Wait--who relies on Microsoft to tell when they have off work? Since when is Microsoft the authority? Whatever MS may or may not say about holidays, it's your own fault if you listen to anyone other than your employer as to when you've got off work.
[T]he researchers found that if they injected the gasoline in three precisely timed bursts, they could avoid the too-rapid combustion that's made some previous experimental engines too noisy. At the same time, they could burn the fuel faster than in conventional gasoline engines, which is necessary for getting the most out of the fuel.
They used other strategies to help the engine perform well at extreme loads. For example, when the engine has just been started or is running at very low speeds, the temperatures in the combustion chamber can be too low to achieve combustion ignition. Under these conditions, the researchers directed exhaust gases into the combustion chamber to warm it up and facilitate combustion.
Mark Sellnau, engineering manager of advanced powertrain technology at Delphi Powertrain, says the engine could be paired with a battery pack and electric motor, as in hybrid cars, to improve efficiency still more, although he notes that it's not clear whether doing that would be worth the added cost.
She says TSA agents then made the situation worse when they didn't know what to do about her juice and insulin. "She said, because we don't have the machines to scan the juice to make sure this is not an explosive we do have to do a full body pat down and search your through your bags."
So, here is what I don't understand: how did the pat-down help the TSA determine that the juice and insulin were not actually explosives?
Well, now we've shown terrorists how to get explosives on a plane: pretend to be diabetic and bring your explosives in juice boxes and bags marked "insulin." Combine "juice" with "insulin" and get on the 5:00 news.
Since a president has somewhere near zero influence on social issues, I don't think you have anything to be scared of. This also makes me wonder why people vote for a president based on social views. Congress is a different story. Fiscal views also a different story. The reason I'd be scared if Santorum wins is due to something over which he does have control--he's stated that he wants to bomb Iran asap: http://www.newsmax.com/US/santorum-nuclear-iran-strike/2012/02/27/id/430721 Personally, I think that if we bomb Iran, Iran and it's even crazier president will respond in kind, and is therefore idiotic. We'll just get bombed. I'm glad I live in a rural place rather than a big city center.
Can a doctor "fire" a patient for continuing to smoke? For continuing to drink? How are we defining "drink?" For continuing to overeat? For continuing to eat lots of red meat? Fried food? Salt? For not being on the caveman diet?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of those items are contagious. Well, perhaps red meat, but certainly not the others.
Remember--this is the government we're talking about. I worked for the Virginia government a little over a year ago. We were on Windows 2000 with IE 5.5. I did not have permission to install a more up-to-date version of IE and could not convince IT to change anything. I was able to install FF and Opera. Once a month or so IT would do updates in the middle of the night, but when I got back to my computer in the morning the command prompt was up and said: "Your computer has been updated. Press enter to allow the changes to take effect. The computer will restart automatically." I press enter, the command prompt would do something and then the computer would not shut itself down (so I'd usually restart on my own. I asked colleagues whether their computers restart and they all said something along the lines of "Whenever that box is up on my computer when I get to work, I just 'x' it out because I don't know what it is." Basically, my comment sums up to this--I don't really trust government IT.
Insightful? I think he was joking. Have you tried to do math with roman numerals? Roman numerals are absolutely useless for math. There is nothing about roman numerals that can teach a skill useful to math (except, perhaps counting, because, although it isn't convenient, it is technically possible to count using roman numerals).
I don't know whether or not you're joking, but just in case you aren't...
The fines were not adjusted to a level that was intended to keep people from file sharing. The fines were set long before Napster was ever contemplated. The fines were set back when a lone person wasn't the target of copyright law, companies were. For example, in China, where copyright is weak, people make lots of money pirating movies and selling them without paying any royalties to the people who make the movies. They were also designed to prevent people from setting up their own movie theater and selling tickets to a movie without sharing the profits. US copyright law is intended to prevent this type of piracy--people profiting from piracy.
What we have here is that RIAA lawyers discovered that a single person pirating a song or movie (but not profiting from it) happens to fit under the same definitions as those folks that sell pirated movies for profit.
