Well, I'm not sure why I got moderated troll for my previous comment, but in what way are the distros incompatible with each other? What projects can be compiled on one distro but not another? OSS can be repackaged for any distro, if the problem is getting proprietary software to run I don't see that is a problem with the free software.
Can the differing distros be networked easily? Share documents? Use the same protocols? Provide services to each other? Is there a problem with authentication on networks with more than one linux distro?
So it's difficult for to run proprietary programs that won't let you recompile and repackage for your distro of choice. Some distros use older versions of software than others, but nothing has forwards compatibility, you can't count on running a program released for vista on Win 98. Vista has backwards compatibility but 98 doesn't have forwards compatibility. That isn't incompatibility problems, for windows or linux, it's the nature of reality.
I don't see why the prosecutor would be required to tell the whole truth... but suppressing evidence is at the very least worthy of a new trial and quite possibly contempt of court and obstruction of justice.
You don't see why a prosecutor should be required to tell the whole truth? Please present your case for allowing prosecutors to lie by omission. Why should a prosecutor not be held to the same standard as anyone in the witness stand?
How do you tell? really? How do you tell when someone is merely misguided or when someone is actually being criminally complicit?
Trial by jury. You present the evidence and if 12 people find it to be established beyond reasonable doubt, then you can sentence them. You might have heard of the concept before. Perhaps it slipped your mind.
Even so, the only reasonable penalty would be throwing them off the bench.
No, it is appropriate to do to them equivalent to what they where doing to someone else. Fraudulently attempt to have someone fined? Pay the fine. Fraudulently attempt to get someone jailed? Do the time. That's called justice.
... but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.
If the prosecutor suppressed state forensic reports because they were favorable to the accused they are perverting the course of justice, IMO. I think the requirement of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" would be reasonably applied to anything the prosecutor does and says in court.
Did the police lie in court also? I don't think it would even take a new law, perjury, perverting the course of justice, contempt of court, there would have to be something on the books already.
Secondly, your idea, like many others that have come before it, would cripple the justice system to no appreciable gain. The Court as an entity is designed to be independent so that there are limited or no repercussions of arriving at a specific judgment- specifically so that it will not be constrained as you are suggesting.
There is a substantial difference between making an error in judgement or testimony and deliberately lying. If a judge makes a poor judgement out of lack of understanding, I'd agree with your stance, but if a judge makes a poor judgement as a result of taking a bribe? Certainly applying (at least) the penalty to them that they applied to the accused is justified.
I would hope that all law enforcement would have a thorough knowledge of civics, particularly the privileges and rights of citizens. It is perhaps even more important than for legislators. If you have law enforcement and jury members/voters with solid understanding of civics, legislators ought not be too much of a problem.
All residents and visitors to Brisbane suburbs The Gap, Enoggera, Mt Coot-tha and parts of Keperra have been warned not to drink tap water after the collapse of the roof into a reservoir.
Now that the systems are in place, it's tough to scale them back.
No need to either. Also no need to scale it up. In the event that we didn't need as much due to increased tank capacity, presumably the excess could be used for increased power generation.
there's enough idiots (living in the... well, we all know which regions they live in:-) ) to make reticulated water as primary supply A Good Thing.
I'm not yet convinced that changing the operation of the whole of society to make idiocy more convenient is a good thing. Perhaps idiots could apply to have reticulated water as their primary water supply in exchange for their voting rights.:-)
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Love the sig.
Nevertheless, you asserted: "with the mean at 100 and at least one person over 200, for 50% to be below the mean you'd need one with a negative IQ."
That is incorrect. Surprisingly, you even had someone reply "Heh, you're right. That'll teach me...". When it is in a thread with presumed intellectuals criticizing the intelligence of others.... well, perhaps a little more humility is in order.
I don't see how that is really useful. Shouldn't you already have the original text version of such a document? PDF was never made for 'importing' and editing.
Sometimes I've had to use pdf printable forms. I prefer to type my info than print the form and write on it. In that case I do not have the original version.
One does not have to have perfect command of the English language to be intelligent, though they do need at least a relative command to be heard. A shining light bulb under a basket sheds no light on it's surroundings, but does that mean it is not bright?
To communicate intelligence requires the appropriate use of words. "once and awhile" communicate that the author is using words without considering their meaning. A light bulb under a basket is, in effect, not bright.
A statement denouncing someone else's intelligence that is interspersed with gibberish does not reflect well on the author.
