I've been running 64-bit operating systems exclusively for over 2 years now: WinXP, Ubuntu Feisty-Jaunty (I missed a couple in there when my MBR ate itself and I was too lazy to fix it, but i think i used most of them) and Win7 beta (for about 3 hours before trashing it, another story) all work(ed) just fine with nothing actually failing to run due to 64-bit noncompliance. I've yet to find any of the horrible incompatibility problems people have been bitching about so far. Then again, I don't see any of the Firefox memory leaks either, so maybe I'm just lucky.
How is that even Slashdotters seem to forget nothing in computing is static, that any arbitrary amount of storage or memory or speed will inevitably come to exist? It was only a few years ago that 1tb HDDs were an object of speculation themselves, SSDs will get there soon enough.
"Let's face it. If you don't get a red line underneath what you are typing we know just assume that its okay to submit."
Is that so? I wonder if you could come up with an example of this phenomenon for us, perhaps a time when you, say, added an extra letter to the word you intended, thereby turning it into another correctly spelled word which made no sense in context. I'd bet you're pretty good about not doing it though, since you're clearly better at spelling than all the people at AP, Reuters, The New York Frikkin' Times, etc.
Sorry, that option is disabled for anyone who can quote Diablo 3.
On a side note, I actually hadn't realized that a third Diablo installment had been released. Maybe I blocked it out after having all my hopes and dreams betrayed by the first sequel.
Ok, I have mod points assigned, and I was going to spend them, but I just have to respond.
FCI Loretto. I've been there, I've seen it. It may not be Camp Mead, but it's still pretty swanky for a prison. The deer living in that valley will actually eat from your hand, they're so used to people walking around not hurting them. Many of the inmates are bankers, lawyers, politicians or businessmen who got caught committing low violence high dollar crimes (like investment fraud), although there are also some high profile Mafia types.
Maybe no golf course, but it's hardly hell on Earth.
I didn't really "get" limits until I started calculating instantaneous velocities based on acceleration. I could tell you the concept, and I could roughly explain what it was, but I couldn't really fathom what it was, how it made sense, or why anyone would ever bother.
I suppose that to a very abstraction-minded person it could go the other way, and I think that's probably the biggest difference between a mathematician and a physicist, formal study aside.
In Sprint's defense, they are already partially part GSM. Since they acquired Nextel in 200_ they've been operating the biggest iDEN network around (which is like being the smartest kid in special ed, but take what victories you can), and iDEN actually runs on a GSM backbone with extra spiffy bits to allow push-to-talk and the like. Hence, they are partially part GSM.
It also specifies nothing was found... they could have claimed the non-existent ibuprofen was veterinary strength and it wouldn't have changed a damned thing.
I come from a family of educators, I know a huge number of teachers, and I have NEVER heard of anyone thinking it's a good idea to force a 13 year old girl to disrobe in front of a school administrator for any reason whatsoever. What the fuck is wrong with these idiots? And over goddamn suspected IBUPROFEN of all things? Did I take a nap and suddenly ibuprofen is considered to be somehow dangerous? I could *almost* see a point to this if they thought she had meth or something in her panties, but Advil?
SCOTUS ruling that they can't be held personally accountable or not, these idiots will probably have to spend the rest of their lives checking over both shoulders for somebody who couldn't care any less what the ruling was.
Lack of jurisdiction and complete inability to enforce whatever ruling is made. Where would you sue them? How would you make them pay up? Since neither of those questions has a particularly obvious or workable answer, suing them for copyright violations is pretty much a non-starter.
"Wouldn't this affect both ears equally? (Unless the scientists did something terribly stupid, such as asking into the right ear in the beginning of the night, and into the left ear at the end of the night)"
Given the silly test, that's precisely what I'm asking if they did. It would be an easy mistake, asking X people for cigarettes in their right ears, then going back to do the same for the left, but in this context it would be a killer.
"Unless they "assigned" a specific ear to each person asking, this should not matter."
There are a lot of social factors involved, even if ears were randomized. If some of the testers "randomly" selected people to ask who are socially unlikely to give them a cigarette in the left ear, and "randomly" selected more likely social choices to ask in right ears, it would be virtually impossible to address or even discover in their data, but it would have an enormous effect.
"And NASA gets involved and makes you change your sensible metric measurements into furlongs and hogsheads."
That's because real men are concerned with how many stones we can move one furlong on a hogshead of fuel, only whiners and frogs want metric. Oh, and anyone who isn't a raving psychopath or ultra-nationalist whack job. They don't count though, because this is America, land of the raving and home of the Whopper.
