I like the idea of no wifi. I'd probably try turning it off on my laptop during lectures myself, but I've not been a student in the modern internet era and am unsure how much web access might be useful vs a distraction.
I always figured the whole placebo thing was based on ignorance, not deception. How can they evaluate if the people decided it was going to be a medically effective treatment? This study seems stupid, just like most people.
How about running a study where you give everyone obviously labelled placebos and then see whether people who know how biology and medicine work get the same treatment as the average slob.
For the most part, gays are ignorable. If you don't like them, they mostly don't exist in your world at all. This can be done by locality, association, or mental blocks.
Women and black people by contrast are not ignorable really in any way. When you see them, you know (mostly) that they are black, or women, or black women.
This means that people who don't like gays in some relatively normal parental-taught or society-influenced way, they mostly don't think about them much at all. So more typically those who rage about it are those who are obsessed with it, they have a constant reminder of the issue: themselves.
Now, claiming this is a hard and fast rule is a bit silly. However, it proves true often enough for people to assume it in other cases.
1 - sexuality is not about behavior. Sexual behavior is not the same as sexuality. This is factual, not hair splitting. I could introduce you to a lesbian who was sexually behaved as a married straight woman for 15 years, happily. Although in the end she figured out she was missing out on something -- her own sexuality.
2 - most other western militaries are openly integrated and none report these kinds of imagined problems. It's just troops being bigoted without actually having to deal with reality that they already have gay troops and it's already fine, they just don't know it.
I did this stuff my 3rd year in high school (not my last) in the united states. We called it "math seminar" and there were four of us total in the class, two 3 year students, and two four years.
The class size was useful for ensuring everyone was following a long, but worked poorly for maintaining focus. I would have traded it easily for a group of around eight or ten.
My fourth year in high school I simply stopped taking math. It would have been a class of two, which seemed awfully silly. I learned a great deal more taking more history classes and a theatre class than I could possibly have learning esoteric math I'd probably have never used again.
The niche is narrower than you suggest. Current sparc procesors are great for highly transactional systems that are low on computation. This means databases which are really acting as fancy smart datastores for various applications.
Certainly that's how databases were traditionally originally considered, but it's pretty common these days for database loads to include computational demands, which don't really fly on Sparc.
Meanwhile a lot of other loads are really foolishly parallelisable, so datasets with low associativity are going parallel on cheap hardware.
If you still have a high asssociativity noncomputational database load, sure, sparc may be a good bet, especially if the load is too larger for smaller boxes, and if you trust oracle's offerings more than HP's or IBM's.
The niche is narrower than you suggest. Current sparc procesors are great for highly transactional systems that are low on computation. This means databases which are really acting as fancy smart datastores for various applications.
Certainly that's how databases were traditionally originally considered, but it's pretty common these days for database loads to include computational demands, which don't really fly on Sparc.
Meanwhile a lot of other loads are really foolishly parallelisable, so datasets with low associativity are going parallel on cheap hardware.
If you still have a high asssociativity noncomputational database load, sure, sparc may be a good bet, especially if the load is too larger for smaller boxes, and if you trust oracle's offerings more than HP's or IBM's.
All human action is, by definition, motivated by self-interest.
No. This is not true by definition. You might be able to make a case for it, but there's plenty of evidence that there are other motivators. Some people try to make torturous arguments for equivalency of interest in the welfare of others etc being really an equivalency of self-interest, but this argument is typically not supported by anything other than assertion, as yours is.
There are obvious counterexamples. People sometimes act in manners that are self-destructive. That is, counter to their own interests. You could try to claim that their "interest" is counter to their own interests, but at this point your words have pretty much wandered off into their own private meaning that has almost no common ground with normal english.
You know that people lacking healthcare costs more money than ensuring they have it, right? So ensuring health care is (by avoiding lossages) weath *creation* for the entire country.
Don't be a nutjob yourself. Everyone who really understands the problem knew we needed to ensure health care availability for everyone in *some* fashion, we just took way too long to decide on an ideologically politically passable way of doing so. Now that the good work is done, you're going to focus on the the ideology and wish you could cut off your own nose to spite your face. Great.
You know that people lacking healthcare costs more money than ensuring they have it, right? So ensuring health care is (by avoiding lossages) weath *creation* for the entire country.
Don't be a nutjob yourself. Everyone who really understands the problem knew we needed to ensure health care availability for everyone in *some* fashion, we just took way too long to decide on an ideologically politically passable way of doing so. Now that the good work is done, you're going to focus on the the ideology and wish you could cut off your own nose to spite your face. Great.
I work in a mac shop. Of programmers. The macs crash roughly semi-weekly on average. That's neither terrible nor great.
Some OS builds are more stable than others. Some things crash them more than others. For example in 10.5, OpenGL was kind of a roulette wheel of crashing, while that's largely improved in 10.6.
What's easy to criticise is how overly heavy their frameworks are. Loading in/starting up trivial applications can take 20+ seconds. Normal activity produces UI stalls. Spotlight which is the 'advanced launcher' in effect is totally useless for around a minute after the machine boots. The I/O scheduler is garbage, and the paging strategy is poor. Too bad they didn't use Linux.
