Which just goes to show that Clinton is still a better liar than Bush.
There were no UN resolutions against Yugoslavia, after all. Not even the tiniest UN figleaf for the attack. There were incredible accusations of ethnic cleansing, 'death camps' and so on being organised by the Yugoslav government all over the region, accusations dutifully repeated by the media as if they were facts, but in fact none of it has been substantiated. A camera team took a prisoner at one camp who happened to have a medical condition causing a gaunt appearance, and a storage shed with barbed wire surrounding it *to keep people out* and got a picture making it appear he was behind the wire, starving to death in a nazi-style extermination camp. But no evidence for any such camp actually existing has come to light.
There was a conflict between the government and a very violent terrorist organisation, the KLA, primarily in Kosovo province. It was the KLA which sought ethnic cleansing in the province - and, with US help, they've pretty much succeeded. Not only in running the serbs out of kosovo, but also the roma, the gorani, the bosnians, the turks... all of the historic minorities that have existed in kosovo for centuries exist now in only tiny, evaporating ghettos, if at all. See http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Rifati_Koso vo.htm for instance.
Clinton also lied us into war with Jugoslavia, a country which had never attacked us and didn't have the ability to be a threat to us. He had this country bombed viciously, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, and then proceeded to occupy a section of that country, an occupation which continues to this day. Sound familiar?
There are several problems with this argument. For one thing, if the 'consensus' view is indeed wrong then the actions that are being urged to avoid disaster could easily wind up *causing* a different disaster. At best it would mean a collosal waste of scarce resources for no good reason.
The problem is that the moment you outlaw dissent, you have completely and formally abandoned science. Of course, a lot of people (including ones that claim to be scientists!) wouldn't care, they never made the distinction between science and the religion of scientism, so they wouldn't notice the difference.
This proposal isn't really all that radical either - it would simply formalise the situation. Any scientist that makes public his reservations with the global warming dogma is already dealing severe damage to his career.
They only have an obligation to give source to those whom they already gave the binaries *IF they ship binaries and source together.* If they ship binaries without source, then they do indeed have to give source to anyone that requests it.
Well, you're not completely wrong, but I'd say Linus' attitude is a very large portion. We can agree though, it's only a part.
At present, the kernel code is licensed under a number of licenses. They are all compatible with the GPL v2. Because he was shortsighted and omitted the 'and later language' from his own contributions, and encouraged others to do the same, it's NOT all compatible with GPL v3. But if he really wanted to upgrade the license, he could do so, it would just take some work and some time. He could relicense his own code, encourage others to do the same, and require GPLv3 compatibility on new submissions. Then wait perhaps 2-3 years for 'code churn' to take care of most of the problem. At that point, only a few lines of incompatible code would be left to hunt down and rewrite.
Dude, I wasn't ragging on you, I was making riffing off you. It's a joke. Read it again.
And check out the -1 redundant. Some moderators really seem to have no clue. Troll or flamebait I could see, given that the joke seems to have flown right over everyone's head. But redundant? Whoever moderated that should be forced to write the definition of redundant on the blackboard a few hundred times so maybe they'll remember it.
Theft is wrongfully taking someone elses property away.
*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken.
It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft.
It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his. If you are about to buy my car for $3,000 but even a moment before the deal is finalised your brother shows up and convinces you to backout, that doesn't make him a thief. Just because I expected, for whatever reason, that the money would become mine doesn't magically make it mine. Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing. Possibly tortuous interference or the like, but certainly not theft.
Sorry to admit it, but yeah, buttwiper is quite popular here. Uck. Horrid stuff.
The other poster was right though, we have some excellent microbrews. Great Dane from Wisconsin as he alluded to, there are probably others in that area but that one I can personally vouch for. The northwest (Washington and Oregon mostly) is probably the thickest with them. Red Hat from Washington is another I'll personally vouch for (the Blackhook porter and ESB, they also make one that tastes like crap deliberately though to have something to sell to a broader market - most microbreweries do that.) Sam Adams in Boston makes good stuff, although, again, watch out for the one variety that they sell the most of it - again deliberate crap. These days you can get good beer most places in the states, if you know enough to look for it.
It can bounce around, fly through the air, float serenely across the room... it has a very broad repertoire of movements. The behaviour in the video is within the range of reports, so you can't rule it out because of that. The visual appearance of the balls is consistent with the ball lightning I've seen personally, and reports vary widely so far as colour as well as behaviour.
It may not be *difficult* in the absolute sense, but it's still a lot more difficult than *not* having to do it. There are a whole lot of us who have to do it often enough to be annoyed, but not quite often enough to memorize all possible combinations so that we can do it without thinking.
Well, see, that's what I don't get. You were supposed to have done that memorisation back in the *third grade,* right after the multiplication table. If you had, it would be easy now.
