would shut down. No one really wants to go with those options.
The do-no-track option is similar. If few people pick it, then it's going to work fine and people will support it, but making it the default for all people for all websites means you're basically just saying tracking isn't allowed at all. People might not "opt-in" to being tracked for advertising purposes, but it's not illegal, and people certainly seem to opt for free websites with fewer ads.
Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.
Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.
Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store
I've watched the occasional episode and it seems more targeted at "fake nerds" - the type who like "I fucking love science" on facebook. The viewer isn't made to relate with the geeky characters, they're made to laugh at.
Being said, the science usually has merit, even if it's something that geeks would never say either because it is just too obvious/cliche or doesn't make sense to say.
Go get that key from the field. Security by obscurity doesn't work
You're suggesting that a potential home thief would scour the surrounding quarter mile and prod the ground looking for a box? You must have very dedicated thieves in your area! Seems it would be easier to break a window.
Regardless, security through obscurity DOES work. It's not perfect, but it's going to stop 99.9% of the attackers (or more in this case), which is a lot better than 0%.
The entire cost of litigation is peanuts compared to the overall costs of healthcare. That's partially why it didn't make it into the ACA (why go to all that effort to save a couple billion dollars a year?).
My money is more on the insurance companies using it as an excuse to jack up their rates. If Obamacare was repealed tomorrow, I really doubt the rates would go down.
Shooting sprees, while horrible and much too regular, aren't the major cause of gun deaths in the US. It's the people carrying handguns and using them for gang violence or playing cow boy.
Right, but they don't have every citizen carrying that around all the time. It's the same way that the responsible gun owners that have a rifle and occasionally take it out to a shooting range or hunting aren't the ones responsible for the majority of gun deaths in the US
That's slightly insane though. "Everywhere [being] defended quickly" means lots of collateral damage because of untrained people carrying guns. Plus who wants kids or drunk people using guns to solve their problems?
But Switzerland doesn't have all the citizens carrying concealed hand guns - they have very high gun regulations, which is a major difference than what gun activists want for the US.
Reminds me of an email I got from a recruiter today:
These units run as start-ups that share the same code base and computing environment, combining the excitement of a small firm with the stability of a larger one.
Because the beauty of startups is having a massive legacy code base that requires talking to several teams in order to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Flight plans don't typically list the altitude for every point in the flight. ATC might have some questions though seeing the altitude on the radar if he's not flying VFR.
but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".
Yes. He's saying that they listen to the community at Firefox and they're not the sort who will push things through if the community disagrees with it. If the community had not disagreed with it, then they would have gone ahead.
How hard did you look? I just typed "breadboard" into google and found several under $10 on the first page. Also found some great surfaces for cutting bread at a similar affordable price.
Beats are a fashion accessory, not a critical listening device.
That's what confuses me about this - Apple is sure to like fashion accessories, but people buy it for the brand, so how likely would they change if they became iHeadphones. I don't know if Apple makes headphones already, so this might be just them trying to get that market.
By the way, studio headphones are great when you need to hear the details of audio like when you're mixing sound, but they don't necessarily give the best listening experience. Sometimes headphones or a good sound system can improve a song.
To me that sounded like when courts give people 3 life sentences + 100 years. I don't see snapchat lasting that long.
7% of consumption it looks like, but that includes generation from out of state.
California generates less than 2% of it's power from coal as it is. Natural gas has taken over most a bit over half with nuclear, hydro, and renewables split evenly over the rest. Old tech is pretty much on it's way out. There are ways to balance the load such as pumped storage.
That's kind of irrelevant though, since guns and cars aren't comparable and cars aren't guns.
We're allowed to focus on more than one thing at once to prevent deaths. Are you also going to shut down the agency stopping baby toys with lead paint from being sold because cancer kills a lot more people?
Sure people get hurt with cars, but cars serve a useful purpose that isn't killing. The purpose of guns (the reason 99.9% of them were designed) is killing.
Those things should still be possible. I know in Opera, the domain is shown in black, the page in gray, and the query string is hidden, but when you click on the address bad, it gives you the whole URL.
Most "bad" websites that break things you often can't use the address bar anyways since it's either not pointed to the right page, they have a weird file structure, or the page has changed it.
