Every second counts, which is a good reason to use X. It's already coded. They're not going to be able to code a whole windowing system quicker than they could tweak/configure X.
Just installed ubuntu on my home computer after learning it was based on debian and after using umpteen zillion different distros over the years. Everything just works. For real. I can finally see no reason not to recommend it over windows to the average home user who doesn't want to play games. That is, I'd recommend it to anyone (grandma included) considering a mac as a money saving no-brainer. Because of the lack of spyware/adware/viruses I put it as actually more user friendly than windows.
Ubuntu on home pcs does everything worthwhile Chrome OS might. Google ought to just fund development on apps that don't require windows like it's done with web browsers and not bother with 'Chrome OS'
I can't fathom why apple chose to create another windowing system rather than use X. I can't fathom why Chrome OS would not use X. X is frikken awesome. Nothing else does what it does and it does everything others do. And it's free. Why the hell not use it? Just to be less featureful?
And then have a 'Bureau of Public Conscience' that randomly looks at whatever is visible through the camera eye, and places random calls with helpful public service messages like 'Big Brother is Watching You.'
It's never a good idea to submit to a polygraph since it's just another interrogation. You have a right to have your lawyer present while answering questions which is a right you should not waive even when innocent.
Ok, common courtesy is a good thing - most of the time, but courteous drivers piss me off.
I absolutely hate it when attempting to pull out across two lanes of traffic when a 'courteous driver' in one of those lanes stops to let me go when they have the right of way to just proceed. This creates all sorts of havoc including:
Drivers behind them are delayed - not too courteous to them eh?
Those drivers are irritated and may not understand what the hold up is, and often attempt to go around the stopped car - in the other lane, and this behaviour is unpredictable making it unwise for me to cross that lane since a car in the other lane could suddenly pop out and smash my car - which would be my fault since they have the right of way
Often the car that stopped is an SUV with a driver that thinks that makes them visible enough to safely alter the normal flow of traffic by stopping to be courteous. The fact that their vehicle is so tall and has tinted windows means I can't see over it to determine whether there are any cars coming in the other lane
I sit there, honk my horn wave them on, whatever, until they get the idea, and drive off exasperated. I am delayed further because the delay has closed for me what would have been a break in traffic which would have allowed me to cross safely.
And I hope your cell phone has a web browser because you'll be making many a query to findlaw to try and figure out if what you want to do is legal. And if you can't figure it out, you better not do it, rather than, I want to do it, and though someone somewhere may take issue with it if they knew I was doing it, I'm in private and only practically have to consider the opinions of those present.
Right, it's in contact with the towers so they've got the 'general area' you're in, ( though one might be able to do some funky stuff to beam your signal directionally to another tower?)
I do have this 'GPS' thing on my phone with the option to either turn it on for all calls, or turn it off except for 911 calls. Does this mean that 911 can determine my GPS location if I call them? I don't see any way that I can view my lattitude/longitude/elevation from my phone which is too bad since I'd use it for geocaching or something probably. I don't own any other GPS device that I know of. I don't want a map on the device just a cheap way of getting lattitude/longitude/elevation. I don't want it that badly or I'd buy a more expensive and advanced device that would probably include a map and a screen.. Oh well.
Privacy protection is for honest people. Giving criminals ways to feed misleading information to authorities only serves the purposes of the criminals. It's serves the purposes of law enforcement better for criminals to think 'the cops would need a warrant to search my phone records, and they don't have enough on me to get one, so I'll just use my cellphone and not worry about the tracking data' than for them to think, 'the cops can query my cellphone records at will, and they probably have everyone's data hooked up to a suspicious activity monitoring system that will send up a red flag if I appear suspicious. I will feed them data that will make me look like Ned Flanders, and go do whatever I want. They might have their suspicions but when they think they've got my number and see I'm Ned Flanders they'll stop looking.
I'll drive from my home in Northern Vermont to Connecticut, hit the mob boss there, drive to New Jersey to collect the cool fifty grand for his head, buy a new blood free duffelbag, and call my 'forgotten' phone which my jealous girlfriend will pick up to see if I'm cheating on her, do some perverted mouth breathing in her ear, and then head home, and break up with her.
Investigators will think it's implausable that I was in Connecticut and so stop looking my way. Of course this 'alibi' wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in court, but it doesn't have to, it's done its job by keeping me out of court in the first place.
That's what certain types can't grasp, the thing you don't seem to grasp, which is that societal norms != the published rules. People will and do say one thing and do another all the time. There are a bunch of words on some pages that are called laws, but words can be interpreted to mean any damn thing you want them to. When push comes to shove it's: what do the people weilding the power at the time want them to mean? That's what they mean. If you want to know what the rules really are you need to guess what people probably want the rules to mean.
Yes, there are legal precedents, but laws are reinterpreted regularly setting new precedents at variance with the precedents of the past. If X isn't appealed further X stands, setting a law changing precedent.