Three pounds 4 ounces, four pounds 3.2 ounces, and two pounds 12.8 ounces.
We don't actually *use* stones over here, generally, but they aren't hard to work with. And, as you might notice from that answer, we tend to express fractions with smaller units. This makes it a lot easier to deal with, conceptial. But for some reason the cartesian mindset of the SI system can't countenance it. Why can't you say 'one metre two centimetres?' No, it must be either 1.02metre, or 102centimetres... silly.
Your story about division being more convenient only holds true if you carefully choose which Imperial units to demonstrate it with. Because by far the biggest problem with the Imperial system is its inconsistency.
Well, first off I'm not talking about 'Imperial' units, I don't use them. But there's no 'inconsistency' in the traditional units, and they're pretty reliably easy to deal with as long as you actually *understand* the system, and stay within the range of things it evolved to deal with.
If you want make the traditional look hard, you really need to go outside that range, which means outside of the range of things most people need to deal with on a daily basis. Even then, it's not too easy. If you go to the very small end of the length scale, for instance, there really isn't anything smaller than an inch, so you have to just keep making smaller fractions. Hundredths (of an inch) work well within the range of millimetres. But sure, it's convenient to have smaller units if you're doing a lot of work at that scale. And I'd certainly use those smaller measures in a microscopic setting - after all, that's what your measuring devices in a laboratory are normally calibrated in.
See, that's the big difference in mindset. SI proponents are set on driving all other systems extinct. Traditional metrics doesn't inspire that kind of fanatic extremism. We just use it where it works well, and happily use another system when that works better as well.
I agree, the submitter exhibited clearly faulty logic in his deduction that it would not be running XNU.
Also, I have to say, after the announcement that the phones will be locked down and prohibit third party apps, all stories about the iPhone ceased to be 'News for Nerds' or 'Stuff that matters.' At least until the story about how to hack around the locks appears...
For division by four neither system is vastly superior.
Just as I said, the traditional method works well for both thirds and fourths, while the SI system works well with fourths but not with thirds.
Where the imperial system is mind-numbingly and idiotically inadequate is in day-to-day length measurements. If you have have ever done any carpentry work and encountered the endless fractional "standard" sizes such as thicknesses of 5/8" or 31/32", and then tried to add those together while holding a bunch of nails between your lips, a 2x4 in one hand and a hammer in the other, you know what I'm talking about.
Not only have I done it, I know several people that do it full time. Not one of them strongly prefers metric - several hate it with a passion. Odd.
There's nothing difficult about adding 5/8 + 31/32, unless your school failed to teach you basic fractional arithematic. That's 51/32, I didn't even have count on my fingers, I could tell you that at a glance. And I'm really not very good at math. But come on, this is third grade stuff!
And for sure it should be intuitively obvious to anyone that's familiar with computers. If you have an eighth and a thirty second, the common divisor is obviously the thirty-second and the multiplier is 4, just as the word length on a 32bit computer is 4 (8 bit)bytes!
Seeing a measurement of 0.3m you don't have to perform mental gymnastics to know that it's 30cm, and people intuitively have a very good feel for the length of 10cm (about the width of a hand), so they can easily visualize fractions of a meter.
Sure, 30cm is a pretty easy measurement to work with. But it's not a third of a metre, nor even 'close enough' for the shoddiest construction.
And in comparison, a foot at least as easy for someone used to traditional measurements to visualise and work with as.3 metre is for someone accustomed to SI.
The bottles are usually 16 (us) fluid ounces, or 1 (us) pint. That's a little *less* than 500ml. And that sucks.
It's true, the mass produced beer here is utter crap, but fortunately we do have some microbreweries that put out stuff every bit as good as anything I've seen in Europe. And even though that comes with a premium price, our alcohol taxes are enough lower than northern europe that it's still cheaper to drink that here than cheap swill there. So that's something at least.
Yes, that's absolutely true, they so often act like the US doesn't use their system, but we do, and have for years. We use it when it makes sense, or cents, to do so. We use our old system when that works better. What they really mean is when will our government start getting draconian on us and *forcing* us to use that system exclusively? Hopefully, never.
It's really fairly simple to calculate. One mile is 1760 yards. Each yard has three feet and each foot has 12 inches, so that means each yard is 36 inches, and 1760*36=63,360. No more difficult than dealing with numbers like 256, 512, 1024... in computing.
It's even simpler if you remember the furlong. A mile has exactly 8 of them. Each furlong has 220 yards.
Am I the only one that sometimes suspects the SI system was invented solely as an excuse to avoid learning basic fractional arithematic?
Slashdot Mirror
Which just goes to show that Clinton is still a better liar than Bush.
o vo.htm for instance.