Additionally, if I recall correctly, the fine scheme is set up such that a plaintiff can demand actual damages OR statutory damages. Statutory damages being included as an option because in the type of damage caused by a person selling pirated DVDs/CDs/tickets to their own illegit theater are often extremely difficult to prove. So Congress chose a number that would shut down a piracy business.
Immense fines don't do a very good job preventing people from downloading music because it just doesn't seem realistic. Because it's absurd. Individuals are reaping fines designed for companies. It's like getting the death penalty for stealing a CD (note, by the way--downloading music is not the same as stealing a CD--that record store had to pay for that CD).
Interestingly enough, I graduated from BYU with a degree in psychology. And so I am able to say two things with confidence: Mormons and BYU do not avoid teaching human sexuality (or cut pages out of textbooks), and you are a troll.
Yes--the instructions just weren't there yet. Someone at Google jumped the gun on that info page. The instructions are now there--it consists of clicking on a button that says "Upgrade me" and then signing in to your google account.
I promise I'm not showing off, but I have a question for other existing GC users out there: I'm supposed to be able to "upgrade" to Google Voice if I have an existing GC account, but I don't seem to be able to do so. This is on the Google Voice info page:
What do I do if I am already a GrandCentral user? To upgrade to Google Voice, sign in to your GrandCentral account and follow the instructions at the top of your inbox.
But when I sign in to my GC Inbox, I do not see any instructions at the top. Have they just not been put up yet?
So, because she can't show that she distributed a song exactly, say five, times, she should be charged an absurdly high amount for each infringement? What happened to proving damages?
I think the problem is that the statute is not designed in a manner than can handle Napster and beyond peer-to-peer distribution. It is designed for instances in which an entity is making money off someone else's copyrighted work. Read the notes to the statute. It's pretty clear that Congress did not have in mind the possibility of someone sharing his or her individual music/movie/whatever collection with others on the Internet. Even Congress would not saddle a $150,000 fine on a person for sharing a $0.99 song.
That's something I don't understand. So, Knol plans to allow multiple articles on one topic? That sounds potentially confusing. So it will be less like an excyclopedia and more like a collection of essays with some degree of suggested editing allowed? It seems to me that the discription of being like Wikipedia is not quite correct--the average Wikipedia user is looking for one article regarding the topic typed in to the search box. I can see the benefits of having several competing articles/essays on a given topic, but I could also imagine many people saying "huh? Why did I get 5 results? Whatever, I'll just see what Citizendium or Wikipedia says."
I think the one-author model is problematic. Citizendium's Wikipedia-like collaberative model keeps bias in check. For example, what if Michael Behe, a biochemist, decided to write the article on "Evolution." He controls the content? It seems that it will be very difficult under any sort of one author model to get an unbiased article on just about any sensitive topic. When any approved "expert" can alter any article, however, there will be concessions to satisfy authors disagreeing on what should go in an article, ending up with a largely unbiased and very information piece. Much like many Wikipedia articles have turned out.
I also have somewhat of a problem with keeping non-experts out altogether. The experts like to write stuff, but they don't necessarily want to punctuate properly, or cite every little detail, or link to new articles as they come up, or format an article just so, etc. There any many non-experts who troll through Wikipedia looking for grammatical errors, places to add better citations, places to add [citation needed], etc. It seems that non-experts should be given some level of control in order to allow them to do what the experts aren't likely to do as much.
There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait--who relies on Microsoft to tell when they have off work? Since when is Microsoft the authority? Whatever MS may or may not say about holidays, it's your own fault if you listen to anyone other than your employer as to when you've got off work.
Do they also ban use of Gmail, etc., then?
All questions answered (from TFA):
[T]he researchers found that if they injected the gasoline in three precisely timed bursts, they could avoid the too-rapid combustion that's made some previous experimental engines too noisy. At the same time, they could burn the fuel faster than in conventional gasoline engines, which is necessary for getting the most out of the fuel.
They used other strategies to help the engine perform well at extreme loads. For example, when the engine has just been started or is running at very low speeds, the temperatures in the combustion chamber can be too low to achieve combustion ignition. Under these conditions, the researchers directed exhaust gases into the combustion chamber to warm it up and facilitate combustion.