Courts aren't required to choose one meaning or sense for a word to take, or to use that contained in some dictionary, they ultimately have leeway to do whatever the hell they want. The question is: What do I want to happen in this case logic and justice be damned ( what would be best for my legal career as a judge/prosecutor/defense atty ) ? Can I formulate a plausible sounding interpretation of existing law to justify it? Then that's what I will sell to the system. Jurys don't even have to justify themselves. Its all about what they want unless the courts have succeeded in convincing them that they must defer to the text of the law. They do this most of the time because jury members mostly don't give a damn about the case enough to do much that might inconvenience them. They aren't being paid ( and 5 bucks a day buys lunch if you're lucky that's it )
In this day and age of missiles that can shoot down missiles, you need more missiles not less so that an unstoppable barrage of nuclear death is assured to break through any possible defense.
You know, I think the total heat energy in a room matters more than where it is applied. The heat, whereever it is will get dispersed largely everywhere. Insulation keeps it indoors. Also, much of the heat is infrared which is radiant heat that gets absorbed by whatever it strikes which is the floor. The ceilings are white ( not sure how reflective of IR). But whether the heat is absorbed ( and re-radiated ) or reflected is unimportant. It gets dispersed and redispersed as long as it remains inside the house. Hot air around the ceiling means the ceiling is not a heat sink.
I never heard of Quant before, sounds suspiciously like the etymological root for C**t. However am I the only one who thinks that the existence of that meaning for Quant means all the headlines about the financial Quants screwing up the economy become puns?
I think what probably happened west of the atlantic is that parents when asked what a fanny was patted their tots on the behind and said right there. It was in the general area but the imprecision led to much confusion about and eventual redefinition of the word.
Ever tried looking for something short, sweet, and pronouncable in a way that's unambiguous with respect to the way it's spelled, and that doesn't mean anything in particular? All such domains are gone. If you want something like 'google' you're going to have to pay extra for it. ( although googol/google is ambiguous spelling wise the fact that googol is alot and google indexes alot of sites counterbalances this negative )
In the US we're used to being able to parody anything without fear of copyright or trademark litigation issues. It's sad that the ICANN doesn't work the same way. It really should.
Ya know, that seems like it should work, I mean cut the frikken knob into little pieces using dremel tool rather than try to get it out intact. It's a frikken knob! Destroy it, don't insist on removing it in one piece.
What if a process is generally used to add two numbers and then divide them by a third number? If the process is designed badly so that the sum is first computed and then the third number is only sent subsequently, then the fact that the third number was zero could be deduced with high confidence from the fact that the third number was never sent ( why request a division by zero? ) Careful design such as requiring all three numbers be sent simultaneously, and that a specific NotANumber value be returned in the case of division by zero would fix this, but it seems prone to programmer error/oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
Every second counts, which is a good reason to use X. It's already coded. They're not going to be able to code a whole windowing system quicker than they could tweak/configure X.
Just installed ubuntu on my home computer after learning it was based on debian and after using umpteen zillion different distros over the years. Everything just works. For real. I can finally see no reason not to recommend it over windows to the average home user who doesn't want to play games. That is, I'd recommend it to anyone (grandma included) considering a mac as a money saving no-brainer. Because of the lack of spyware/adware/viruses I put it as actually more user friendly than windows. Ubuntu on home pcs does everything worthwhile Chrome OS might. Google ought to just fund development on apps that don't require windows like it's done with web browsers and not bother with 'Chrome OS'
If they open source it, and give it away for free ( as in freedom ), I think that makes them immune from antitrust issues.
I can't fathom why apple chose to create another windowing system rather than use X. I can't fathom why Chrome OS would not use X. X is frikken awesome. Nothing else does what it does and it does everything others do. And it's free. Why the hell not use it? Just to be less featureful?
And then have a 'Bureau of Public Conscience' that randomly looks at whatever is visible through the camera eye, and places random calls with helpful public service messages like 'Big Brother is Watching You.'
It's never a good idea to submit to a polygraph since it's just another interrogation. You have a right to have your lawyer present while answering questions which is a right you should not waive even when innocent.
Ok, common courtesy is a good thing - most of the time, but courteous drivers piss me off.
I absolutely hate it when attempting to pull out across two lanes of traffic when a 'courteous driver' in one of those lanes stops to let me go when they have the right of way to just proceed. This creates all sorts of havoc including:
And I hope your cell phone has a web browser because you'll be making many a query to findlaw to try and figure out if what you want to do is legal. And if you can't figure it out, you better not do it, rather than, I want to do it, and though someone somewhere may take issue with it if they knew I was doing it, I'm in private and only practically have to consider the opinions of those present.
Right, it's in contact with the towers so they've got the 'general area' you're in, ( though one might be able to do some funky stuff to beam your signal directionally to another tower?)
I do have this 'GPS' thing on my phone with the option to either turn it on for all calls, or turn it off except for 911 calls. Does this mean that 911 can determine my GPS location if I call them? I don't see any way that I can view my lattitude/longitude/elevation from my phone which is too bad since I'd use it for geocaching or something probably. I don't own any other GPS device that I know of. I don't want a map on the device just a cheap way of getting lattitude/longitude/elevation. I don't want it that badly or I'd buy a more expensive and advanced device that would probably include a map and a screen.. Oh well.
