And if each car is located in a different city, then he'll have to go travelling in order to test all the criteria. Of course, he wouldn't want to end up hitting the same city twice...
Hm... not entirely sure, I don't do anything with MS Word anymore really. Although, this most certainly was the case back in 1995~98. (I wrote a concept Word macro virus and had to figure this out to make it work.)
Well, it's a netbook... so the BIOS has hardly any options at all.
As for the SVGA via VESA, the problem is that Windows 3.1 uses VESA 1, or at least before VESA 2, which really just put up a standard that people can write drivers to support... I don't remember the details, but suffice it to say, things were horribly ill supported.
I ran Windows NT 4 on a P166, dual-booting with DOS for games. I installed Windows 3.11 in DOS and it was amazingly fast, although running something designed for a 640x480 (16 colour!) display on a 1024x768 screen made it look a bit strange. Running on a modern system would probably be so fast that you'd barely have time to see the UI before you got the first general protection fault...
I've been stuck with an interesting dilemma a few times, where I installed a new hard drive into my netbook. Problem is, how do you install the OS? Well, the best option I had available at the time was to boot over the network with a virtual floppy and install DOS 7.0 on the machine. With that, I was actually able to at one point install Win 3.11, but the problem was that none of the drivers worked for the newer hardware, and the hardware had lost enough backwards compatibility to make the drivers that did exist not work. So, I was stuck with a vastly overspeced computer that couldn't even set the resolution above 640x480...:(
Where did you get that from? Remember that.doc is, potentially, an executable format (a Word macro can make arbitrary win32 API calls), not to mention the many exploits that rely on overflows in parsers of non-executable formats.
So, now here comes the interesting tidbit of pedantry. A.doc file cannot, I repeat cannot, contain a macro.
What can contain macros are.dot files, or document templates. The problem is that.dots are virtually identical to.docs, and if you take a.dot and rename it with a.doc extension it will be indistinguishable from a proper.doc file, thus all these macro viruses spread by parading document templates as simple documents. If Word were just smart enough to recognize that it is opening a document template with the extension of ".doc" and throw up an error/warning message, macro viruses would hardly be a problem.
I read the summary, and came to the same conclusion based on the charge. (A similar charge exists in the US, and I had to look it up for an internet debate at one point. A restricted-access computer generally has to be run by the government.)
Thanks for laying things out so clearly at the front of the article... I didn't even have to put the first leg of my pedantic-bitch pants on...
But figuring all this out is stupid. There's no reason we couldn't just ship single-doses. There's no reason we couldn't ship just big vats of vaccine to sterile hospitals and have them repackage it and distribute them as needed.
I believe most vaccines are distributed single dose now anymore.
I never said that preservatives were not necessary, but that there was no explanation given as to, "why thimerosal (the mercury presevative used in vaccines) was used as opposed to the raft of other potential presevatives." See that last part?
You didn't seem to do much investigation at all apparently: "Unlike other vaccine preservatives used at the time, thiomersal does not reduce the potency of the vaccines that it protects." reference indicated
So, they used thiomersal, because it is: a) necessary to use preservatives, and b) the only preservative that would not reduce the potency of the vaccine.
In multidose injectable drug delivery systems, it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection that, in one 1928 incident, killed 12 of 21 children inoculated with a diphtheria vaccine that lacked a preservative.
Keeping the vaccine refrigerated is not sufficient to preserve a multidose vaccine. Once you break a sterile seal, the item needs preservation.
Why don't single doses need preservatives? Because they can be kept sterilized until use.
Once a multidose is first used (or split outside of a sterilized clean room) it has now been exposed to bacteria, fungus, and simply putting it in the fridge won't fix that problem.
It works the same way as the anthropic principle. Why is the universe perfect for supporting life? Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have asked.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not the anthropic principle. The Anthropic Principle states that any explanation for the universe has to allow for the creation of human life, because we are known to exist. It does not give an answer to "why is intelligent life sustainable in this universe?"