There were no UN resolutions against Yugoslavia, after all. Not even the tiniest UN figleaf for the attack. There were incredible accusations of ethnic cleansing, 'death camps' and so on being organised by the Yugoslav government all over the region, accusations dutifully repeated by the media as if they were facts, but in fact none of it has been substantiated. A camera team took a prisoner at one camp who happened to have a medical condition causing a gaunt appearance, and a storage shed with barbed wire surrounding it *to keep people out* and got a picture making it appear he was behind the wire, starving to death in a nazi-style extermination camp. But no evidence for any such camp actually existing has come to light.
There was a conflict between the government and a very violent terrorist organisation, the KLA, primarily in Kosovo province. It was the KLA which sought ethnic cleansing in the province - and, with US help, they've pretty much succeeded. Not only in running the serbs out of kosovo, but also the roma, the gorani, the bosnians, the turks... all of the historic minorities that have existed in kosovo for centuries exist now in only tiny, evaporating ghettos, if at all. See http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Rifati_Kos
Clinton also lied us into war with Jugoslavia, a country which had never attacked us and didn't have the ability to be a threat to us. He had this country bombed viciously, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, and then proceeded to occupy a section of that country, an occupation which continues to this day. Sound familiar?
There are several problems with this argument. For one thing, if the 'consensus' view is indeed wrong then the actions that are being urged to avoid disaster could easily wind up *causing* a different disaster. At best it would mean a collosal waste of scarce resources for no good reason.
The problem is that the moment you outlaw dissent, you have completely and formally abandoned science. Of course, a lot of people (including ones that claim to be scientists!) wouldn't care, they never made the distinction between science and the religion of scientism, so they wouldn't notice the difference.
This proposal isn't really all that radical either - it would simply formalise the situation. Any scientist that makes public his reservations with the global warming dogma is already dealing severe damage to his career.
Sorry, you're wrong.
They only have an obligation to give source to those whom they already gave the binaries *IF they ship binaries and source together.* If they ship binaries without source, then they do indeed have to give source to anyone that requests it.
Well, you're not completely wrong, but I'd say Linus' attitude is a very large portion. We can agree though, it's only a part.
At present, the kernel code is licensed under a number of licenses. They are all compatible with the GPL v2. Because he was shortsighted and omitted the 'and later language' from his own contributions, and encouraged others to do the same, it's NOT all compatible with GPL v3. But if he really wanted to upgrade the license, he could do so, it would just take some work and some time. He could relicense his own code, encourage others to do the same, and require GPLv3 compatibility on new submissions. Then wait perhaps 2-3 years for 'code churn' to take care of most of the problem. At that point, only a few lines of incompatible code would be left to hunt down and rewrite.
See this post for an excellent reply to that.
I only have to add that YOU need to actually read the material you keep pasting.
Dude, I wasn't ragging on you, I was making riffing off you. It's a joke. Read it again.
And check out the -1 redundant. Some moderators really seem to have no clue. Troll or flamebait I could see, given that the joke seems to have flown right over everyone's head. But redundant? Whoever moderated that should be forced to write the definition of redundant on the blackboard a few hundred times so maybe they'll remember it.
Theft is wrongfully taking someone elses property away.
*Copying* is illegal under some conditions, but it is never theft, as no property is taken.
It is a separate question as to whether something like *a song* can be property at all, but even if it is conceded solely for the sake of argument that it can be, merely *copying* it does not deprive the supposed owner of the song, and so can not be theft.
It is often stated that it is theft because it deprives the (purported) owner of the song of money he might have otherwise been paid, however this fails also, as regardless of what might or might not have happened otherwise, the money in question was never actually his. If you are about to buy my car for $3,000 but even a moment before the deal is finalised your brother shows up and convinces you to backout, that doesn't make him a thief. Just because I expected, for whatever reason, that the money would become mine doesn't magically make it mine. Depending on the exact situation, it's possible that your brother might be guilty of some offense, but that offense would not be stealing. Possibly tortuous interference or the like, but certainly not theft.
Sorry to admit it, but yeah, buttwiper is quite popular here. Uck. Horrid stuff.
The other poster was right though, we have some excellent microbrews. Great Dane from Wisconsin as he alluded to, there are probably others in that area but that one I can personally vouch for. The northwest (Washington and Oregon mostly) is probably the thickest with them. Red Hat from Washington is another I'll personally vouch for (the Blackhook porter and ESB, they also make one that tastes like crap deliberately though to have something to sell to a broader market - most microbreweries do that.) Sam Adams in Boston makes good stuff, although, again, watch out for the one variety that they sell the most of it - again deliberate crap. These days you can get good beer most places in the states, if you know enough to look for it.
A very good question. I can't answer it though. Will have to wait for the experiments to be reported more formally I expect.
Delphi is NOT in any way related to the steaming pile of VB. It's a dialect of object-pascal.
Magic missile was invented LONG ago man, where you been?
Here is one of the earliest versions.