Your "light bulb under a basket" example and "I cannot pass judgment..." lead me to suspect you are a Christian. I suggest you ponder on the bible's advice to keep company with the wise and avoid the company of the foolish. How are we to do this if we don't judge?
His issue is he thinks everyone is talking/thinking about him.
Consider asking him to try out some charitable work. I know a guy who got off drugs by forming his own rehabilitation group (wasn't another one close enough, he was successful enough to eventually get public funding and referrals). His experience was that helping other people got his mind off his own problems. In doing charitable work, he would be both thinking of others (distracting his mind from himself) and possibly receiving positive feedback from people he helped.
There should never have been an exception. Delusion is delusion...
For the purposes of psychological diagnoses it is appropriate. Accepting an irrational belief because all you family and friends share that belief is different from forming an irrational belief on your own initiative, possibly caused by chemical imbalance or trauma. Someone in the first category will often change that belief in response to being included in a different social group, those in the second are likely to need some form of treatment.
But wait, is there anything in that bible that says God's days are different? Or any other examples of God-units being different than man-units?
Different God-units:
II Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
but the ten commandments gives specifically equates the six day creation to six literal days:
Exodus 20: 8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Problems with tanks:
- you can't get a tank big enough for a multi-storey dwelling (like a 20 storey place with 100 apartments).
True enough, even given a tank, the roof catchment won't be enough. Most people don't live in one of those, so they could be an exception, but still pay/volume.
- city-collected roof water would be polluted. No two ways about it, it wouldn't be good to drink. We only got rid of leaded petrol recently, so up until then there would have been dangerous levels of lead in the water
Filtration. Many people have this anyway. You also get a choice about fluoride. We could also deliver drinking water from the dam but require garden watering, toilets etc to be from the tank.
- reticulated water supplied by the local council actually does work and it can be done cheaply. It's only when there are ridiculous political interferences that we end up with the situation we have now
This is a valid point, but is not a problem with tanks. My original point stands and you seem to agree with it. We don't lack water, we have an oversupply of politicians.
Anybody with a rural background, such as myself, could have told them that 20 years ago if they were willing to listen.
Anybody with a rural background (like, say, the National Party) would have said: "population booming, droughts on and off, let's build a new dam or two to cope."
So rural conservatives had more than one adequate solution then.:)
One advantage of tanks (as a requirement for new buildings) over a new dam is that the water supply scales automatically with the population. Don't get the hydroelectric power though, I'll give you that. Dams should only be the reserve water supply IMO.
It is not an endless supply you know, and is showing signs of depletion. Your suggestion is to say the least stupid.
We do not use the water efficient practices or desert reclamation that some countries do. As another poster mentioned, we are still growing cotton using flood irrigation. Don't talk to me about water shortage or stupidity without addressing that first. Try to think of something a bit more beneficial to the soil quality, water retention and sustainability than pouring water on the ground or giving it to cattle and go from there.
It takes significantly more water to fill dams than it does tanks, and the water in the dams would not have been depleted if people were using tank water first. So tanks might have become empty from time to time but we would still have plenty of reserve water supply. I was referring to domestic water supply. You are correct that water shouldn't be wasted, but as for QLD being the problem, how's the Murray going.
You are probably right, unfortunately. I do not agree with that interpretation and see it as just another method the government has used to destroy the rule of law, just as in my own country.
The plain reading of it is that Congress is authorised "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" using this method, the tenth amendment requires that they use it for nothing else. Getting a bunch of lawyers and Judges to conspire together to reinterpret that does nothing to change the actual meaning of the words, just to change the nature of the government.
Well you could say any source of water would help. Requiring adequate tank volume for your own water supply on all new buildings would be a solution that automatically scaled to any amount of population growth though. It would also have the effect of promoting efficient water use if any water from the municipal supply was charged. I understand you can recycle water, but why would you if it's unnecessary? We have an average rainfall of 1200mm/year. If we had tanks, there is an abundance of water, even now.
Slashdot Mirror
Australians don't have guns to shoot tyrants?
No, tyrant shooting (as well as self-defence) is not a legally valid reason to own a gun here :(
Well, I'm not sure why I got moderated troll for my previous comment, but in what way are the distros incompatible with each other? What projects can be compiled on one distro but not another? OSS can be repackaged for any distro, if the problem is getting proprietary software to run I don't see that is a problem with the free software.
Can the differing distros be networked easily? Share documents? Use the same protocols? Provide services to each other? Is there a problem with authentication on networks with more than one linux distro?
