I've also had cases where, because of weather or mechanical delays, it was faster to rent a car and drive to the first-stop airport. Problem is, if you don't get on the first leg of the flight, they cancel your ticket for the second leg of your trip, and your out of luck. I'm sure there's some complicated and half-bureaucratic explanation for this, but I've never bothered to find out why.
I think this one actually makes sense. It's reasonable to believe that if a customer misses the first flight of a trip, they really just missed the plane (most people don't take things into their own hands to this degree). If the traveler is not going to be on the plane, the airline might as well sell their spots on subsequent legs of the journey to someone else.
Would you prefer it if he said "beyond their reasonable control"? It's okay that you don't like merchandising, but the merchandise has little, if any, influence in the creation of a movie. Everybody involved in these productions wants them to be perfect, and so much is done over, and over, and over until it's the best it can be. If you think that merchandising influences the story or the art, you don't understand how much these people care about their work.
(Even if directors did try to cram in merchandising opportunities, the artists (storywriters, animators, etc.) probably couldn't make any nontrivial changes without detracting from the film.)
Would that be so bad? It would probably lead to you getting the job, if they used your solution. If they didn't use your solution, you probably weren't the best person applying, anyway.
Well, it's sort of like gambling. At times, I think I'm just missing one step in an otherwise complete proof. And I'll write "I can't get this step", or "We see that...", depending on how honest I'm feeling. But what if it really is a trivial step that I just can't see because I'm so short on sleep? In this situation, I could see an advantage in bluffing. Not that it's nice to do so--a student grader might frustratedly try to see whether the claim really was true, while a teacher would know at a glance and grade accordingly.
I agree. And on the occasion that it does work, it's because of a grader's laziness, not pride. And I would think that the chance of pissing off a grader will be higher than the chance of getting away with this.
sudo tar -czf ARDAgent.app.gz ARDAgent.app This should actually be: sudo gzip ARDAgent.app
Because what you wrote implies a.gzipped file, but is actually a.gzipped tarball. (Sorry to be pedantic.) This will also remove the original file, so it is not necessary to chmod it (change its permissions to make it inaccessible).
Being a desktop software develop or kernel hacker does not qualify you to "improve systems to sell ads". You need a lot more math and statistics for that, and much less low level hacking skills. That's true, though I imagine that the interest and the ability generally go together.
Maybe there are benefits packages apple is offering which even google does not (though it's highly unlikely). Or maybe people would rather work on OS development and desktop software than improve systems to sell ads.
The Aeron is without question the nicest chair I have ever used. (I don't know which model or version.) For me, a huge benefit is that it is equally comfortable when I set it allow me to lean back/lounge or when I set it to have a firmer back support.
Yes, because the government uses money so efficiently. I'm sure that if medical research were nationalized, surely the greatest minds in the United States would flock to become government employees. Except, what happens when a war-mongering, power hungry president slashes their funding so that he can spend it on an offensive war, or something?
There wouldn't be any market for counterfeit drugs if legitimate copies were available at a price that was not inflated by patents. I dislike patents in a lot of cases, but a drug costs a lot to produce. The people that do the R&D are highly educated and trained, so they will want to get paid a lot. Imagine the experiments needed to ensure that a drug works (or find out what exactly it does), and more experiments to find out whether it's safe and what its side effects are. I am not an authoritative source, but I have heard that getting FDA approval for a drug often (always?) takes years. Coming up with new drugs in a safe and legal manner is expensive. Patents allow companies to recoup the investments they made on R&D and subsidize more R&D.
It's too bad that drug companies set prices so high, but it's probably an inevitable result of most people having medical insurance.
Would you say that viewing "normal" pron is progressive? That's an interesting point, and it seems logical. There are some (most?) people that prefer increasingly "intense" porn over time. But the same thing happens without porn--it happens with fantasies. The difference is that watching porn is easier--it requires no creativity.
Because fantasies are independent of porn, much of the time (I guess this varies per person), porn may aid in providing sexual catharsis, rather than encouraging elevation of perversions/fantasies. It's hard to tell. I'm inclined to believe that the latter is more likely, simply because porn has not change my habits in the bedroom very much.
