The magician never picks the right card. The idea is that the way the magician shows the mark that he knows which card was picked is by removing that card from the group. Since the magician in fact does not know which card it is, he just removes all of the cards and puts back a group of cards, one less than the first group, that look similar to but are in fact not any of the cards from the first group.
That's it exactly. From what I have read Qt 5 will not have the backwards compatibility for Qt 3 that Qt 4 does. Too many KDE applications still use those compatibility features and so they need to rewrite it so that it no longer does to be able to use Qt 5. Since that will break programs that rely on those compatibility features it is deserving of a version change.
Couldn't agree more. The justice system is very fond of claiming that harsh punishments deter crime. We should make them put their money where their mouth is and punish cops who break the law by having mandatory additional jail time on top of the normal sentence for whatever crime they committed. You could implement it as an 'abuse of authority' law. You break the law while acting in the capacity of your job as a police officer (I am aware there are some jurisdictions where cops are 'on duty' 24/7 in which case this would apply 24/7) and it's an extra 2 years + half the sentence length for the crime committed.
I think similar should be done for prosecutors. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.
I have to call BS on that. Yes, there is a bigger increase with A, but the only time this matters at all is if I have 2 vehicles in need of replacement at the same time, money for only one of them, and no pressing preference for utility between them; and then you would have to figure out which you drive more often to get a reasonable determination of which to get.
In reality, it works like this: you have a 20 mpg car in need of replacement. You can replace it with a 25 mpg car, or a 32 mpg car. Quick, which saves more gas?:
A) Replace the 20 mpg with 25 mpg
B) Replace the 20 mpg with 32 mpg.
For direct comparison of savings coming from two completely different situations, yes, gal/100 miles is better. But the combination of events and requirements needed for such a comparison to be at all useful is completely absurd. For nearly all situations the "which number is bigger" method of determining mileage superiority is perfectly adequate.
I hate K&M gaming for F/TPS specifically because of how insanely responsive the controls are.
Any time I can be running, turn in place 167 degrees, and hit something at 50 ft. with any kind of accuracy—in.25 seconds no less—the game has lost me. There is something to be said for fun over realism, but I think PC games take it way too far to the point where it is no longer fun.
I like being forced to actually bring the gun around to the target in more time than it takes to flick a wrist, to stop running and actually take the time to aim properly to get off an accurate shot, and to not be able to process the world spinning around my head when moving it to the side fast (motion blur). I might think about actually playing a K&M game if I ever saw one with anything close to reasonable movement limits but I doubt that will ever happen as my friends who play PC FPSs appear horrified over such things.
Company A say it needs a new logo with features 1, 2, and 3. It informs the world it will be buying the best (a function of cost and meeting requirements) available logo on the market on future date 4. Designers X, Y, and Z decide they want Company A to buy from them and so develop a product to be sold. Date 4 comes along and Company A buys a logo from those available at the time.
This is no different than a cereal company making a new cereal—investing time, money, and resources—in the hopes that someone will actually buy it. It seems to me that the conflict here comes from the redefinition of design as a business making a product (a completed logo) instead of the former model of a business offering a service (the design of a logo).
Lot was spared for being righteous, yes, so righteous in fact that he offered his daughters to be raped to pare the angels. Then, when hiding in that cave, Lot's daughters got him drunk and then repeatedly raped him in his sleep/drunken stupor.
I think the problem is the free market in this case. Texas is such a huge market for textbooks that the changes made to accommodate the their standards will make it very hard for smaller, more sane markets to obtain decent textbooks at a reasonable price.
Country A has limited arable land, barely enough to feed it's people, and is unable to import food cheaply enough to feed it's people if it turned food growing land into fuel growing land. Realizing this, Country A makes the decision to limit the profitability of fuel farming by banning it's export to other countries, thus removing most of the incentive to convert crops to fuel in the first place and leaving the farmland producing food.
In the case that Country A decides to let it's people starve by not regulating and resulting in food shortages other countries, alone or in consortium, can then decide to do the humanitarian and image building thing and refuse to participate in the starving of Country A's people by no longer providing demand for fuel they would produce.
The solution then, is to illegalize export of biofuels in countries that can't afford to do so without risking their population's ability to feed itself because they are too poor in arable land to grow both food and fuel or because they lack the economic power to import food.
It is not a good solution to simply not use the technology just because some countries won't look out for the interests of it's own people. If it becomes bad enough that the world notices, then remove the economic incentive to starve their own people and make it a crime to import fuel from that country.
This was rather explicitly covered in Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age. In the Neo Victorian phyle, the higher social ranking a member has the less personalized their newspaper is due to the thought that there are certain things higher ups need to know and it's best if they were all on the same page.
Then again, the Vickies are also depicted as un-curious and possessing of a stagnant society, so take from that what you will.
