I find disabling power to the cargo hatch and setting the Frame Shift Drive and Interdictor modules to priority 2 solves most power issues. Especially when using Sheild cell banks and medium beam lasers.
Running out of money and not getting rich are two different things. If you're on 90k euro a year and you're running out of money, you need to reevaluate your expenditure. I consider myself running out of money when i can only afford a 2.50GBP ready meal instead of spending 4 pounds on a proper meal.
To be fair, genericised trademarks get pluralised a lot in the UK at least, hoovers for example, and it doesn't sound bad. The reason to not say "LEGOs" is it makes you sound like Ralph Wiggum.
I love the irony that you're evading the point he made by accusing him of "running away". We all know why people "run away" from you APK, it's because you refuse to engage with the argument and just keep spamming non-sequiturs until people just shrug and walk off. Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be checkmated in two moves, but you'll still shit all above the board and strut around like you've won. You are completely mental, and I guarantee that your response to this post will only demonstrate that further. Let me assure you, you can post whatever nonsense you like in response, safe in the knowledge that I won't be engaging with it because it's a waste of my time. I anticipate...ooohh say... ~4 posts that are thinly disguised as posts from 4 different ACs that are clearly all written by you. I'll be disappointed if you don't include the phrase "run forrest, run".
It's 34 orders of magnitude more complex. *34*. That's fucking huge.
Take the size of the search space as rule of thumb. I remember 1Gb drives becoming run of the mill about 17 years ago. 1Tb drives were, what, about 5 years ago (i might be behind the times)? So let's say you can do 3 orders of magnitude in about 12 years.
That makes 408 years before we can solve no limit hold'em, unless the rate of complexity of computers accelerates, which it might, who knows, but even so, we're not going to compress that down to 5 years.
To get to a harddisc that could contain 10^34 times as much information on an 11Tb disc, you would need to blow past petabytes,exabytes, zettabytes and yottabytes, and that's not going to happen in 5 years.
I think you mean "It's too bad *that* you *never seemingly* took any English courses". Perhaps you should take an English course. More urgently, you should stop being a prick.
During these "bitcoin is a scam" arguments, no one ever seems talks about using bitcoin for what it was designed. As an alternative medium of exchange. I would never keep money in bitcoin, because it's chaotic. I never keep money in my paypal account either, but that's not what it's for - it's just a very useful tool for buying things in certain circumstances.
It's still not theft. If you were stealing someone's creative work you would be going to where they keep their source materials and removing them, depriving the creator of access to their work. What you are doing when you pirate something is experiencing the work without remunerating the creator.
These are two separate and distinct acts, with entirely different consequences. Not giving something to someone is not the same as taking something away from someone. Now you can argue that both situations are equally reprehensible if that is your judgement. But they are not synonymous. There are subtle but important differences that underpin the whole argument, and coherent discussion can't proceed unless you appreciate this difference.
Precise use of language is important, as it reduces muddled thinking and enables a clear argument to be made. Banging out the word "theft" at every opportunity as an appeal to your own emotional response to the injustice you perceive is preventing you from understanding the other side of the argument.
Also that remark at the end of the summary about driving a manual transmission car being something people do for the sake of it- that's a rather US-centric attitude. Most cars in the UK are manual because automatics drink a siginificantly larger amount of petrol.
Presumably they aren't allowed to block proxybay.info because that is always up, and just gives you the working pirate bay proxy du jour.
I'm not sure what the significance or notability of them blocking a members only torrent site is though. Irrespective of what access people have to it, it's still a torrent site. Or am I missing something?
You expressed your point by saying " the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true". All anyone gets from reading that sentence is that you're saying Homeopathy hasn't been thoroughly discredited as a scientific concept, which it clearly has. It "may be true" in the same sense that I may spontaneously teleport to mars due to quantum chance.
I agree, pills don't help unless you have some kind of identifiable chemical deficiency. But i'd argue that anger is pretty much the fuel of depression. You can't be happy until you let go of anger. Sure you can feel some visceral satisfaction in directing your anger at other people, and it's much less painful than repressing it or turning it on yourself, but in the end, you're still angry, not happy.