I'm saying that there is a possibility that by looking at child pron, a person can come to be enticed by it, and want to purvey his want on other kids. There always exists a possibility--I just see no evidence for it (even in the above quoted excerpts from studies). I think you are arguing that viewing child porn can turn a normal person into a pedophile, or can turn a normal pedophile into a worse one. I think that, upon seeing child pornography, a normal person would be disgusted. And asking whether a pedophile would be incited to act out his desires really is akin to asking whether an angsty teenager will act out the violence he sees in video games.
I think that anything's possible--it just seems intuitively wrong. And for every pedophile that experiences porn as encouragement to act out against children, there are probably more that see it as encouragement to stay at home and jerk off a lot. (I have no evidence for this, besides the fact that normal humans have strong urges not to hurt people, and I conclude that most people will not do it.)
Sorry my previous post was flamey. (I was bothered that a complex issue was treated as trivial.)
If stuff you see and hear doesn't effect your actions, they why do companies spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars on advertising That's stupid, and you shouldn't trivialize it so. What I see affects my actions only insofar as it changes who I am and how I see the world. Advertising works because it plants a seed in our heads: "X is a solution to Y product" or "product R is better than product S". And do you think that aggressive behavior can just be prompted by such a message? Advertising only works because we don't really have preconceived notions about most of the products.
The fact that I disagree aside, you might be interested in this. It's Linus Torvalds explaining why/usr/src/linux actually shouldn't contain the sources of the kernel that is running, but the sources that glibc is linked against.
Wouldn't you rather have it as a configured variable whose value shows up in/proc/config.gz? The problem I see with it actually being a value in/proc is that this would imply that it's accurate at runtime, which is impossible to ensure. (For example, if a user moves or updates the sources.)
The mutation rate may be optimal for the conditions an organism evolved for, but the goal here isn't "successful reproduction of an organism", so those rules don't apply. If causing an organism to change as quickly as possible is the sole goal (without regard for overall survival), then manipulating the rate of mutation seems reasonable.
I accidentally dropped a flash drive in some espresso, and held it under the sink to rinse it out. After I dried it, it continued to work without loss of data. (I believe the drive did have water inside it.) Another time, my dad lost a flash drive. We discovered it that spring when the snow it was under melted. It worked fine after it dried (though I don't remember whether the data was still there).
audiobooks keep your mind more active Yes, when I have to make long drives, I consider it a matter of self preservation to be stocked up on audio-books.
Do you think headphones would make audiobooks more or less useful (for enhancing safety during long drives)? I'm about to drive from Chicago to California, and I'm thinking about getting some noise-canceling headphones to spare my hearing a little. People say that headphones are more distracting than just listening to the radio, but I don't know whether that applies to audio books. (Yes, I know this may be illegal. I'm interested in safety, not legality.)
Do you have a source for this, or is it just a theory? If this is happening, there must be many, many people that know about it. (Many of those involved with purchasing would know, I assume.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've also had cases where, because of weather or mechanical delays, it was faster to rent a car and drive to the first-stop airport. Problem is, if you don't get on the first leg of the flight, they cancel your ticket for the second leg of your trip, and your out of luck. I'm sure there's some complicated and half-bureaucratic explanation for this, but I've never bothered to find out why.
I think this one actually makes sense. It's reasonable to believe that if a customer misses the first flight of a trip, they really just missed the plane (most people don't take things into their own hands to this degree). If the traveler is not going to be on the plane, the airline might as well sell their spots on subsequent legs of the journey to someone else.
Would you prefer it if he said "beyond their reasonable control"? It's okay that you don't like merchandising, but the merchandise has little, if any, influence in the creation of a movie. Everybody involved in these productions wants them to be perfect, and so much is done over, and over, and over until it's the best it can be. If you think that merchandising influences the story or the art, you don't understand how much these people care about their work.
(Even if directors did try to cram in merchandising opportunities, the artists (storywriters, animators, etc.) probably couldn't make any nontrivial changes without detracting from the film.)