Privacy protection is for honest people. Giving criminals ways to feed misleading information to authorities only serves the purposes of the criminals. It's serves the purposes of law enforcement better for criminals to think 'the cops would need a warrant to search my phone records, and they don't have enough on me to get one, so I'll just use my cellphone and not worry about the tracking data' than for them to think, 'the cops can query my cellphone records at will, and they probably have everyone's data hooked up to a suspicious activity monitoring system that will send up a red flag if I appear suspicious. I will feed them data that will make me look like Ned Flanders, and go do whatever I want. They might have their suspicions but when they think they've got my number and see I'm Ned Flanders they'll stop looking.
I'll drive from my home in Northern Vermont to Connecticut, hit the mob boss there, drive to New Jersey to collect the cool fifty grand for his head, buy a new blood free duffelbag, and call my 'forgotten' phone which my jealous girlfriend will pick up to see if I'm cheating on her, do some perverted mouth breathing in her ear, and then head home, and break up with her.
Investigators will think it's implausable that I was in Connecticut and so stop looking my way. Of course this 'alibi' wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in court, but it doesn't have to, it's done its job by keeping me out of court in the first place.
That's what certain types can't grasp, the thing you don't seem to grasp, which is that societal norms != the published rules. People will and do say one thing and do another all the time. There are a bunch of words on some pages that are called laws, but words can be interpreted to mean any damn thing you want them to. When push comes to shove it's: what do the people weilding the power at the time want them to mean? That's what they mean. If you want to know what the rules really are you need to guess what people probably want the rules to mean.
Yes, there are legal precedents, but laws are reinterpreted regularly setting new precedents at variance with the precedents of the past. If X isn't appealed further X stands, setting a law changing precedent.
Courts aren't required to choose one meaning or sense for a word to take, or to use that contained in some dictionary, they ultimately have leeway to do whatever the hell they want. The question is: What do I want to happen in this case logic and justice be damned ( what would be best for my legal career as a judge/prosecutor/defense atty ) ? Can I formulate a plausible sounding interpretation of existing law to justify it? Then that's what I will sell to the system. Jurys don't even have to justify themselves. Its all about what they want unless the courts have succeeded in convincing them that they must defer to the text of the law. They do this most of the time because jury members mostly don't give a damn about the case enough to do much that might inconvenience them. They aren't being paid ( and 5 bucks a day buys lunch if you're lucky that's it )
No Text
In this day and age of missiles that can shoot down missiles, you need more missiles not less so that an unstoppable barrage of nuclear death is assured to break through any possible defense.
Maybe now is the time to stock up on incandescent bulbs and then sell them on the black market later for a tidy profit...
You know, I think the total heat energy in a room matters more than where it is applied. The heat, whereever it is will get dispersed largely everywhere. Insulation keeps it indoors. Also, much of the heat is infrared which is radiant heat that gets absorbed by whatever it strikes which is the floor. The ceilings are white ( not sure how reflective of IR). But whether the heat is absorbed ( and re-radiated ) or reflected is unimportant. It gets dispersed and redispersed as long as it remains inside the house. Hot air around the ceiling means the ceiling is not a heat sink.
And poor is just about everyone when it comes to the law. A public defender is not going to take your case to the supreme court.
Are people who think they are good at math better or worse at math on average than people who don't think they are good at math?
The naive think they know it all, whilst those who have an idea what they are talking about may underestimate their own abilities.
I never heard of Quant before, sounds suspiciously like the etymological root for C**t. However am I the only one who thinks that the existence of that meaning for Quant means all the headlines about the financial Quants screwing up the economy become puns?
I think what probably happened west of the atlantic is that parents when asked what a fanny was patted their tots on the behind and said right there. It was in the general area but the imprecision led to much confusion about and eventual redefinition of the word.
Was that her debut? The ass episode? Wow. She's got one of the best asses though yow!
+1 Insightful.
Ever tried looking for something short, sweet, and pronouncable in a way that's unambiguous with respect to the way it's spelled, and that doesn't mean anything in particular? All such domains are gone. If you want something like 'google' you're going to have to pay extra for it. ( although googol/google is ambiguous spelling wise the fact that googol is alot and google indexes alot of sites counterbalances this negative )
In the US we're used to being able to parody anything without fear of copyright or trademark litigation issues. It's sad that the ICANN doesn't work the same way. It really should.
Ya know, that seems like it should work, I mean cut the frikken knob into little pieces using dremel tool rather than try to get it out intact. It's a frikken knob! Destroy it, don't insist on removing it in one piece.
What if a process is generally used to add two numbers and then divide them by a third number? If the process is designed badly so that the sum is first computed and then the third number is only sent subsequently, then the fact that the third number was zero could be deduced with high confidence from the fact that the third number was never sent ( why request a division by zero? ) Careful design such as requiring all three numbers be sent simultaneously, and that a specific NotANumber value be returned in the case of division by zero would fix this, but it seems prone to programmer error/oversight.