We can set aside the distinction between clinical/nonclinical depression, because for both of those cases you're implying that somehow the sufferer deserves the condition they have presumably due to what you regard as neglect, cowardice or laziness, and they should be given no consideration as requiring any kind of outside assistance or special care. They are just "sad" and should get over themselves. For both clinical and non-clinical depression that is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.
It's about you, and how you perceive the world.
And unfortunately, a lot of the time that perception is sufficiently distorted that the sufferer has no hope of correcting it without therapy and outside assistance. It's not like they can just "man up" one day and abracadabra, they're cured, because after all, they were just choosing to feel sorry for themselves all along. The emotional pain inflicted by depression exerts tremendous influence on what the sufferer is able to believe.
It's not some mystical force.
And neither is human willpower. The concious decision making part of the mind is heavily manipulated by the emotional part, and often outright controlled by it.
There's a couple of hundred prophesies about Jesus, some obvious, some you'd never realise without it being pointed out.
If they were truly prophecies about Jesus, passed down from God, you would think it would be a matter of sufficient importance that he would ensure the prophecies were unambiguous and clear. In fact, being from God, you would expect them to stand out as a slamdunk of miraculous and inexplicable prescience.
Instead you have something that looks exactly like the handwaving after-the-fact postdiction of the likes of astrology and the quatrains of Nostradamus.
Why couldn't God do better than those deluded fallible humans? Because the bible was written by deluded fallible humans, and the God described in it is their invention. It's just so clear and obvious to someone without a pre-determined conclusion. Don't wheel in a load of special pleading and rationalisation. Don't load yourself up with all this cognitive dissonance.
We wouldn't have those expectations (omnipotent, omnisicient, loving) without the Bible telling us that's what God it like.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The only source material you have to base any of your expectations on is the Bible. If you're going to be reasonable and rational, you have to be able to trust what the Bible says. If the bible is demonstrably unreliable you just can't do that.
It goes double if the bible purports to be an expression of omniscience and infallible integrity. Any demonstrated shakiness or holes in the story immediately puts the lie to the entire premise. Given it's claims, the bible needs to be an awe-inspiring paragon of resplendent perfection. But it's not be any stretch. It's a mostly tedious and sketchy hodge podge of confusing inconsistent mythology, patched together over hundreds of years in several acts of historical revisionism aimed at wedding different religions together to maintain social stability.
God doesn't conform to our expectations or predetermined conclusions.
That shouldn't be used as a critical thinking ejector seat. Once you do that you're lost forever in the story, because then absolutely no amount of logical inconsistency, hypocrisy and self-contradiction can slap you in the face hard enough to wake you up to the fact that all of it is quite obviously the ad-hoc conglomeration of the imagination of several disparate groups of humans.
Say that I wrote a book about how I was the creator of the universe and I rebuffed any questioning of the veracity of claims by saying that it all makes sense, it's just that whenever it seems like doesn't, it means people aren't capable of understanding it, but that you should just trust me anyway. Given that situation, if you applied the level of rigour to which you hold the bible, you would be just a justified in believing my half-assed story as you would the bible.
The "all the rules change when Jesus shows up" rationalisation does nothing to explain away why any of these ludicrous and ethically reprehensible rules were applied initially. It doesn't matter how you grease the cognitive dissonance. If you look at the bible with an open mind, asking the question "is this book the ineffable word of an omnipotent, omniscient and all loving supreme being?" you see that it's clearly not. Looked at with a genuinely neutral, open-mind and rational pair of eyes, it is so obviously an ad-hoc conglomeration of often unrelated and incompatible myths and folklore, about which there is fairly decent explanation of the history of where all the bits came from and how they were brought together.
If you look at the bible with a predetermined conclusion that is must be the word of that supreme being, and ask the question "what laundry list of post-hoc explanations do I need to memorise so that I can keep squinting at it in just the right way that I can convince myself none of the glaring inconsistencies are there?" you can, along with absolutely any other fantasy, keep yourself trapped in the delusion for as long as you like.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, it is a bit backwards
tags or usetags for new lines.
I find disabling power to the cargo hatch and setting the Frame Shift Drive and Interdictor modules to priority 2 solves most power issues. Especially when using Sheild cell banks and medium beam lasers.