The proper way to use the Anthropic Principle in this situation is, "why does this universe sustain intelligent life?" Answer from the Anthropic Principle is: "I don't know why, but even if the chances are minute that it would, it did."
Although you purport to be a neuroscientist, you clearly indicate that you have no idea how the vaccines were/are administered.
The vaccines were given preservatives because there was more than one shot per bottle. Thus, a doctor got about 10~20 or more shots in a single bottle, (of course they used a new sterile needle each time, though) As a result, since the time when the vaccine was first used to the time it was finished varied, it thus required a preservative.
With the advent of widely available single-dose vaccines, there is no more need for preservatives.
Why use multi-dose containers? It decreased packaging, and increased availability, which is absolutely important for vaccines.
Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Adoption rates are simply too low in this country as is to enact this plan. I propose a rider amendment that allows gays to adopt these children on an expedited schedule. Problems solved!
Inconvenient facts like this will not convince the Jenny McCarthys and Jim Careys of this world though.
Well, to be fair, Jim Carrey had to buy into this shit to get any from Jenny McCarthy. While some of the guys here at slashdot might have the moral integrity to refuse to believe nonsense just because the girl they want to have sex with believes it, the vast majority of guys do seem to be that "gullible". Perhaps "gullible" isn't the term though... something more like "willing to say anything to get into a girl's pants".
Yeah, I know, I'm being a misandrous bitch, but you guys make it too easy sometimes...
"clear" may have only one syllable, but it has (at least) two moras. Also, while "clear" is written with two vowels it is not really a diphthong. If it's pronounced/kli:r/ (X-SAMPA) then it is most definitely not a diphthong. And "proper" prescriptionist English says this is the proper pronunciation. As for the more common American/kli@'/, and the British/kli@/ (X-SAMPA again) then it does become a diphthong. But not of "e" and "a". The spelling actually has nothing to do with diphthongs.
"cake" still has a diphthong even though Americans consider it to be only a "pure" long A.
I call this the Programmer's Ego. We all know this person. They are the person where no matter what, their code is like God himself typed it up, and any questioning that code results in them flipping out about how their code is amazing and that stuff. Those guys suck to deal with because they refuse to accept if there is a flaw in their code. It gets old and annoying
Jesus, what I would have given for co-workers who actually could supply me with input about where my code was bad. I was stuck with a ton of co-workers who sent back code reviews saying only "looks good".
My manager was also a work-a-holic micromanager, resulting in him being unable to make any exceptions for anyone. The guy was a decent programmer... I'm actually fairly sad that he ended up being such a retarded manager.
I worked for just such a person. Of course, the wonderful thing was that with him as a boss, his easiest way to make himself look better was to take credit when I did good, and deny all fault when I did bad. Of course, I was one of the people from TFA, so they did a whole ton of mental gymnastics trying to explain to me why they were going to keep me on perpetual probation... you know, rather than making a choice to either keep me, and let me transfer to a new boss, or fire me.
They eventually fired me for being "inconsistent"... yeah, textbook "The Flake" from TFA.
The problem is that sometimes speculation is necessary. My dad works for a government authority, and they need to buy fuel. He needs to have a predictable budget, and so he buys fuel for a set price on a contract one year in advance. It is an "option", and is a form of speculation. The trick is allowing this kind of necessary contract without allowing blind betting. I think one way is to forbid selling contracts on something that you don't possess.
Yeah, I'm not really bothered by direct speculation, or speculation for intent of use. It's when the speculation starts building upon speculation itself that things start getting out of hand.
Yes, but that debt typically costs something like 20%. A solid corporation wouldn't be that bad of a risk, but still without being able to acquire an interest in the company in Chapter 11, all bonds would probably be priced like current "junk" bonds. Again, not the end of the world, but something to keep in mind.
Eh... the corporation has other assets rather than just shares. But I'm less interested in developing wealth expansion techniques than developing strong restrictions on corporations against exploitation of their employees.