Try handing in a paper that your roommate wrote with your name on it some time and getting caught. You'll find that just because he said it was cool, doesn't mean it isn't plagiarism.
A much better argument is that, ultimately, plagiarism is almost never a black and white issue. how many words in a row do I have to use for it to count? 10? 5? 2? Should every single paper have to cite the language(s) in which it is written because otherwise it is copying that culture's work without giving credit? Maybe we should only do it with words or phrases we can actually pinpoint to origin of... so if I use "assassinate" I should credit Shakespeare for being the first known user of the term? Do I cite my source for that factoid as part of the citation? What happens if somebody just doesn't remember where they learned a piece of relatively minor information, or turn of phrase? Should they avoid using it because they cannot give a proper citation? It is incredibly rare, so rare that it is questionable that it ever happens, that anyone actually comes up with something totally new, that doesn't reference or come from something else, so where do we draw the line between "this is plagiarism" and "this is the natural synthesis of information"?
I have personally witnessed several rational and intelligent people reading the same piece, comparing it to several alleged uncredited sources, and coming to completely different conclusions as to whether or not it was plagiarized and what it was plagiarized from. Ultimately, it seems like the answer mostly lies in the context of the work more so than than the work itself, in the rules that govern that particular item. If you write a poem, nobody ever expects you to list every other poem you've ever seen that might have influenced it in some way, let alone give any information as to how... but if you write an essay about particle physics they sure do. It's certainly not because one has more or less potential to be completely ripped off from somebody else's work, so why is it?
And what if, instead of apologizing, he'd essentially said "yeah, I edit Wikipedia, and I helped write those passages"? Would it still be plagiarism at all? It certainly makes plagiarism a messy accusation to level if he had some part in writing the source to begin with.
That also strikes me as a terribly unscientific test... even in Italy, not everyone smokes, and even the ones who do may be out of cigarettes or in a location not conducive to smoking. did they also record the number of people who gave logical, but negative (ie. "I don't have any"), responses? What if they didn't ask for cigarettes until the end of the night, so they were in short supply?
What if people just got sick of them mooching and said no out of spite? As a former smoker, I can reasonably state that most are pretty generous to a point, but once you cross it they run out of sympathy very quickly... bumming cigarettes off of everyone you see can get you to that point very quickly.
Did they make sure to get an even mix of responses for males asking males, males asking females, females asking females and females asking males? Did they make sure not to have the person asking in left ears be the one with no social skills and bad breath? When I was a smoker, a cute girl had a MUCH better shot at getting a cigarette from me than, say, some whiny dude... given that this was done at nightclubs, and what many people actually go to nightclubs to (attemp to) do, this is actually a pretty major consideration that I somehow doubt they took into consideration.
And what the hell is with that sample size? 176 people? You went to 3 Italian nightclubs and could only find 176 smokers to ask for cigarettes between them? At least pretend you're trying to gather a statistically significant number of responses.
I'm not necessarily sure that they shouldn't have run any experiments simply because it is their hypothesis... but if they're going to claim some sort of success for it then they certainly need a better experiment than asking people for cigarettes at a nightclub. Honestly though, if nobody ever did scientists to test their own hypotheses, we'd probably still be in the Aristotelian phase of scientific concept.
"It seems to me they don't want to compete, they want to bitch and make the competition less competitive."
Thank you for reminding me of the single biggest flaw in capitalistic competition theory... given the choice, no capitalist would ever compete, and given actual circumstances that happens more often than we might like to think.
Avast! only nagged me once in the last 12 months, when it wanted me to re-register it tried selling me on the pay versions... but other than that, it just quietly works away.
I tried, but the Post Office returned it because that's not a valid address. Sorry, I was really looking forward to version 1.0 of Hello World Flasher Edition, too.
Just an Average Joe who made a fortune running booze in from Canada and bought up tons of real estate and small businesses with the proceeds. The Kennedys since him haven't actually had to work very hard for their money, it just never really runs out.
That's only because your local utility hasn't figured out that they can make plenty of money doing nothing but monitor and switch power between customers, cranking up their big expensive generators only when additional power is needed. Buy excess energy from households which produce more than they need, then switch/sell it to other households which do not at a markup. Income might take a nosedive, but so would generation costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been running 64-bit operating systems exclusively for over 2 years now: WinXP, Ubuntu Feisty-Jaunty (I missed a couple in there when my MBR ate itself and I was too lazy to fix it, but i think i used most of them) and Win7 beta (for about 3 hours before trashing it, another story) all work(ed) just fine with nothing actually failing to run due to 64-bit noncompliance. I've yet to find any of the horrible incompatibility problems people have been bitching about so far. Then again, I don't see any of the Firefox memory leaks either, so maybe I'm just lucky.