If you want a break you can eat off a plate like everyone else.
So what is prescriptive in this situation? What it is the arbiter of right and wrong?
Running out of money and not getting rich are two different things. If you're on 90k euro a year and you're running out of money, you need to reevaluate your expenditure. I consider myself running out of money when i can only afford a 2.50GBP ready meal instead of spending 4 pounds on a proper meal.
To be fair, genericised trademarks get pluralised a lot in the UK at least, hoovers for example, and it doesn't sound bad. The reason to not say "LEGOs" is it makes you sound like Ralph Wiggum.
I love the irony that you're evading the point he made by accusing him of "running away". We all know why people "run away" from you APK, it's because you refuse to engage with the argument and just keep spamming non-sequiturs until people just shrug and walk off. Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be checkmated in two moves, but you'll still shit all above the board and strut around like you've won. You are completely mental, and I guarantee that your response to this post will only demonstrate that further. Let me assure you, you can post whatever nonsense you like in response, safe in the knowledge that I won't be engaging with it because it's a waste of my time. I anticipate...ooohh say... ~4 posts that are thinly disguised as posts from 4 different ACs that are clearly all written by you. I'll be disappointed if you don't include the phrase "run forrest, run".
Hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
It's 34 orders of magnitude more complex. *34*. That's fucking huge.
Take the size of the search space as rule of thumb. I remember 1Gb drives becoming run of the mill about 17 years ago. 1Tb drives were, what, about 5 years ago (i might be behind the times)? So let's say you can do 3 orders of magnitude in about 12 years.
That makes 408 years before we can solve no limit hold'em, unless the rate of complexity of computers accelerates, which it might, who knows, but even so, we're not going to compress that down to 5 years.
To get to a harddisc that could contain 10^34 times as much information on an 11Tb disc, you would need to blow past petabytes,exabytes, zettabytes and yottabytes, and that's not going to happen in 5 years.
I think you mean "It's too bad *that* you *never seemingly* took any English courses". Perhaps you should take an English course. More urgently, you should stop being a prick.
The James Webb Space Telescope
During these "bitcoin is a scam" arguments, no one ever seems talks about using bitcoin for what it was designed. As an alternative medium of exchange. I would never keep money in bitcoin, because it's chaotic. I never keep money in my paypal account either, but that's not what it's for - it's just a very useful tool for buying things in certain circumstances.
It's still not theft. If you were stealing someone's creative work you would be going to where they keep their source materials and removing them, depriving the creator of access to their work. What you are doing when you pirate something is experiencing the work without remunerating the creator.
These are two separate and distinct acts, with entirely different consequences. Not giving something to someone is not the same as taking something away from someone. Now you can argue that both situations are equally reprehensible if that is your judgement. But they are not synonymous. There are subtle but important differences that underpin the whole argument, and coherent discussion can't proceed unless you appreciate this difference.
Precise use of language is important, as it reduces muddled thinking and enables a clear argument to be made. Banging out the word "theft" at every opportunity as an appeal to your own emotional response to the injustice you perceive is preventing you from understanding the other side of the argument.
she didn't wear a tight catsuit though. I think the OP is misinformed.
Also that remark at the end of the summary about driving a manual transmission car being something people do for the sake of it- that's a rather US-centric attitude. Most cars in the UK are manual because automatics drink a siginificantly larger amount of petrol.
Presumably they aren't allowed to block proxybay.info because that is always up, and just gives you the working pirate bay proxy du jour. I'm not sure what the significance or notability of them blocking a members only torrent site is though. Irrespective of what access people have to it, it's still a torrent site. Or am I missing something?
You could subscribe to a VPN or Proxy service that is based in the U.S. Bit galling to (I assume) pay for a service to fix the issue of course.
You expressed your point by saying " the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true". All anyone gets from reading that sentence is that you're saying Homeopathy hasn't been thoroughly discredited as a scientific concept, which it clearly has. It "may be true" in the same sense that I may spontaneously teleport to mars due to quantum chance.
I agree, pills don't help unless you have some kind of identifiable chemical deficiency. But i'd argue that anger is pretty much the fuel of depression. You can't be happy until you let go of anger. Sure you can feel some visceral satisfaction in directing your anger at other people, and it's much less painful than repressing it or turning it on yourself, but in the end, you're still angry, not happy.