That's output from the 'ddate'—Discordian date—program.
Re:Why complain about choice?
on
Lulu Introduces DRM
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No. I was not. Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company's support of DRM was flawed, by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently.
I don't think they are in any sane way comparable. I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was "this doesn't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself" and not "you shouldn't boycott if it inconveniences you" as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly.
I really don't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason. My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used.
Re:Why complain about choice?
on
Lulu Introduces DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of "just because company A, whom you do business with, starts to do something B that you find objectionable doesn't mean you should inconvenience yourself, especially if B doesn't directly affect your business dealing with them." It quite frankly baffles me.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
Obviously—I hope—refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves, even if the products you would be interested in aren't, would be a reasonable action. It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they don't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and don't thing you should either, and not that they actually think their argument really applies. In which case, they should really stop making the "boycotting is hard so don't do it" argument.
Isn't the entire point of patents to be a tutorial on how to accomplish what's described? Patents are there solely to combat the existence of trade secrets (using monopoly incentives to achieve this). It totally defeats the purpose to give a patent on something that does not inform a knowledgeable reader on how to implement the invention.
In that case, no device can ever be bricked, as they can function in the capacities of: paperweight, doorstop, or therapeutic stress relief target (you can hit it with a bat) just to name a few.
If your pedantic definition of a word renders it nearly meaningless, then I don't see what problem you could possibly have with a more useful re-purposing of the word as something actually applicable.
Bin Laden will never be captured or killed. He's one hellava resourceful SOB. That, and he has prophet-like status among his twisted followers that will die for him.
He makes a fine Emmanuel Goldstein.
My first thought upon reading that was a pleasant "Wow. That's pretty insightful." Then I was revolted upon reviewing it and coming to the same conclusion once again. Well done (and screw you for bringing me down;-) )
Nineteen Eighty-Four has a very noticeable anti-censorship/information destroying bent to it. This is ironic because it's a coincidence that Nineteen Eighty-Four is the book being removed and it is contradictory in that one of the messages of the book is that information should not be removed which is humerus because it is so obviously going to attract bad publicity when it could have been avoided (yay for schadenfreude).
Slashdot Mirror
I think that should be "1984—Site Doubleplus Ungood - Minitrue"
The magician never picks the right card. The idea is that the way the magician shows the mark that he knows which card was picked is by removing that card from the group. Since the magician in fact does not know which card it is, he just removes all of the cards and puts back a group of cards, one less than the first group, that look similar to but are in fact not any of the cards from the first group.
Why?
That's it exactly. From what I have read Qt 5 will not have the backwards compatibility for Qt 3 that Qt 4 does. Too many KDE applications still use those compatibility features and so they need to rewrite it so that it no longer does to be able to use Qt 5. Since that will break programs that rely on those compatibility features it is deserving of a version change.
Couldn't agree more. The justice system is very fond of claiming that harsh punishments deter crime. We should make them put their money where their mouth is and punish cops who break the law by having mandatory additional jail time on top of the normal sentence for whatever crime they committed. You could implement it as an 'abuse of authority' law. You break the law while acting in the capacity of your job as a police officer (I am aware there are some jurisdictions where cops are 'on duty' 24/7 in which case this would apply 24/7) and it's an extra 2 years + half the sentence length for the crime committed.
I think similar should be done for prosecutors. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.
I have to call BS on that. Yes, there is a bigger increase with A, but the only time this matters at all is if I have 2 vehicles in need of replacement at the same time, money for only one of them, and no pressing preference for utility between them; and then you would have to figure out which you drive more often to get a reasonable determination of which to get.
In reality, it works like this: you have a 20 mpg car in need of replacement. You can replace it with a 25 mpg car, or a 32 mpg car. Quick, which saves more gas?:
A) Replace the 20 mpg with 25 mpg
B) Replace the 20 mpg with 32 mpg.
For direct comparison of savings coming from two completely different situations, yes, gal/100 miles is better. But the combination of events and requirements needed for such a comparison to be at all useful is completely absurd. For nearly all situations the "which number is bigger" method of determining mileage superiority is perfectly adequate.
I hate K&M gaming for F/TPS specifically because of how insanely responsive the controls are.
.25 seconds no less—the game has lost me. There is something to be said for fun over realism, but I think PC games take it way too far to the point where it is no longer fun.
Any time I can be running, turn in place 167 degrees, and hit something at 50 ft. with any kind of accuracy—in
I like being forced to actually bring the gun around to the target in more time than it takes to flick a wrist, to stop running and actually take the time to aim properly to get off an accurate shot, and to not be able to process the world spinning around my head when moving it to the side fast (motion blur). I might think about actually playing a K&M game if I ever saw one with anything close to reasonable movement limits but I doubt that will ever happen as my friends who play PC FPSs appear horrified over such things.