Wait a year and a half, it'll be here.
How is that even Slashdotters seem to forget nothing in computing is static, that any arbitrary amount of storage or memory or speed will inevitably come to exist? It was only a few years ago that 1tb HDDs were an object of speculation themselves, SSDs will get there soon enough.
He thinks that accusing somebody of not being an atheist is in some way insulting. It was a bizarre and misguided attempt at ad hominem.
After a while, you don't even see the code, just "In Soviet Russia...", goatse, lolcat....
"Let's face it. If you don't get a red line underneath what you are typing we know just assume that its okay to submit."
Is that so? I wonder if you could come up with an example of this phenomenon for us, perhaps a time when you, say, added an extra letter to the word you intended, thereby turning it into another correctly spelled word which made no sense in context. I'd bet you're pretty good about not doing it though, since you're clearly better at spelling than all the people at AP, Reuters, The New York Frikkin' Times, etc.
Sorry, that option is disabled for anyone who can quote Diablo 3.
On a side note, I actually hadn't realized that a third Diablo installment had been released. Maybe I blocked it out after having all my hopes and dreams betrayed by the first sequel.
Ok, I have mod points assigned, and I was going to spend them, but I just have to respond.
FCI Loretto. I've been there, I've seen it. It may not be Camp Mead, but it's still pretty swanky for a prison. The deer living in that valley will actually eat from your hand, they're so used to people walking around not hurting them. Many of the inmates are bankers, lawyers, politicians or businessmen who got caught committing low violence high dollar crimes (like investment fraud), although there are also some high profile Mafia types.
Maybe no golf course, but it's hardly hell on Earth.
I didn't really "get" limits until I started calculating instantaneous velocities based on acceleration. I could tell you the concept, and I could roughly explain what it was, but I couldn't really fathom what it was, how it made sense, or why anyone would ever bother.
I suppose that to a very abstraction-minded person it could go the other way, and I think that's probably the biggest difference between a mathematician and a physicist, formal study aside.
In Sprint's defense, they are already partially part GSM. Since they acquired Nextel in 200_ they've been operating the biggest iDEN network around (which is like being the smartest kid in special ed, but take what victories you can), and iDEN actually runs on a GSM backbone with extra spiffy bits to allow push-to-talk and the like. Hence, they are partially part GSM.
It also specifies nothing was found... they could have claimed the non-existent ibuprofen was veterinary strength and it wouldn't have changed a damned thing.
I come from a family of educators, I know a huge number of teachers, and I have NEVER heard of anyone thinking it's a good idea to force a 13 year old girl to disrobe in front of a school administrator for any reason whatsoever. What the fuck is wrong with these idiots? And over goddamn suspected IBUPROFEN of all things? Did I take a nap and suddenly ibuprofen is considered to be somehow dangerous? I could *almost* see a point to this if they thought she had meth or something in her panties, but Advil?
SCOTUS ruling that they can't be held personally accountable or not, these idiots will probably have to spend the rest of their lives checking over both shoulders for somebody who couldn't care any less what the ruling was.
13i6l3on3r is substantially harder.
Lack of jurisdiction and complete inability to enforce whatever ruling is made. Where would you sue them? How would you make them pay up? Since neither of those questions has a particularly obvious or workable answer, suing them for copyright violations is pretty much a non-starter.
"Wouldn't this affect both ears equally? (Unless the scientists did something terribly stupid, such as asking into the right ear in the beginning of the night, and into the left ear at the end of the night)"
Given the silly test, that's precisely what I'm asking if they did. It would be an easy mistake, asking X people for cigarettes in their right ears, then going back to do the same for the left, but in this context it would be a killer.
"Unless they "assigned" a specific ear to each person asking, this should not matter."
There are a lot of social factors involved, even if ears were randomized. If some of the testers "randomly" selected people to ask who are socially unlikely to give them a cigarette in the left ear, and "randomly" selected more likely social choices to ask in right ears, it would be virtually impossible to address or even discover in their data, but it would have an enormous effect.
"And NASA gets involved and makes you change your sensible metric measurements into furlongs and hogsheads."
That's because real men are concerned with how many stones we can move one furlong on a hogshead of fuel, only whiners and frogs want metric. Oh, and anyone who isn't a raving psychopath or ultra-nationalist whack job. They don't count though, because this is America, land of the raving and home of the Whopper.