No, this is (perhaps) ball lightning, not ball lightening. Methinks someone has a one track mind...
It can bounce around, fly through the air, float serenely across the room... it has a very broad repertoire of movements. The behaviour in the video is within the range of reports, so you can't rule it out because of that. The visual appearance of the balls is consistent with the ball lightning I've seen personally, and reports vary widely so far as colour as well as behaviour.
It's not 'large' amounts, it's rather small amounts, and more importantly, it's *fundamental math* regardless of what measurement systems you use!
Do you think time memorising the addition and multiplication table is a waste of time too? The same logic applies.
Well, see, that's what I don't get. You were supposed to have done that memorisation back in the *third grade,* right after the multiplication table. If you had, it would be easy now.
Three pounds 4 ounces, four pounds 3.2 ounces, and two pounds 12.8 ounces.
We don't actually *use* stones over here, generally, but they aren't hard to work with. And, as you might notice from that answer, we tend to express fractions with smaller units. This makes it a lot easier to deal with, conceptial. But for some reason the cartesian mindset of the SI system can't countenance it. Why can't you say 'one metre two centimetres?' No, it must be either 1.02metre, or 102centimetres... silly.
Well, first off I'm not talking about 'Imperial' units, I don't use them. But there's no 'inconsistency' in the traditional units, and they're pretty reliably easy to deal with as long as you actually *understand* the system, and stay within the range of things it evolved to deal with.
If you want make the traditional look hard, you really need to go outside that range, which means outside of the range of things most people need to deal with on a daily basis. Even then, it's not too easy. If you go to the very small end of the length scale, for instance, there really isn't anything smaller than an inch, so you have to just keep making smaller fractions. Hundredths (of an inch) work well within the range of millimetres. But sure, it's convenient to have smaller units if you're doing a lot of work at that scale. And I'd certainly use those smaller measures in a microscopic setting - after all, that's what your measuring devices in a laboratory are normally calibrated in.
See, that's the big difference in mindset. SI proponents are set on driving all other systems extinct. Traditional metrics doesn't inspire that kind of fanatic extremism. We just use it where it works well, and happily use another system when that works better as well.
I agree, the submitter exhibited clearly faulty logic in his deduction that it would not be running XNU.
Also, I have to say, after the announcement that the phones will be locked down and prohibit third party apps, all stories about the iPhone ceased to be 'News for Nerds' or 'Stuff that matters.' At least until the story about how to hack around the locks appears...
Too bad we can't moderate the stories offtopic.
Just as I said, the traditional method works well for both thirds and fourths, while the SI system works well with fourths but not with thirds.
Not only have I done it, I know several people that do it full time. Not one of them strongly prefers metric - several hate it with a passion. Odd.
There's nothing difficult about adding 5/8 + 31/32, unless your school failed to teach you basic fractional arithematic. That's 51/32, I didn't even have count on my fingers, I could tell you that at a glance. And I'm really not very good at math. But come on, this is third grade stuff!
And for sure it should be intuitively obvious to anyone that's familiar with computers. If you have an eighth and a thirty second, the common divisor is obviously the thirty-second and the multiplier is 4, just as the word length on a 32bit computer is 4 (8 bit)bytes!
Sure, 30cm is a pretty easy measurement to work with. But it's not a third of a metre, nor even 'close enough' for the shoddiest construction.
And in comparison, a foot at least as easy for someone used to traditional measurements to visualise and work with as .3 metre is for someone accustomed to SI.
2.4 inches. What's so hard about that?
Yes, our pint is smaller :(
The bottles are usually 16 (us) fluid ounces, or 1 (us) pint. That's a little *less* than 500ml. And that sucks.
It's true, the mass produced beer here is utter crap, but fortunately we do have some microbreweries that put out stuff every bit as good as anything I've seen in Europe. And even though that comes with a premium price, our alcohol taxes are enough lower than northern europe that it's still cheaper to drink that here than cheap swill there. So that's something at least.
Yeah, a US pint is only 473 millilitres. That's 16 US fluid ounces, and again our fluid ounces (and gills) are slightly different as well.
Yes, that's absolutely true, they so often act like the US doesn't use their system, but we do, and have for years. We use it when it makes sense, or cents, to do so. We use our old system when that works better. What they really mean is when will our government start getting draconian on us and *forcing* us to use that system exclusively? Hopefully, never.
190,080 inches of course.
It's really fairly simple to calculate. One mile is 1760 yards. Each yard has three feet and each foot has 12 inches, so that means each yard is 36 inches, and 1760*36=63,360. No more difficult than dealing with numbers like 256, 512, 1024... in computing.
It's even simpler if you remember the furlong. A mile has exactly 8 of them. Each furlong has 220 yards.
Am I the only one that sometimes suspects the SI system was invented solely as an excuse to avoid learning basic fractional arithematic?