So it's difficult for to run proprietary programs that won't let you recompile and repackage for your distro of choice. Some distros use older versions of software than others, but nothing has forwards compatibility, you can't count on running a program released for vista on Win 98. Vista has backwards compatibility but 98 doesn't have forwards compatibility. That isn't incompatibility problems, for windows or linux, it's the nature of reality.
Most commercial software requires a specific Linux distribution, if it offers any Linux binaries to begin with.
So the problem with free software is proprietary software?
"Somnambulent" is a real word, which makes it unusable to pharma companies. Maybe "Somnioxx," or "Somnagra".
That's just what I want. A pill that puts me to sleep and then gives me a hardon.
That explains my state when I wake up, someone's been drugging me without my knowledge!
I don't see why the prosecutor would be required to tell the whole truth... but suppressing evidence is at the very least worthy of a new trial and quite possibly contempt of court and obstruction of justice.
You don't see why a prosecutor should be required to tell the whole truth? Please present your case for allowing prosecutors to lie by omission. Why should a prosecutor not be held to the same standard as anyone in the witness stand?
How do you tell? really? How do you tell when someone is merely misguided or when someone is actually being criminally complicit?
Trial by jury. You present the evidence and if 12 people find it to be established beyond reasonable doubt, then you can sentence them. You might have heard of the concept before. Perhaps it slipped your mind.
Even so, the only reasonable penalty would be throwing them off the bench.
No, it is appropriate to do to them equivalent to what they where doing to someone else. Fraudulently attempt to have someone fined? Pay the fine. Fraudulently attempt to get someone jailed? Do the time. That's called justice.
... but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.
If the prosecutor suppressed state forensic reports because they were favorable to the accused they are perverting the course of justice, IMO. I think the requirement of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" would be reasonably applied to anything the prosecutor does and says in court.
Did the police lie in court also? I don't think it would even take a new law, perjury, perverting the course of justice, contempt of court, there would have to be something on the books already.
Secondly, your idea, like many others that have come before it, would cripple the justice system to no appreciable gain. The Court as an entity is designed to be independent so that there are limited or no repercussions of arriving at a specific judgment- specifically so that it will not be constrained as you are suggesting.
There is a substantial difference between making an error in judgement or testimony and deliberately lying. If a judge makes a poor judgement out of lack of understanding, I'd agree with your stance, but if a judge makes a poor judgement as a result of taking a bribe? Certainly applying (at least) the penalty to them that they applied to the accused is justified.
If you're in the UK, and value privacy
MWAHAHAHA!
... why the largest slaughters of humans have been in the names of religious deities.
Except, of course, the slaughters perpetrated in the name of atheism under communism. You are interested in teaching them the truth, right?
For example doesn't the US also elect local sheriffs?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civics
civics
-noun (used with a singular verb)
the study or science of the privileges and obligations of citizens.
I would hope that all law enforcement would have a thorough knowledge of civics, particularly the privileges and rights of citizens. It is perhaps even more important than for legislators. If you have law enforcement and jury members/voters with solid understanding of civics, legislators ought not be too much of a problem.
Well, I don't know if you'll get around to reading this, but:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/collapse-contaminates-water/2008/11/17/1226770337911.html
Metal roofing hangs in the trees nearby the reservoir at The Gap, where the roof collapsed, contaminating the water supplies of three Brisbane suburbs.
All residents and visitors to Brisbane suburbs The Gap, Enoggera, Mt Coot-tha and parts of Keperra have been warned not to drink tap water after the collapse of the roof into a reservoir.
HA! Double HA!
Now that the systems are in place, it's tough to scale them back.
No need to either. Also no need to scale it up. In the event that we didn't need as much due to increased tank capacity, presumably the excess could be used for increased power generation.
there's enough idiots (living in the ... well, we all know which regions they live in :-) ) to make reticulated water as primary supply A Good Thing.
I'm not yet convinced that changing the operation of the whole of society to make idiocy more convenient is a good thing. Perhaps idiots could apply to have reticulated water as their primary water supply in exchange for their voting rights. :-)
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Love the sig.
Nevertheless, you asserted: "with the mean at 100 and at least one person over 200, for 50% to be below the mean you'd need one with a negative IQ." ...". When it is in a thread with presumed intellectuals criticizing the intelligence of others .... well, perhaps a little more humility is in order.
That is incorrect. Surprisingly, you even had someone reply "Heh, you're right. That'll teach me
I don't see how that is really useful. Shouldn't you already have the original text version of such a document? PDF was never made for 'importing' and editing.