The "wrong" was referring specifically to this point:
This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
I think you'll see that my response was entirely in line and you're trying to make an ass of me for no justified reason.
Considering that the definition of engineering is generally the application of technical, scientific, and/or mathematic knowledge to design and realize the creation of some desired structure/object/process or method. Thus electrical engineering is engineering by virtue of it meets the definition of using technical and scientific knowledge to design and realize the creation of electrical circuits. It is more than just macroscopic construction. This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
Wrong. The definition of property has been expended to include intellectual property. This is my point about the opinion being "reactionary denialism". You are refusing to allow for an expanded definition of "property" simply on arbitrary grounds that property did not include such things at one point.
You are attempting to constrain your definition of property against all other prevailing thought solely on the grounds that "that's not what property is", when everyone else agrees that that indeed actually is what property is.
It's the same argument that "gay marriage" isn't marriage because it is not between a man and a woman. It's retarded reactionary denialism.
If an employee were laid-off? Firstly, any lay offs would have to be democratically decided (since all major decisions by the company would have to be decided democratically.) If someone were to be part of the lay off group, then naturally they will receive a severance package, that would include terms about what happens to their share. Their share need not always be given up either though... our government grants benefits after retirement equal to the amount of work they put it. Perhaps the lay offs dictate that anyone with over X number of years in good standing with the company will retain their share, while the others will be "cashed out"... There really is a large amount of room for creativity here, as the only criterion need be that the employees consent to it. (Perhaps supermajority like.)
The co-op corporations still have corporate assets, and thus a set of capital, so individual shares are not worthless once the employee is gone. It's just that only the corporation could buy them back. But then, the price of the share is fixed at (objective corporate value / number of shares). No more bubbles from people speculating on the price of speculation on the price of speculation about the value of the corporation 5 milliseconds from now.
I personally am able to borrow more than the value of my assets, and corporations would naturally be granted the same rights to obtain unsecured debt. However, anyone investing in the company no longer gains share in the company, they merely gain a creditor status. Thus, they have defined conditions on what amount of interest they will receive (unless the company goes bankrupt). This of course produces less chances of people making fortunes by getting in early, but rather should produce a more stable market.
Basically I'm saying that giving a corporation the right to free speech is just as silly as giving it the right to bear arms. Or perhaps a more hilarious mental image would be a right to a trial by a jury of peers. A jury box full of incorporation papers?
No one has ever honestly suggested that "a jury of peers" should be dependent upon features of that individual. Should a jury of my peers be exclusively women?
In fact, the right to a jury in civil trials is a common and well exercised right of corporations.
Suggesting that a corporation can be called to jury duty is however interesting, but it is well established that certain things just cannot be expected of a non-natural person. As an example, a corporation must engage a lawyer to represent them in court. Even if the corporation has a single employee. This is because only natural persons can represent themselves pro se.
I'm not suggesting that we go back to the way that corporations were 100 years ago - I think that they are an essential part of our modern economy. But I think some of the limitations that corporations operated under in earlier days were prudent.
I definitely agree that corporations deserve to be highly restricted. (Have I already mentioned that I think that all corporations should be either non-profits or employee owned co-ops?)
The problem as I already mentioned, is that once you abstract corporations as persons, you start having to accept the unfortunate consequences thereof. After that, one can really only mitigate these consequences by doing things like, enforcing what can incorporate in the first place.
It's a difficult problem with no simply solution.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, they will allow a properly incorporated company in data recovery or intelligence agency to disassemble the drive, and hold it for 30 days.
However, as you noted, the challenge is only worth $40, you pay postage to have it delivered, and there is a $60 deposit...
It rather sounds like a really bad scam... but then, it's too stupid to even be logically possible as a scam, so it obviously can't be a scam.
And if each car is located in a different city, then he'll have to go travelling in order to test all the criteria. Of course, he wouldn't want to end up hitting the same city twice...
This is in semi-common use for communicating with idiots who accept only Word documents, since Word will accept plain-text or RTF...
