Re:Proof that physics and pot don't mix
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 1
Not necessarily, provided you have something to act as a heat sink off that metal - something like welding copper water lines along the bottoms of the walls, and constantly running water through. That'd sump off the heat pretty effectively into the sewers.
If only there was a non-Windows OS that one could install on such "large/ugly/beige/boring generic PC" type systems. A UNIX-like OS would be best, I think.
Ah, but alas, nobody has made such a program, or you wouldn't have assumed the systems were running Windows simply on their PC hardware.
It's a left-handed multibutton appliance, meant to let you not have to use the keyboard. Doesn't help with the mousing but you could switch any clicks needed over there.
Not just downmodded, but downmodded as offtopic which is completely insane. You were rephrasing the TOPIC in a more understandable manner, it's hard to be more on topic than that.
Agreed. I've moved from Debian to Mandrake because I was frustrated with the slow progress it was making, and Mandrake just worked. Plug in a scanner, just works. Plug in USB storage, just works. Hook up the printer, just works. It's a nice change.
The better part is "the boy's father was eventually located".
As they say on FARK - Parental responsibility surrenders. Why was the father not with his kid? There's obviously large objects moving around, it's the water's edge, it's not a safe place to let your kid go wandering alone.
Define "intensity". I'm talking about energy levels, which is directly analagous to the heat level of water. You seem to be thinking intensity is quantity, which I disagree with.
You don't call "ionizes or not" a dramatic change in damaging characteristics?
If you increase the energy level of (water|radiation) it starts (to burn you|to ionize).
The analogy is a good one, you just haven't thought it through. Especially because it's not about the AMOUNT of radiation, it's about the INTENSITY of the individual particles/rays. Your analogy is far, far worse.
The methodology is prone to screamingly bad results in situations like this.
In effect, they're saying "We're going to test if soaking for an hour in warm water is bad for you, by immersing you in boiling water for 60 seconds. Sure, it's hotter, but it's for a lesser period so it works out the same."
Obviously, anyone will see that's a ridiculous statement, but that's because they have experience with warm water. Radiation is too abstract a concept without even starting in on it's lack of physical evidence until well after the fact.
It was legitimate and free of fraud the last time, too. Face it, the PQ is an anachronism suited for bigoted backwoods hicks, not the thinkers that gravitate towards the big cities, and you won't win with those rubes as your only support.
I've had about enough of talking to an anonymous coward, as well. If you want to debate this, be a man and make an account to claim ownership of your statements. Otherwise, you're nothing but another whiny Quebecois coward, full of bluster but incapable of backing it up.
They can continue ruining their own country, and we'll run ours the way we want to. We're a sovereign nation that decides it's own affairs, no matter how much they may have difficulty with the concept.
Reliability is all about meeting your design goals without fail when in operation.
The Soyuz was always designed to be single use, and to work for that single use. It meets that criteria and I'd call it reliable.
The Shuttle was designed for multiple use on a reasonable turnaround. Since two have been destroyed, and the others take a very long time between launches due to safety concerns and reviews, I would say it's not reliably meeting it's design goals.
The WW2Online forums had a classic forum manglement for the longest time, and it kept hitting everyone right in the midst of detailed nitpicky discussions like if the bolts on a Panzer IIIF tightened clockwise or counterclockwise.
I've got the dobody fluidmentation here that says it was clockwise
Followed, of course, by a half a dozen sniggering posts.:)
Yes, I can. It's high latency, but it works, because once the person signs on to their IM, they get the message.
If I talk in an empty IRC channel, it's lost. No conversation, no matter what the latency. Note that I'm assuming nobody's using a logging bot to relay messages in this scenario.
You can hold multiple conversations at the same time.
It indicates if somebody is in, without disturbing them like a phone call does.
I can deal with them in the order I choose, unlike phone calls.
You're comparing them to the wrong thing. Phone calls and IM's are different enough that they complement, not compete. E-mail, however, is closer to a competitor for IM.
We're trying out Office Communicator, and despite the fact that the UI was done by an absolute moron (can't supress offline users? have to see the newbie text all the time? gah) the tool itself is pretty damned useful - and I don't often compliment Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily, provided you have something to act as a heat sink off that metal - something like welding copper water lines along the bottoms of the walls, and constantly running water through. That'd sump off the heat pretty effectively into the sewers.
substantial percentage of idiots who provide false information
Not that you're biased, or anything. Obviously they're idiots for wanting to protect their privacy.
Tell me, which paper do you work for?
If only there was a non-Windows OS that one could install on such "large/ugly/beige/boring generic PC" type systems. A UNIX-like OS would be best, I think.
Ah, but alas, nobody has made such a program, or you wouldn't have assumed the systems were running Windows simply on their PC hardware.