I see it like this:
Company A say it needs a new logo with features 1, 2, and 3. It informs the world it will be buying the best (a function of cost and meeting requirements) available logo on the market on future date 4. Designers X, Y, and Z decide they want Company A to buy from them and so develop a product to be sold. Date 4 comes along and Company A buys a logo from those available at the time.
This is no different than a cereal company making a new cereal—investing time, money, and resources—in the hopes that someone will actually buy it. It seems to me that the conflict here comes from the redefinition of design as a business making a product (a completed logo) instead of the former model of a business offering a service (the design of a logo).
You are bowdlerizing that quite a bit.
Lot was spared for being righteous, yes, so righteous in fact that he offered his daughters to be raped to pare the angels. Then, when hiding in that cave, Lot's daughters got him drunk and then repeatedly raped him in his sleep/drunken stupor.
I had the same problem on Linux. The solution, for me, was to turn off adblock for the page and reload. Worked perfectly after that.
I think the problem is the free market in this case. Texas is such a huge market for textbooks that the changes made to accommodate the their standards will make it very hard for smaller, more sane markets to obtain decent textbooks at a reasonable price.
Yes, hence the contingency plan of economic sanctions against Country A in the form of banning import of biofuel from them,
It would work like this:
Country A has limited arable land, barely enough to feed it's people, and is unable to import food cheaply enough to feed it's people if it turned food growing land into fuel growing land. Realizing this, Country A makes the decision to limit the profitability of fuel farming by banning it's export to other countries, thus removing most of the incentive to convert crops to fuel in the first place and leaving the farmland producing food.
In the case that Country A decides to let it's people starve by not regulating and resulting in food shortages other countries, alone or in consortium, can then decide to do the humanitarian and image building thing and refuse to participate in the starving of Country A's people by no longer providing demand for fuel they would produce.
The solution then, is to illegalize export of biofuels in countries that can't afford to do so without risking their population's ability to feed itself because they are too poor in arable land to grow both food and fuel or because they lack the economic power to import food.
It is not a good solution to simply not use the technology just because some countries won't look out for the interests of it's own people. If it becomes bad enough that the world notices, then remove the economic incentive to starve their own people and make it a crime to import fuel from that country.
"Warhammer" is the name of his knife.
This was rather explicitly covered in Neal Stephenson's book The Diamond Age. In the Neo Victorian phyle, the higher social ranking a member has the less personalized their newspaper is due to the thought that there are certain things higher ups need to know and it's best if they were all on the same page.
Then again, the Vickies are also depicted as un-curious and possessing of a stagnant society, so take from that what you will.
R.I.P. Mitch
That's output from the 'ddate'—Discordian date—program.
No. I was not. Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company's support of DRM was flawed, by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently.
I don't think they are in any sane way comparable. I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was "this doesn't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself" and not "you shouldn't boycott if it inconveniences you" as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly.
I really don't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason. My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used.
Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of "just because company A, whom you do business with, starts to do something B that you find objectionable doesn't mean you should inconvenience yourself, especially if B doesn't directly affect your business dealing with them." It quite frankly baffles me.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
Obviously—I hope—refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves, even if the products you would be interested in aren't, would be a reasonable action. It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they don't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and don't thing you should either, and not that they actually think their argument really applies. In which case, they should really stop making the "boycotting is hard so don't do it" argument.
Isn't the entire point of patents to be a tutorial on how to accomplish what's described? Patents are there solely to combat the existence of trade secrets (using monopoly incentives to achieve this). It totally defeats the purpose to give a patent on something that does not inform a knowledgeable reader on how to implement the invention.
In that case, no device can ever be bricked, as they can function in the capacities of: paperweight, doorstop, or therapeutic stress relief target (you can hit it with a bat) just to name a few. If your pedantic definition of a word renders it nearly meaningless, then I don't see what problem you could possibly have with a more useful re-purposing of the word as something actually applicable.
His Noodliness would really rather you didn't.
Bin Laden will never be captured or killed. He's one hellava resourceful SOB. That, and he has prophet-like status among his twisted followers that will die for him.
He makes a fine Emmanuel Goldstein.
My first thought upon reading that was a pleasant "Wow. That's pretty insightful." Then I was revolted upon reviewing it and coming to the same conclusion once again. Well done (and screw you for bringing me down ;-) )
Nineteen Eighty-Four has a very noticeable anti-censorship/information destroying bent to it. This is ironic because it's a coincidence that Nineteen Eighty-Four is the book being removed and it is contradictory in that one of the messages of the book is that information should not be removed which is humerus because it is so obviously going to attract bad publicity when it could have been avoided (yay for schadenfreude).