OMG, that is just an incredible idea, lol!
Are you sure?
Hm... not entirely sure, I don't do anything with MS Word anymore really. Although, this most certainly was the case back in 1995~98. (I wrote a concept Word macro virus and had to figure this out to make it work.)
Well, it's a netbook... so the BIOS has hardly any options at all.
As for the SVGA via VESA, the problem is that Windows 3.1 uses VESA 1, or at least before VESA 2, which really just put up a standard that people can write drivers to support... I don't remember the details, but suffice it to say, things were horribly ill supported.
I ran Windows NT 4 on a P166, dual-booting with DOS for games. I installed Windows 3.11 in DOS and it was amazingly fast, although running something designed for a 640x480 (16 colour!) display on a 1024x768 screen made it look a bit strange. Running on a modern system would probably be so fast that you'd barely have time to see the UI before you got the first general protection fault...
I've been stuck with an interesting dilemma a few times, where I installed a new hard drive into my netbook. Problem is, how do you install the OS? Well, the best option I had available at the time was to boot over the network with a virtual floppy and install DOS 7.0 on the machine. With that, I was actually able to at one point install Win 3.11, but the problem was that none of the drivers worked for the newer hardware, and the hardware had lost enough backwards compatibility to make the drivers that did exist not work. So, I was stuck with a vastly overspeced computer that couldn't even set the resolution above 640x480... :(
Where did you get that from? Remember that .doc is, potentially, an executable format (a Word macro can make arbitrary win32 API calls), not to mention the many exploits that rely on overflows in parsers of non-executable formats.
So, now here comes the interesting tidbit of pedantry. A .doc file cannot, I repeat cannot, contain a macro.
What can contain macros are .dot files, or document templates. The problem is that .dots are virtually identical to .docs, and if you take a .dot and rename it with a .doc extension it will be indistinguishable from a proper .doc file, thus all these macro viruses spread by parading document templates as simple documents. If Word were just smart enough to recognize that it is opening a document template with the extension of ".doc" and throw up an error/warning message, macro viruses would hardly be a problem.
I read the summary, and came to the same conclusion based on the charge. (A similar charge exists in the US, and I had to look it up for an internet debate at one point. A restricted-access computer generally has to be run by the government.)
Thanks for laying things out so clearly at the front of the article... I didn't even have to put the first leg of my pedantic-bitch pants on...
From the summary: "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic] WAR."'
From the article: "in fear of being on the brink of another nucliar [sic] WAR".
It would help if posters didn't correct spelling for words which are followed by [sic].
THANK YOU!!! I was totally and utterly perplexed why that "[sic]" was there...
But figuring all this out is stupid. There's no reason we couldn't just ship single-doses. There's no reason we couldn't ship just big vats of vaccine to sterile hospitals and have them repackage it and distribute them as needed.
I believe most vaccines are distributed single dose now anymore.
I never said that preservatives were not necessary, but that there was no explanation given as to, "why thimerosal (the mercury presevative used in vaccines) was used as opposed to the raft of other potential presevatives." See that last part?
You didn't seem to do much investigation at all apparently: "Unlike other vaccine preservatives used at the time, thiomersal does not reduce the potency of the vaccines that it protects." reference indicated
So, they used thiomersal, because it is: a) necessary to use preservatives, and b) the only preservative that would not reduce the potency of the vaccine.
In multidose injectable drug delivery systems, it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection that, in one 1928 incident, killed 12 of 21 children inoculated with a diphtheria vaccine that lacked a preservative.
Keeping the vaccine refrigerated is not sufficient to preserve a multidose vaccine. Once you break a sterile seal, the item needs preservation.
Why don't single doses need preservatives? Because they can be kept sterilized until use.
Once a multidose is first used (or split outside of a sterilized clean room) it has now been exposed to bacteria, fungus, and simply putting it in the fridge won't fix that problem.