Yes it is. Most information in the rest of the URL is fairly useless. Take the url of this story: /tech. slashdot.org /story /14/05/03 /007209 /could-googles-test-of-hiding-complete-urls-in-chrome-become-a-standard
http:/
We've got the protocol, which no one cares about (encryption status needs more information than just https), "tech" which means we're in the technology section (though no functional difference really), the site we're on "slashdot.org", "story" which is useless, a date which is useless (on the page), a story id, which no one cares about, and finally the title of the article, which is also useless (on the page and the window name).
All that information can be found on the web page we're looking at (except the story id). All that really matters is that this is slashdot.org, and even that isn't all that important.
With the rise of ajax, the address bar is becoming less and less needed. Half the time it has a bunch of session id info mixed in or other random ids. It's not something that the user is suppose to be looking at in most cases, the only real use is to when copying it to be able to get back to the same place.
There are a few issues that make this different though. The web is mostly funded by ads, tracked or non-tracked, they're still needed. With tracked ads, sites can get away with fewer of them (fewer ads = better user experience = users stay around more). It's not something that most people want (given the option to add ads, they wouldn't choose it), but on the other hand they prefer ads to having to pay directly.
For the tech-savvy and even past that these days, there are options like ad-block available. Some types of ads were deemed too-obnoxious (like pop-ups) so all the browsers block those. People choosing to not support the websites they visit by blocking ads is their choice. There are usually too few of them to significantly cut down revenues. If everyone did it, either a new revenue source would be needed (such a s subscription services), ads would have to be added in sneakier ways, or websites would shut down. No one really wants to go with those options.
The do-no-track option is similar. If few people pick it, then it's going to work fine and people will support it, but making it the default for all people for all websites means you're basically just saying tracking isn't allowed at all. People might not "opt-in" to being tracked for advertising purposes, but it's not illegal, and people certainly seem to opt for free websites with fewer ads.
Wrong, and here's why:..
Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.
Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.
Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store
There's a big difference between laughing at something because "haha I can relate to that" and "haha look at that nerd act dumb around people"
I've watched the occasional episode and it seems more targeted at "fake nerds" - the type who like "I fucking love science" on facebook. The viewer isn't made to relate with the geeky characters, they're made to laugh at.
Being said, the science usually has merit, even if it's something that geeks would never say either because it is just too obvious/cliche or doesn't make sense to say.
Go get that key from the field. Security by obscurity doesn't work
You're suggesting that a potential home thief would scour the surrounding quarter mile and prod the ground looking for a box? You must have very dedicated thieves in your area! Seems it would be easier to break a window.
Regardless, security through obscurity DOES work. It's not perfect, but it's going to stop 99.9% of the attackers (or more in this case), which is a lot better than 0%.
Well for one, building a minesweeping robot is a lot more interesting than building one that tells you to stop eating that hamburger.
People have more kids when they have more food around? What is this, the bronze age?
Isn't that the case for all zero-day exploits? If it were already patched then it wouldn't really fit the criteria.
The entire cost of litigation is peanuts compared to the overall costs of healthcare. That's partially why it didn't make it into the ACA (why go to all that effort to save a couple billion dollars a year?).
My money is more on the insurance companies using it as an excuse to jack up their rates. If Obamacare was repealed tomorrow, I really doubt the rates would go down.
bought them in ~94, and only the one that caught a full cup of coffee has died.
I accidentally dumped a full cup of tea in my 1988 model - the 7 key stopped working, so I had to upgrade
Shooting sprees, while horrible and much too regular, aren't the major cause of gun deaths in the US. It's the people carrying handguns and using them for gang violence or playing cow boy.
Right, but they don't have every citizen carrying that around all the time. It's the same way that the responsible gun owners that have a rifle and occasionally take it out to a shooting range or hunting aren't the ones responsible for the majority of gun deaths in the US
That's slightly insane though. "Everywhere [being] defended quickly" means lots of collateral damage because of untrained people carrying guns. Plus who wants kids or drunk people using guns to solve their problems?
But Switzerland doesn't have all the citizens carrying concealed hand guns - they have very high gun regulations, which is a major difference than what gun activists want for the US.
These units run as start-ups that share the same code base and computing environment, combining the excitement of a small firm with the stability of a larger one.
Because the beauty of startups is having a massive legacy code base that requires talking to several teams in order to change.