Sometimes I've had to use pdf printable forms. I prefer to type my info than print the form and write on it. In that case I do not have the original version.
One does not have to have perfect command of the English language to be intelligent, though they do need at least a relative command to be heard. A shining light bulb under a basket sheds no light on it's surroundings, but does that mean it is not bright?
To communicate intelligence requires the appropriate use of words. "once and awhile" communicate that the author is using words without considering their meaning. A light bulb under a basket is, in effect, not bright.
..." lead me to suspect you are a Christian. I suggest you ponder on the bible's advice to keep company with the wise and avoid the company of the foolish. How are we to do this if we don't judge?
A statement denouncing someone else's intelligence that is interspersed with gibberish does not reflect well on the author.
Your "light bulb under a basket" example and "I cannot pass judgment
201, 130, 130, 130, 109, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60
50% > 100
50% < 100
mean = 100
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed
-noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
Not all desire for gain is greed.
His issue is he thinks everyone is talking/thinking about him.
Consider asking him to try out some charitable work. I know a guy who got off drugs by forming his own rehabilitation group (wasn't another one close enough, he was successful enough to eventually get public funding and referrals). His experience was that helping other people got his mind off his own problems. In doing charitable work, he would be both thinking of others (distracting his mind from himself) and possibly receiving positive feedback from people he helped.
There should never have been an exception. Delusion is delusion...
For the purposes of psychological diagnoses it is appropriate. Accepting an irrational belief because all you family and friends share that belief is different from forming an irrational belief on your own initiative, possibly caused by chemical imbalance or trauma. Someone in the first category will often change that belief in response to being included in a different social group, those in the second are likely to need some form of treatment.
But wait, is there anything in that bible that says God's days are different? Or any other examples of God-units being different than man-units?
Different God-units:
II Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
but the ten commandments gives specifically equates the six day creation to six literal days:
Exodus 20: 8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Problems with tanks:
- you can't get a tank big enough for a multi-storey dwelling (like a 20 storey place with 100 apartments).
True enough, even given a tank, the roof catchment won't be enough. Most people don't live in one of those, so they could be an exception, but still pay/volume.
- city-collected roof water would be polluted. No two ways about it, it wouldn't be good to drink. We only got rid of leaded petrol recently, so up until then there would have been dangerous levels of lead in the water
Filtration. Many people have this anyway. You also get a choice about fluoride. We could also deliver drinking water from the dam but require garden watering, toilets etc to be from the tank.
- reticulated water supplied by the local council actually does work and it can be done cheaply. It's only when there are ridiculous political interferences that we end up with the situation we have now
This is a valid point, but is not a problem with tanks. My original point stands and you seem to agree with it. We don't lack water, we have an oversupply of politicians.
So rural conservatives had more than one adequate solution then. :)
One advantage of tanks (as a requirement for new buildings) over a new dam is that the water supply scales automatically with the population. Don't get the hydroelectric power though, I'll give you that. Dams should only be the reserve water supply IMO.
It is not an endless supply you know, and is showing signs of depletion. Your suggestion is to say the least stupid.
We do not use the water efficient practices or desert reclamation that some countries do. As another poster mentioned, we are still growing cotton using flood irrigation. Don't talk to me about water shortage or stupidity without addressing that first. Try to think of something a bit more beneficial to the soil quality, water retention and sustainability than pouring water on the ground or giving it to cattle and go from there.
Water tanks dont fill if there is no rain.
It takes significantly more water to fill dams than it does tanks, and the water in the dams would not have been depleted if people were using tank water first. So tanks might have become empty from time to time but we would still have plenty of reserve water supply. I was referring to domestic water supply. You are correct that water shouldn't be wasted, but as for QLD being the problem, how's the Murray going.
You are probably right, unfortunately. I do not agree with that interpretation and see it as just another method the government has used to destroy the rule of law, just as in my own country.
The plain reading of it is that Congress is authorised "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" using this method, the tenth amendment requires that they use it for nothing else. Getting a bunch of lawyers and Judges to conspire together to reinterpret that does nothing to change the actual meaning of the words, just to change the nature of the government.
Recycling water would help greatly, though.
Well you could say any source of water would help. Requiring adequate tank volume for your own water supply on all new buildings would be a solution that automatically scaled to any amount of population growth though. It would also have the effect of promoting efficient water use if any water from the municipal supply was charged. I understand you can recycle water, but why would you if it's unnecessary? We have an average rainfall of 1200mm/year. If we had tanks, there is an abundance of water, even now.