It's a real driver, but there are other real terorist groups who are non-islamic. A realistic view at the uncompromising position of the Koran should not preclude a realistic view on other terrorist groups.
Moreover, a realistic view at the Koran should be tempered at a realistic view of other divisive religious tracts and how societies -- still dominated by their believers -- have successfully moved beyond their dictates. The questions is how to achieve this with the Koran.
The parent poster obviously meant "won't get very far in getting communication going to the right parties in the internet." Meanwhile, by your writing, if not your intent, you mean "won't get very far in being a popular site."
These are not at all the same, and thus your comment is kinda not useful.
I don't know about RPM (which allows for hte idea of the same path being supplied by multiple packages in certain circumstances), but in DEB (not DEP) you cannot install two packages which supply the same path. Not without doing some --do-something-unsafe flag.
I sincerely doubt you've ever broken a DEB based system without either using such foolish flags, or by having a problem in a script (which is unrelated to the points you raise).
The reality is that sometimes the research is pretty biased, and sometimes the research is conducted by the insurance company. Or sometimes they just tweak the tables to be racist bastards.
That's why there's legislation to curtail the ability of insurance companies to skew the numbers based on certain criteria.
Simpler: Sometimes the correlations are deliberately mismanaged. Is it good capitalism? no. Do they make money anyway? yes.
Agile doesn't mean don't identify showstoppers. It means you try to identify showstoppers more quickly!
It means you don't try to plan for architectural issues which aren't actually necessary for your goals.
You could make the argument that trying to make code "more general" has some value (ie, trying to handle case you believe you don't currently have), but history typically shows this works out very badly.
If you have a team insisting on not identifying some architectural issues, they're following the stupid methods, not the agile ones.
It's the passive-aggressive way to say "you're probably wrong" without doing any of the legwork you demand that your target perform. It's not lazy, it's annoying.
In informal discussions, it's pretty traditional to respond to claims with questions, or to challenge it with ideas of why you don't see how it works/makes sense. However, in informal discussions requiring a citation is just dumb. No one's going to go read the citation anyway.
Can slashdot accommodate vigorous debate? Sort of. Kind of poorly. Is that really what it's good at? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? when i took the acela it was around 4 hours, and driving is like 2.5? Granted this was some time ago, did they fix the tracks?
Translation: I live too far away from my job by choice, and the unavoidable commuting overhead makes me uncontrollably angry.
I like the idea of no wifi. I'd probably try turning it off on my laptop during lectures myself, but I've not been a student in the modern internet era and am unsure how much web access might be useful vs a distraction.
Laptop use during lectures seems pretty essential for taking notes. Duh?
Laptop use during lectures seems pretty essential for taking notes. Duh?
I always figured the whole placebo thing was based on ignorance, not deception. How can they evaluate if the people decided it was going to be a medically effective treatment? This study seems stupid, just like most people.
How about running a study where you give everyone obviously labelled placebos and then see whether people who know how biology and medicine work get the same treatment as the average slob.
unison is a reasonable file synchronizer. It isn't nearly as easy to use.
For the most part, gays are ignorable. If you don't like them, they mostly don't exist in your world at all. This can be done by locality, association, or mental blocks.
Women and black people by contrast are not ignorable really in any way. When you see them, you know (mostly) that they are black, or women, or black women.
This means that people who don't like gays in some relatively normal parental-taught or society-influenced way, they mostly don't think about them much at all. So more typically those who rage about it are those who are obsessed with it, they have a constant reminder of the issue: themselves.
Now, claiming this is a hard and fast rule is a bit silly. However, it proves true often enough for people to assume it in other cases.
1 - sexuality is not about behavior. Sexual behavior is not the same as sexuality. This is factual, not hair splitting. I could introduce you to a lesbian who was sexually behaved as a married straight woman for 15 years, happily. Although in the end she figured out she was missing out on something -- her own sexuality.
2 - most other western militaries are openly integrated and none report these kinds of imagined problems. It's just troops being bigoted without actually having to deal with reality that they already have gay troops and it's already fine, they just don't know it.
I did this stuff my 3rd year in high school (not my last) in the united states. We called it "math seminar" and there were four of us total in the class, two 3 year students, and two four years.
The class size was useful for ensuring everyone was following a long, but worked poorly for maintaining focus. I would have traded it easily for a group of around eight or ten.
My fourth year in high school I simply stopped taking math. It would have been a class of two, which seemed awfully silly. I learned a great deal more taking more history classes and a theatre class than I could possibly have learning esoteric math I'd probably have never used again.
I think the point is the megarich don't actually pay their fair share of taxes in this country.
Compose-'-E
Compose-`-A
At least, that's how I type them on a us-oriented keymap.
Do french keymaps really not provide a way to type these common letters more directly? Whose keymaps? These things vary by platform.
The niche is narrower than you suggest. Current sparc procesors are great for highly transactional systems that are low on computation. This means databases which are really acting as fancy smart datastores for various applications.
Certainly that's how databases were traditionally originally considered, but it's pretty common these days for database loads to include computational demands, which don't really fly on Sparc.