Ah, the magic of Slashdot where people, even those with UIDs nearly an order of magnitude larger than mine, feel free to be insulting.
Holy shit, when did a low Slashdot UID become some sort of credential that logically should immunize you in any way from any shit taking?
Of course, it's also not possible at all that I had a different account at one point, and this is a newer account than when I was originally using.
It works the same way as the anthropic principle. Why is the universe perfect for supporting life? Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have asked.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not the anthropic principle. The Anthropic Principle states that any explanation for the universe has to allow for the creation of human life, because we are known to exist. It does not give an answer to "why is intelligent life sustainable in this universe?"
The proper way to use the Anthropic Principle in this situation is, "why does this universe sustain intelligent life?" Answer from the Anthropic Principle is: "I don't know why, but even if the chances are minute that it would, it did."
Although you purport to be a neuroscientist, you clearly indicate that you have no idea how the vaccines were/are administered.
The vaccines were given preservatives because there was more than one shot per bottle. Thus, a doctor got about 10~20 or more shots in a single bottle, (of course they used a new sterile needle each time, though) As a result, since the time when the vaccine was first used to the time it was finished varied, it thus required a preservative.
With the advent of widely available single-dose vaccines, there is no more need for preservatives.
Why use multi-dose containers? It decreased packaging, and increased availability, which is absolutely important for vaccines.
Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Adoption rates are simply too low in this country as is to enact this plan. I propose a rider amendment that allows gays to adopt these children on an expedited schedule. Problems solved!
Inconvenient facts like this will not convince the Jenny McCarthys and Jim Careys of this world though.
Well, to be fair, Jim Carrey had to buy into this shit to get any from Jenny McCarthy. While some of the guys here at slashdot might have the moral integrity to refuse to believe nonsense just because the girl they want to have sex with believes it, the vast majority of guys do seem to be that "gullible". Perhaps "gullible" isn't the term though... something more like "willing to say anything to get into a girl's pants".
Yeah, I know, I'm being a misandrous bitch, but you guys make it too easy sometimes...
"clear" may have only one syllable, but it has (at least) two moras. Also, while "clear" is written with two vowels it is not really a diphthong. If it's pronounced /kli:r/ (X-SAMPA) then it is most definitely not a diphthong. And "proper" prescriptionist English says this is the proper pronunciation. As for the more common American /kli@'/, and the British /kli@/ (X-SAMPA again) then it does become a diphthong. But not of "e" and "a". The spelling actually has nothing to do with diphthongs.
"cake" still has a diphthong even though Americans consider it to be only a "pure" long A.
I call this the Programmer's Ego. We all know this person. They are the person where no matter what, their code is like God himself typed it up, and any questioning that code results in them flipping out about how their code is amazing and that stuff. Those guys suck to deal with because they refuse to accept if there is a flaw in their code. It gets old and annoying
Jesus, what I would have given for co-workers who actually could supply me with input about where my code was bad. I was stuck with a ton of co-workers who sent back code reviews saying only "looks good".
My manager was also a work-a-holic micromanager, resulting in him being unable to make any exceptions for anyone. The guy was a decent programmer... I'm actually fairly sad that he ended up being such a retarded manager.
I worked for just such a person. Of course, the wonderful thing was that with him as a boss, his easiest way to make himself look better was to take credit when I did good, and deny all fault when I did bad. Of course, I was one of the people from TFA, so they did a whole ton of mental gymnastics trying to explain to me why they were going to keep me on perpetual probation... you know, rather than making a choice to either keep me, and let me transfer to a new boss, or fire me.
They eventually fired me for being "inconsistent"... yeah, textbook "The Flake" from TFA.
The problem is that sometimes speculation is necessary. My dad works for a government authority, and they need to buy fuel. He needs to have a predictable budget, and so he buys fuel for a set price on a contract one year in advance. It is an "option", and is a form of speculation. The trick is allowing this kind of necessary contract without allowing blind betting. I think one way is to forbid selling contracts on something that you don't possess.