Do you mean like the Claw?
c law/
http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/game_gear/
It's a left-handed multibutton appliance, meant to let you not have to use the keyboard. Doesn't help with the mousing but you could switch any clicks needed over there.
Not just downmodded, but downmodded as offtopic which is completely insane. You were rephrasing the TOPIC in a more understandable manner, it's hard to be more on topic than that.
Agreed. I've moved from Debian to Mandrake because I was frustrated with the slow progress it was making, and Mandrake just worked. Plug in a scanner, just works. Plug in USB storage, just works. Hook up the printer, just works. It's a nice change.
The linux definitions keep getting updated too.
They're not (generally) scanning for linux viruses, but windows ones. Rather handy on things like mail gateways.
That's "nice"?
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I see disjointed garbage.
The better part is "the boy's father was eventually located".
As they say on FARK - Parental responsibility surrenders. Why was the father not with his kid? There's obviously large objects moving around, it's the water's edge, it's not a safe place to let your kid go wandering alone.
Define "intensity". I'm talking about energy levels, which is directly analagous to the heat level of water. You seem to be thinking intensity is quantity, which I disagree with.
You don't call "ionizes or not" a dramatic change in damaging characteristics?
If you increase the energy level of (water|radiation) it starts (to burn you|to ionize).
The analogy is a good one, you just haven't thought it through. Especially because it's not about the AMOUNT of radiation, it's about the INTENSITY of the individual particles/rays. Your analogy is far, far worse.
The methodology is prone to screamingly bad results in situations like this.
In effect, they're saying "We're going to test if soaking for an hour in warm water is bad for you, by immersing you in boiling water for 60 seconds. Sure, it's hotter, but it's for a lesser period so it works out the same."
Obviously, anyone will see that's a ridiculous statement, but that's because they have experience with warm water. Radiation is too abstract a concept without even starting in on it's lack of physical evidence until well after the fact.
Exactly. It's the blog/news equivalent of multilevel marketing.
It was legitimate and free of fraud the last time, too. Face it, the PQ is an anachronism suited for bigoted backwoods hicks, not the thinkers that gravitate towards the big cities, and you won't win with those rubes as your only support.
I've had about enough of talking to an anonymous coward, as well. If you want to debate this, be a man and make an account to claim ownership of your statements. Otherwise, you're nothing but another whiny Quebecois coward, full of bluster but incapable of backing it up.
No, because you're Canadians, much as it may gall you to admit it.
Je me souviens indeed. You seem to have trouble remembering you lost, and thus are part of Canada, not New France.
That's exactly what I entered this thread to say.
They can continue ruining their own country, and we'll run ours the way we want to. We're a sovereign nation that decides it's own affairs, no matter how much they may have difficulty with the concept.
Probably snubianing, I can't remember what manglement they used on that. :)
I'm not so sure your comparison is fair.
Reliability is all about meeting your design goals without fail when in operation.
The Soyuz was always designed to be single use, and to work for that single use. It meets that criteria and I'd call it reliable.
The Shuttle was designed for multiple use on a reasonable turnaround. Since two have been destroyed, and the others take a very long time between launches due to safety concerns and reviews, I would say it's not reliably meeting it's design goals.
If the search/replace is badly written enough to touch words it should leave alone, who's to say it won't bugger up the spelling while it's at it? ;)
The WW2Online forums had a classic forum manglement for the longest time, and it kept hitting everyone right in the midst of detailed nitpicky discussions like if the bolts on a Panzer IIIF tightened clockwise or counterclockwise.
:)
I've got the dobody fluidmentation here that says it was clockwise
Followed, of course, by a half a dozen sniggering posts.
Yes, I can. It's high latency, but it works, because once the person signs on to their IM, they get the message.
If I talk in an empty IRC channel, it's lost. No conversation, no matter what the latency. Note that I'm assuming nobody's using a logging bot to relay messages in this scenario.
You can hold IRC conversations with people not online at the time? Impressive.
It doesn't require you to sync up.
You can hold multiple conversations at the same time.
It indicates if somebody is in, without disturbing them like a phone call does.
I can deal with them in the order I choose, unlike phone calls.
You're comparing them to the wrong thing. Phone calls and IM's are different enough that they complement, not compete. E-mail, however, is closer to a competitor for IM.
We're trying out Office Communicator, and despite the fact that the UI was done by an absolute moron (can't supress offline users? have to see the newbie text all the time? gah) the tool itself is pretty damned useful - and I don't often compliment Microsoft.
He's making a reference to what the politicos were trumpeting about Kerry, that he was a flip-flopper, etc.
This "worthless ass" already protected your moron ass.
Get your head out of the holywood hero-machine, and pay attention to the real world, and you may just manage to survive your rotation.