Meanwhile a lot of other loads are really foolishly parallelisable, so datasets with low associativity are going parallel on cheap hardware.
If you still have a high asssociativity noncomputational database load, sure, sparc may be a good bet, especially if the load is too larger for smaller boxes, and if you trust oracle's offerings more than HP's or IBM's.
The niche is narrower than you suggest. Current sparc procesors are great for highly transactional systems that are low on computation. This means databases which are really acting as fancy smart datastores for various applications.
Certainly that's how databases were traditionally originally considered, but it's pretty common these days for database loads to include computational demands, which don't really fly on Sparc.
Meanwhile a lot of other loads are really foolishly parallelisable, so datasets with low associativity are going parallel on cheap hardware.
If you still have a high asssociativity noncomputational database load, sure, sparc may be a good bet, especially if the load is too larger for smaller boxes, and if you trust oracle's offerings more than HP's or IBM's.
All human action is, by definition, motivated by self-interest.
No. This is not true by definition. You might be able to make a case for it, but there's plenty of evidence that there are other motivators. Some people try to make torturous arguments for equivalency of interest in the welfare of others etc being really an equivalency of self-interest, but this argument is typically not supported by anything other than assertion, as yours is.
There are obvious counterexamples. People sometimes act in manners that are self-destructive. That is, counter to their own interests. You could try to claim that their "interest" is counter to their own interests, but at this point your words have pretty much wandered off into their own private meaning that has almost no common ground with normal english.
In other words, this chestnut is dumb, and wrong.
You know that people lacking healthcare costs more money than ensuring they have it, right? So ensuring health care is (by avoiding lossages) weath *creation* for the entire country.
Don't be a nutjob yourself. Everyone who really understands the problem knew we needed to ensure health care availability for everyone in *some* fashion, we just took way too long to decide on an ideologically politically passable way of doing so. Now that the good work is done, you're going to focus on the the ideology and wish you could cut off your own nose to spite your face. Great.
You know that people lacking healthcare costs more money than ensuring they have it, right? So ensuring health care is (by avoiding lossages) weath *creation* for the entire country.
Don't be a nutjob yourself. Everyone who really understands the problem knew we needed to ensure health care availability for everyone in *some* fashion, we just took way too long to decide on an ideologically politically passable way of doing so. Now that the good work is done, you're going to focus on the the ideology and wish you could cut off your own nose to spite your face. Great.
He is unfortunately also insane.
I work in a mac shop. Of programmers. The macs crash roughly semi-weekly on average. That's neither terrible nor great.
Some OS builds are more stable than others. Some things crash them more than others. For example in 10.5, OpenGL was kind of a roulette wheel of crashing, while that's largely improved in 10.6.
What's easy to criticise is how overly heavy their frameworks are. Loading in/starting up trivial applications can take 20+ seconds. Normal activity produces UI stalls. Spotlight which is the 'advanced launcher' in effect is totally useless for around a minute after the machine boots. The I/O scheduler is garbage, and the paging strategy is poor. Too bad they didn't use Linux.
It's a real driver, but there are other real terorist groups who are non-islamic. A realistic view at the uncompromising position of the Koran should not preclude a realistic view on other terrorist groups.
Moreover, a realistic view at the Koran should be tempered at a realistic view of other divisive religious tracts and how societies -- still dominated by their believers -- have successfully moved beyond their dictates. The questions is how to achieve this with the Koran.
The parent poster obviously meant "won't get very far in getting communication going to the right parties in the internet." Meanwhile, by your writing, if not your intent, you mean "won't get very far in being a popular site."
These are not at all the same, and thus your comment is kinda not useful.
I don't know about RPM (which allows for hte idea of the same path being supplied by multiple packages in certain circumstances), but in DEB (not DEP) you cannot install two packages which supply the same path. Not without doing some --do-something-unsafe flag.
I sincerely doubt you've ever broken a DEB based system without either using such foolish flags, or by having a problem in a script (which is unrelated to the points you raise).
That's the claim.
The reality is that sometimes the research is pretty biased, and sometimes the research is conducted by the insurance company. Or sometimes they just tweak the tables to be racist bastards.
That's why there's legislation to curtail the ability of insurance companies to skew the numbers based on certain criteria.
Simpler: Sometimes the correlations are deliberately mismanaged. Is it good capitalism? no. Do they make money anyway? yes.
Agile doesn't mean don't identify showstoppers. It means you try to identify showstoppers more quickly!
It means you don't try to plan for architectural issues which aren't actually necessary for your goals.
You could make the argument that trying to make code "more general" has some value (ie, trying to handle case you believe you don't currently have), but history typically shows this works out very badly.
If you have a team insisting on not identifying some architectural issues, they're following the stupid methods, not the agile ones.
It's the passive-aggressive way to say "you're probably wrong" without doing any of the legwork you demand that your target perform. It's not lazy, it's annoying.
In informal discussions, it's pretty traditional to respond to claims with questions, or to challenge it with ideas of why you don't see how it works/makes sense. However, in informal discussions requiring a citation is just dumb. No one's going to go read the citation anyway.
Can slashdot accommodate vigorous debate? Sort of. Kind of poorly. Is that really what it's good at? No.