Mark Sellnau, engineering manager of advanced powertrain technology at Delphi Powertrain, says the engine could be paired with a battery pack and electric motor, as in hybrid cars, to improve efficiency still more, although he notes that it's not clear whether doing that would be worth the added cost.
The article says:
She says TSA agents then made the situation worse when they didn't know what to do about her juice and insulin. "She said, because we don't have the machines to scan the juice to make sure this is not an explosive we do have to do a full body pat down and search your through your bags."
So, here is what I don't understand: how did the pat-down help the TSA determine that the juice and insulin were not actually explosives?
Well, now we've shown terrorists how to get explosives on a plane: pretend to be diabetic and bring your explosives in juice boxes and bags marked "insulin." Combine "juice" with "insulin" and get on the 5:00 news.
Answer is here:
http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#pre-rendering
Since a president has somewhere near zero influence on social issues, I don't think you have anything to be scared of. This also makes me wonder why people vote for a president based on social views. Congress is a different story. Fiscal views also a different story. The reason I'd be scared if Santorum wins is due to something over which he does have control--he's stated that he wants to bomb Iran asap:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/santorum-nuclear-iran-strike/2012/02/27/id/430721
Personally, I think that if we bomb Iran, Iran and it's even crazier president will respond in kind, and is therefore idiotic. We'll just get bombed. I'm glad I live in a rural place rather than a big city center.
Can a doctor "fire" a patient for continuing to smoke?
For continuing to drink? How are we defining "drink?"
For continuing to overeat?
For continuing to eat lots of red meat? Fried food? Salt?
For not being on the caveman diet?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any of those items are contagious. Well, perhaps red meat, but certainly not the others.
If you were reading /. [on a particular day] back in 2007, you would have seen this: Study Finds Bank of America SiteKey is Flawed. Also, see this: Vulnerability of Passmark Sitekey at Bank of America Reported. No site is really secure. Also, while BofA's site isn't bad from a usability perspective, I definitely prefer Wells-Fargo, which will be available in your area soon enough.
Remember--this is the government we're talking about. I worked for the Virginia government a little over a year ago. We were on Windows 2000 with IE 5.5. I did not have permission to install a more up-to-date version of IE and could not convince IT to change anything. I was able to install FF and Opera. Once a month or so IT would do updates in the middle of the night, but when I got back to my computer in the morning the command prompt was up and said: "Your computer has been updated. Press enter to allow the changes to take effect. The computer will restart automatically." I press enter, the command prompt would do something and then the computer would not shut itself down (so I'd usually restart on my own. I asked colleagues whether their computers restart and they all said something along the lines of "Whenever that box is up on my computer when I get to work, I just 'x' it out because I don't know what it is." Basically, my comment sums up to this--I don't really trust government IT.
Insightful? I think he was joking. Have you tried to do math with roman numerals? Roman numerals are absolutely useless for math. There is nothing about roman numerals that can teach a skill useful to math (except, perhaps counting, because, although it isn't convenient, it is technically possible to count using roman numerals).
I don't know whether or not you're joking, but just in case you aren't...
The fines were not adjusted to a level that was intended to keep people from file sharing. The fines were set long before Napster was ever contemplated. The fines were set back when a lone person wasn't the target of copyright law, companies were. For example, in China, where copyright is weak, people make lots of money pirating movies and selling them without paying any royalties to the people who make the movies. They were also designed to prevent people from setting up their own movie theater and selling tickets to a movie without sharing the profits. US copyright law is intended to prevent this type of piracy--people profiting from piracy.
What we have here is that RIAA lawyers discovered that a single person pirating a song or movie (but not profiting from it) happens to fit under the same definitions as those folks that sell pirated movies for profit.
Additionally, if I recall correctly, the fine scheme is set up such that a plaintiff can demand actual damages OR statutory damages. Statutory damages being included as an option because in the type of damage caused by a person selling pirated DVDs/CDs/tickets to their own illegit theater are often extremely difficult to prove. So Congress chose a number that would shut down a piracy business.