You killed it. Now go sit in the punalty box.
Try handing in a paper that your roommate wrote with your name on it some time and getting caught. You'll find that just because he said it was cool, doesn't mean it isn't plagiarism.
A much better argument is that, ultimately, plagiarism is almost never a black and white issue. how many words in a row do I have to use for it to count? 10? 5? 2? Should every single paper have to cite the language(s) in which it is written because otherwise it is copying that culture's work without giving credit? Maybe we should only do it with words or phrases we can actually pinpoint to origin of... so if I use "assassinate" I should credit Shakespeare for being the first known user of the term? Do I cite my source for that factoid as part of the citation? What happens if somebody just doesn't remember where they learned a piece of relatively minor information, or turn of phrase? Should they avoid using it because they cannot give a proper citation? It is incredibly rare, so rare that it is questionable that it ever happens, that anyone actually comes up with something totally new, that doesn't reference or come from something else, so where do we draw the line between "this is plagiarism" and "this is the natural synthesis of information"?
I have personally witnessed several rational and intelligent people reading the same piece, comparing it to several alleged uncredited sources, and coming to completely different conclusions as to whether or not it was plagiarized and what it was plagiarized from. Ultimately, it seems like the answer mostly lies in the context of the work more so than than the work itself, in the rules that govern that particular item. If you write a poem, nobody ever expects you to list every other poem you've ever seen that might have influenced it in some way, let alone give any information as to how... but if you write an essay about particle physics they sure do. It's certainly not because one has more or less potential to be completely ripped off from somebody else's work, so why is it?
And what if, instead of apologizing, he'd essentially said "yeah, I edit Wikipedia, and I helped write those passages"? Would it still be plagiarism at all? It certainly makes plagiarism a messy accusation to level if he had some part in writing the source to begin with.
That also strikes me as a terribly unscientific test... even in Italy, not everyone smokes, and even the ones who do may be out of cigarettes or in a location not conducive to smoking. did they also record the number of people who gave logical, but negative (ie. "I don't have any"), responses? What if they didn't ask for cigarettes until the end of the night, so they were in short supply?
What if people just got sick of them mooching and said no out of spite? As a former smoker, I can reasonably state that most are pretty generous to a point, but once you cross it they run out of sympathy very quickly... bumming cigarettes off of everyone you see can get you to that point very quickly.
Did they make sure to get an even mix of responses for males asking males, males asking females, females asking females and females asking males? Did they make sure not to have the person asking in left ears be the one with no social skills and bad breath? When I was a smoker, a cute girl had a MUCH better shot at getting a cigarette from me than, say, some whiny dude... given that this was done at nightclubs, and what many people actually go to nightclubs to (attemp to) do, this is actually a pretty major consideration that I somehow doubt they took into consideration.
And what the hell is with that sample size? 176 people? You went to 3 Italian nightclubs and could only find 176 smokers to ask for cigarettes between them? At least pretend you're trying to gather a statistically significant number of responses.
I'm not necessarily sure that they shouldn't have run any experiments simply because it is their hypothesis... but if they're going to claim some sort of success for it then they certainly need a better experiment than asking people for cigarettes at a nightclub. Honestly though, if nobody ever did scientists to test their own hypotheses, we'd probably still be in the Aristotelian phase of scientific concept.
"It seems to me they don't want to compete, they want to bitch and make the competition less competitive."
Thank you for reminding me of the single biggest flaw in capitalistic competition theory... given the choice, no capitalist would ever compete, and given actual circumstances that happens more often than we might like to think.
And if you get it on the cheap, they might even give you results at the drop of a C.
Avast! only nagged me once in the last 12 months, when it wanted me to re-register it tried selling me on the pay versions... but other than that, it just quietly works away.
I tried, but the Post Office returned it because that's not a valid address. Sorry, I was really looking forward to version 1.0 of Hello World Flasher Edition, too.
Just an Average Joe who made a fortune running booze in from Canada and bought up tons of real estate and small businesses with the proceeds. The Kennedys since him haven't actually had to work very hard for their money, it just never really runs out.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one, you must be new here.
Sincerely,
AT&T
You should try using high beams chief. It's amazing what raising the angle of your headlight 15 degrees or so does for visibility.
That's only because your local utility hasn't figured out that they can make plenty of money doing nothing but monitor and switch power between customers, cranking up their big expensive generators only when additional power is needed. Buy excess energy from households which produce more than they need, then switch/sell it to other households which do not at a markup. Income might take a nosedive, but so would generation costs.