We can set aside the distinction between clinical/nonclinical depression, because for both of those cases you're implying that somehow the sufferer deserves the condition they have presumably due to what you regard as neglect, cowardice or laziness, and they should be given no consideration as requiring any kind of outside assistance or special care. They are just "sad" and should get over themselves. For both clinical and non-clinical depression that is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.
It's about you, and how you perceive the world.
And unfortunately, a lot of the time that perception is sufficiently distorted that the sufferer has no hope of correcting it without therapy and outside assistance. It's not like they can just "man up" one day and abracadabra, they're cured, because after all, they were just choosing to feel sorry for themselves all along. The emotional pain inflicted by depression exerts tremendous influence on what the sufferer is able to believe.
It's not some mystical force.
And neither is human willpower. The concious decision making part of the mind is heavily manipulated by the emotional part, and often outright controlled by it.
You understand nothing about clinical depression. You should be grateful that you don't.
Don't make me Stan Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Stan Lee.
There's a couple of hundred prophesies about Jesus, some obvious, some you'd never realise without it being pointed out.
If they were truly prophecies about Jesus, passed down from God, you would think it would be a matter of sufficient importance that he would ensure the prophecies were unambiguous and clear. In fact, being from God, you would expect them to stand out as a slamdunk of miraculous and inexplicable prescience.
Instead you have something that looks exactly like the handwaving after-the-fact postdiction of the likes of astrology and the quatrains of Nostradamus.
Why couldn't God do better than those deluded fallible humans? Because the bible was written by deluded fallible humans, and the God described in it is their invention. It's just so clear and obvious to someone without a pre-determined conclusion. Don't wheel in a load of special pleading and rationalisation. Don't load yourself up with all this cognitive dissonance.
We wouldn't have those expectations (omnipotent, omnisicient, loving) without the Bible telling us that's what God it like.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The only source material you have to base any of your expectations on is the Bible. If you're going to be reasonable and rational, you have to be able to trust what the Bible says. If the bible is demonstrably unreliable you just can't do that.
It goes double if the bible purports to be an expression of omniscience and infallible integrity. Any demonstrated shakiness or holes in the story immediately puts the lie to the entire premise. Given it's claims, the bible needs to be an awe-inspiring paragon of resplendent perfection. But it's not be any stretch. It's a mostly tedious and sketchy hodge podge of confusing inconsistent mythology, patched together over hundreds of years in several acts of historical revisionism aimed at wedding different religions together to maintain social stability.
God doesn't conform to our expectations or predetermined conclusions.
That shouldn't be used as a critical thinking ejector seat. Once you do that you're lost forever in the story, because then absolutely no amount of logical inconsistency, hypocrisy and self-contradiction can slap you in the face hard enough to wake you up to the fact that all of it is quite obviously the ad-hoc conglomeration of the imagination of several disparate groups of humans.
Say that I wrote a book about how I was the creator of the universe and I rebuffed any questioning of the veracity of claims by saying that it all makes sense, it's just that whenever it seems like doesn't, it means people aren't capable of understanding it, but that you should just trust me anyway. Given that situation, if you applied the level of rigour to which you hold the bible, you would be just a justified in believing my half-assed story as you would the bible.
The "all the rules change when Jesus shows up" rationalisation does nothing to explain away why any of these ludicrous and ethically reprehensible rules were applied initially. It doesn't matter how you grease the cognitive dissonance. If you look at the bible with an open mind, asking the question "is this book the ineffable word of an omnipotent, omniscient and all loving supreme being?" you see that it's clearly not. Looked at with a genuinely neutral, open-mind and rational pair of eyes, it is so obviously an ad-hoc conglomeration of often unrelated and incompatible myths and folklore, about which there is fairly decent explanation of the history of where all the bits came from and how they were brought together.
If you look at the bible with a predetermined conclusion that is must be the word of that supreme being, and ask the question "what laundry list of post-hoc explanations do I need to memorise so that I can keep squinting at it in just the right way that I can convince myself none of the glaring inconsistencies are there?" you can, along with absolutely any other fantasy, keep yourself trapped in the delusion for as long as you like.