Immense fines don't do a very good job preventing people from downloading music because it just doesn't seem realistic. Because it's absurd. Individuals are reaping fines designed for companies. It's like getting the death penalty for stealing a CD (note, by the way--downloading music is not the same as stealing a CD--that record store had to pay for that CD).
Interestingly enough, I graduated from BYU with a degree in psychology. And so I am able to say two things with confidence: Mormons and BYU do not avoid teaching human sexuality (or cut pages out of textbooks), and you are a troll.
It was posted at 8:00 on a Sunday night--what were you hoping for?
This is a good story. Poe was a smart guy. Verne ripped this one off of him a few years later, though.
Yes--the instructions just weren't there yet. Someone at Google jumped the gun on that info page. The instructions are now there--it consists of clicking on a button that says "Upgrade me" and then signing in to your google account.
I promise I'm not showing off, but I have a question for other existing GC users out there:
I'm supposed to be able to "upgrade" to Google Voice if I have an existing GC account, but I don't seem to be able to do so.
This is on the Google Voice info page:
What do I do if I am already a GrandCentral user?
To upgrade to Google Voice, sign in to your GrandCentral account and follow the instructions at the top of your inbox.
But when I sign in to my GC Inbox, I do not see any instructions at the top. Have they just not been put up yet?
So, because she can't show that she distributed a song exactly, say five, times, she should be charged an absurdly high amount for each infringement? What happened to proving damages?
I think the problem is that the statute is not designed in a manner than can handle Napster and beyond peer-to-peer distribution. It is designed for instances in which an entity is making money off someone else's copyrighted work. Read the notes to the statute. It's pretty clear that Congress did not have in mind the possibility of someone sharing his or her individual music/movie/whatever collection with others on the Internet. Even Congress would not saddle a $150,000 fine on a person for sharing a $0.99 song.
details briefly leaked on website Wikileaks
What? "briefly" leaked? Does this mean Wikileaks removed those details? I thought that was against Wikileaks policy.
I'll assume you're new here, asking in ernest, and answer this for you.
TFA = The F****** Article
RTFA = Read The F****** Article
Yeah, it's /.
In that case, I'll tell my wife that the new X-Files movie is a documentary.
If he writes an article on evolution
That's something I don't understand. So, Knol plans to allow multiple articles on one topic? That sounds potentially confusing. So it will be less like an excyclopedia and more like a collection of essays with some degree of suggested editing allowed? It seems to me that the discription of being like Wikipedia is not quite correct--the average Wikipedia user is looking for one article regarding the topic typed in to the search box. I can see the benefits of having several competing articles/essays on a given topic, but I could also imagine many people saying "huh? Why did I get 5 results? Whatever, I'll just see what Citizendium or Wikipedia says."
Oh, the danger! Criminals at large! I'd better call my wife to warn her of the spam that will soon be in her inbox!
I think the one-author model is problematic. Citizendium's Wikipedia-like collaberative model keeps bias in check. For example, what if Michael Behe, a biochemist, decided to write the article on "Evolution." He controls the content? It seems that it will be very difficult under any sort of one author model to get an unbiased article on just about any sensitive topic. When any approved "expert" can alter any article, however, there will be concessions to satisfy authors disagreeing on what should go in an article, ending up with a largely unbiased and very information piece. Much like many Wikipedia articles have turned out.
I also have somewhat of a problem with keeping non-experts out altogether. The experts like to write stuff, but they don't necessarily want to punctuate properly, or cite every little detail, or link to new articles as they come up, or format an article just so, etc. There any many non-experts who troll through Wikipedia looking for grammatical errors, places to add better citations, places to add [citation needed], etc. It seems that non-experts should be given some level of control in order to allow them to do what the experts aren't likely to do as much.
Science ignorance on the rise
I love it when people think they know everything and don't even see if these scientists even considered the issue.
So, correction:
Reader ignorance on the rise.
This is why we RTFA:
There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.
Lime is an alkalide.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide
Also here: http://www.cquestrate.com/