Yeah, I'm not really bothered by direct speculation, or speculation for intent of use. It's when the speculation starts building upon speculation itself that things start getting out of hand.
Yes, but that debt typically costs something like 20%. A solid corporation wouldn't be that bad of a risk, but still without being able to acquire an interest in the company in Chapter 11, all bonds would probably be priced like current "junk" bonds. Again, not the end of the world, but something to keep in mind.
Eh... the corporation has other assets rather than just shares. But I'm less interested in developing wealth expansion techniques than developing strong restrictions on corporations against exploitation of their employees.
The "wrong" was referring specifically to this point:
This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
I think you'll see that my response was entirely in line and you're trying to make an ass of me for no justified reason.
Considering that the definition of engineering is generally the application of technical, scientific, and/or mathematic knowledge to design and realize the creation of some desired structure/object/process or method. Thus electrical engineering is engineering by virtue of it meets the definition of using technical and scientific knowledge to design and realize the creation of electrical circuits. It is more than just macroscopic construction. This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
Wrong. The definition of property has been expended to include intellectual property. This is my point about the opinion being "reactionary denialism". You are refusing to allow for an expanded definition of "property" simply on arbitrary grounds that property did not include such things at one point.
You are attempting to constrain your definition of property against all other prevailing thought solely on the grounds that "that's not what property is", when everyone else agrees that that indeed actually is what property is.
It's the same argument that "gay marriage" isn't marriage because it is not between a man and a woman. It's retarded reactionary denialism.
If an employee were laid-off? Firstly, any lay offs would have to be democratically decided (since all major decisions by the company would have to be decided democratically.) If someone were to be part of the lay off group, then naturally they will receive a severance package, that would include terms about what happens to their share. Their share need not always be given up either though... our government grants benefits after retirement equal to the amount of work they put it. Perhaps the lay offs dictate that anyone with over X number of years in good standing with the company will retain their share, while the others will be "cashed out"... There really is a large amount of room for creativity here, as the only criterion need be that the employees consent to it. (Perhaps supermajority like.)
The co-op corporations still have corporate assets, and thus a set of capital, so individual shares are not worthless once the employee is gone. It's just that only the corporation could buy them back. But then, the price of the share is fixed at (objective corporate value / number of shares). No more bubbles from people speculating on the price of speculation on the price of speculation about the value of the corporation 5 milliseconds from now.
I personally am able to borrow more than the value of my assets, and corporations would naturally be granted the same rights to obtain unsecured debt. However, anyone investing in the company no longer gains share in the company, they merely gain a creditor status. Thus, they have defined conditions on what amount of interest they will receive (unless the company goes bankrupt). This of course produces less chances of people making fortunes by getting in early, but rather should produce a more stable market.
Basically I'm saying that giving a corporation the right to free speech is just as silly as giving it the right to bear arms. Or perhaps a more hilarious mental image would be a right to a trial by a jury of peers. A jury box full of incorporation papers?
No one has ever honestly suggested that "a jury of peers" should be dependent upon features of that individual. Should a jury of my peers be exclusively women?
In fact, the right to a jury in civil trials is a common and well exercised right of corporations.
Suggesting that a corporation can be called to jury duty is however interesting, but it is well established that certain things just cannot be expected of a non-natural person. As an example, a corporation must engage a lawyer to represent them in court. Even if the corporation has a single employee. This is because only natural persons can represent themselves pro se.
I'm not suggesting that we go back to the way that corporations were 100 years ago - I think that they are an essential part of our modern economy. But I think some of the limitations that corporations operated under in earlier days were prudent.
I definitely agree that corporations deserve to be highly restricted. (Have I already mentioned that I think that all corporations should be either non-profits or employee owned co-ops?)
The problem as I already mentioned, is that once you abstract corporations as persons, you start having to accept the unfortunate consequences thereof. After that, one can really only mitigate these consequences by doing things like, enforcing what can incorporate in the first place.
It's a difficult problem with no simply solution. :(