Would that be so bad? It would probably lead to you getting the job, if they used your solution. If they didn't use your solution, you probably weren't the best person applying, anyway.
It did kill my files.
Yeah, mine too. ReiserFS used to have some sort of data-eating bug (that I never did manage to find reliable information about).
Well, it's sort of like gambling. At times, I think I'm just missing one step in an otherwise complete proof. And I'll write "I can't get this step", or "We see that...", depending on how honest I'm feeling. But what if it really is a trivial step that I just can't see because I'm so short on sleep? In this situation, I could see an advantage in bluffing. Not that it's nice to do so--a student grader might frustratedly try to see whether the claim really was true, while a teacher would know at a glance and grade accordingly.
I agree. And on the occasion that it does work, it's because of a grader's laziness, not pride. And I would think that the chance of pissing off a grader will be higher than the chance of getting away with this.
sudo gzip ARDAgent.app
Because what you wrote implies a
The Aeron is without question the nicest chair I have ever used. (I don't know which model or version.) For me, a huge benefit is that it is equally comfortable when I set it allow me to lean back/lounge or when I set it to have a firmer back support.
Yes, because the government uses money so efficiently. I'm sure that if medical research were nationalized, surely the greatest minds in the United States would flock to become government employees. Except, what happens when a war-mongering, power hungry president slashes their funding so that he can spend it on an offensive war, or something?
It's too bad that drug companies set prices so high, but it's probably an inevitable result of most people having medical insurance.
Because fantasies are independent of porn, much of the time (I guess this varies per person), porn may aid in providing sexual catharsis, rather than encouraging elevation of perversions/fantasies. It's hard to tell. I'm inclined to believe that the latter is more likely, simply because porn has not change my habits in the bedroom very much.
I think that anything's possible--it just seems intuitively wrong. And for every pedophile that experiences porn as encouragement to act out against children, there are probably more that see it as encouragement to stay at home and jerk off a lot. (I have no evidence for this, besides the fact that normal humans have strong urges not to hurt people, and I conclude that most people will not do it.)
Sorry my previous post was flamey. (I was bothered that a complex issue was treated as trivial.)
The fact that I disagree aside, you might be interested in this. It's Linus Torvalds explaining why /usr/src/linux actually shouldn't contain the sources of the kernel that is running, but the sources that glibc is linked against.
Wouldn't you rather have it as a configured variable whose value shows up in /proc/config.gz? The problem I see with it actually being a value in /proc is that this would imply that it's accurate at runtime, which is impossible to ensure. (For example, if a user moves or updates the sources.)
The mutation rate may be optimal for the conditions an organism evolved for, but the goal here isn't "successful reproduction of an organism", so those rules don't apply. If causing an organism to change as quickly as possible is the sole goal (without regard for overall survival), then manipulating the rate of mutation seems reasonable.
Oh, could he talk about the '@' symbol? I've never really understood that one.
I should add (my wording was dangerously ambiguous): I had to dry the drive thoroughly before it worked again. That meant using a blowdrier.
I accidentally dropped a flash drive in some espresso, and held it under the sink to rinse it out. After I dried it, it continued to work without loss of data. (I believe the drive did have water inside it.) Another time, my dad lost a flash drive. We discovered it that spring when the snow it was under melted. It worked fine after it dried (though I don't remember whether the data was still there).
Thanks. I'll take that advice.
Do you think headphones would make audiobooks more or less useful (for enhancing safety during long drives)? I'm about to drive from Chicago to California, and I'm thinking about getting some noise-canceling headphones to spare my hearing a little. People say that headphones are more distracting than just listening to the radio, but I don't know whether that applies to audio books. (Yes, I know this may be illegal. I'm interested in safety, not legality.)
Do you have a source for this, or is it just a theory? If this is happening, there must be many, many people that know about it. (Many of those involved with purchasing would know, I assume.)
I stand (humbly) corrected. Thank you, that is very interesting.
You said "financial interest." Does that mean that if a tracker was privately funded and did not bring in revenue, this law would not apply to it?