Alright, I am curious. What, exactly, stops you from flipping the switch back to "on"?

Yes, I am ignorant. But it's a serious question.

It was running, right? So you know that it works.

So,
1. What is so hard about starting it up, and
2. If you knew you could not turn it back on after turning it off, why turn it off?

Don't forget the model 16 -- a true multiuser system that ran Xenix (a unix variant).

68010, I think. My first unix system (v7 based initially).

Ahh... the days

Internally, I believe it was an upgraded model 2.

Genetics give three different types of insulin response to carbohydrate intake: low, medium, high. They are roughly (warning: 30+ year old data) 25, 50, and 25%. Diabetics (again, 30+ year old data, and incomplete/initial when it was taken) (insulin resistance, not pancreatic failure) correspond only to the high insulin response.

Any attempt to document the response of food/diet to population results that fails to account for which type of insulin response you are testing on is a fail. Basic, simple, first step of peer review fail.

When I see articles like this (and I read the article), I can only think that a non-peer reviewed preliminary study is getting as much press coverage as should go to well-established, peer-reviewed, properly control-tested studies.

Essentially:

1. Different levels of insulin response will have different effects on body behavior, as well as survivability in times of famine.
2. Low insulin response basically makes it impossible for your body to have the same behavior as high insulin response
3. Diets that are healthy for high insulin response is probably good for everyone, but low insulin response can safely eat things that high insulin response cannot.
4. High insulin response means a bigger store of fat, and survival through times of food scarcity.

None of that was addressed by this, or even most of the food studies that get lots of media attention. It's almost as if the people covering the news have no knowledge of what they are covering.

Oh, wait, what did I just say?

I'll just train the butterflies, and let their wings do the work for me.

Err, is that "obligatory XKCD"?
http://xkcd.com/378/

Nope.

All you have to do is be born or naturalized in the USA, and subject to its jurisdiction.

Unless, you are the courts: Then, you say all you have to do is be born or naturalized, and then you are subject to its jurisdiction.

Or, if you are someone who actually paid attention to older rulings: then, all you need is for a state to consider you a citizen; once one state says you are a citizen of that state, then all states have to accept you as a citizen.

Believe it or not, that was re-affirmed in a case from (memory ... might be off) 1999, against the state of california, for trying to make new arrivals to the state get less welfare support from california.

I think the quote was something like, "Citizens of the united states, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose their own state; states do not have the right to reject citizens".

The issue of being a citizen of a state or not actually dates back to old court rulings that had to deal with someone that was born, and lived entirely in Washington DC, and had never lived in any state. Prior to the 14th amendment, being a citizen or not was entirely up to the states to declare; some gave that to blacks, and others did not.

It is my understanding that the _early_ supreme court rulings after the 14th amendment actually made this clear: states still could issue citizenship, and if they did not, you could claim citizenship from the central government, and then get all the federal rights in state courts.

Don't ask me when the courts started messing up -- I don't know.
But now, it's more "If you are born here, then you are automatically subject to federal jurisdiction, and the restrictions of article 1 no longer apply".

Yes.

If you ever make a mistake -- and we are human -- then yes you need source control.

A better question: Do you need the ability to do lots of cheap branches and easy merging? I find it really makes things much, much easier, but changes the nature of "spagetti code" to the process of keeping track of all the branches.

EDIT: Brownian motion. Brownian motion. I can't actually find an "edit post" button.

That is the business man approach. "Your value, your contribution to society, the quality of what you do is determined entirely by your ability to make money from what you do".

No.

Skill at an art is not the same as skill at marketing that art. And it's different yet from skill at making a profit from marketing something that someone else did.

Skill at business isn't the same as skill at _blank_
Skill at marketing isn't the same as skill at _blank_

When did Einstein's paper on the photoelectic effect, or his paper on random walk of atoms (sorry, the name eludes me this morning) become "skill"? He got his Nobel for some other paper he wrote, where all he did was point out that the three basic assumptions of physics that people used were contradictory, and what happened when you only assumed two and let the third go by the wayside.

Well, in fairness, pointing out that common assumptions are contradictory probably is Nobel worthy. I'm sure Godel got a Nobel for doing that to math and logic, right?

(actually, I don't know if Godel got a Nobel for his incompleteness work.)

---
Side note: How do you get angle brackets in this text? I had to change those to "_blank_" because I could not use angle brackets around the word "blank".

But if you pay attention to modern evolution of OS's, everything is a directory makes more sense / a better map.

Files have extended attributes, various data/resource/etc forks; real directories cannot be read, but have a bunch of index'd names; etc.

People who say that hardware devices need special parallel communication: each such communication is just another entry in the directory.

And then there's the whole "This program contains different versions for different architectures" is just straight multiple single streams.

Threaten to use the laser to melt the icecaps, and alter the world's climate, unless I were paid one million dollars.

I have not played the current MWO, but long, long ago, I had an Amiga game called "Titans of Steel".

Imagine "real-time" (turn based, but you took turns based on your mech's "next active tick time") mech warrior. Realize that the old board game system of "You can generate 1000 degrees of heat, and have it all go to 0 if you have normally functioning heat sinks" fails when you actually have that much heat generated at once and it takes time for your mech to cool off -- and watch mech designs actually change to take realistic heat mechanics come into play.

All those FASA designs, fundamentally only work if you can generate lots of heat and instantly be still cold. Remove that, and everything changes.

Very interesting game.

Only problem? Requires a good Amiga emulator. I haven't had functional kickstart/dos disks in decades, and I'm not even sure I could find this game again.

I play Minecraft.

And, Minecraft: Magic Farm 2 modpack (aka "Death and Starvation come to multiplayer")

And, Minecraft: The forums

And, Minecraft: Mod debugging

And, Minecraft: Personal Modpack assembly and performance tuning.

And, Minecraft: Suggestions for improving mods / working with mod authors

And, Minecraft: The video recording editing sessions

And, Minceraft: The sister game of typos.

And, occasionally, minecraft, the video game of mining and crafting, and building.

I am thinking of how I could respond to this. I'm sure that "Wait, was "B" Microsoft?" would get me +5 silly. But this is probably more serious.

Company C -- whoever they are, whatever they do -- sounds like a company I'd like to work for. It's sounds much better than most of the companies I have worked for.

This is, in a nutshell, the market at its finest.

There is a serious view: If you do not improve, you will be overtaken by those that do. Historically, in this industry (Tech), the "improvements" are more likely to come from within -- from elsewhere in the same company. We've seen time and again, companies that sit on an improvement because it will hurt their big department, with IBM being the single biggest such example that I know of; and "biggest example" only because they were the biggest company for the longest. Which company has the highest rate of this, I don't know.

Historically, we see companies that say "We won't improve; no one else is close to us, and improvement helps division C less than stagnation helps division B."
Here, we see "We won't improve; we think no one else is close to us", and improvement helps company C more than stagnation helped company B.

This is what we need to see more of. And I'd love to know who the "new kid to watch out for", C, is.

So, was B microsoft?

Google is not the answer.

Want proof? Try these two searches:

"Thor"
"atm"

How is Google supposed to know what to do with that? Do you want norse mythology, a comic book, or something else? Do you want packet switching information, bank information, or "Acrylic Tank Manufacturing" -- that's a new one.

About a decade ago, "Cow9" -- that was the name of the alta vista search engine -- had a wonderful solution to this, that required loading a java applet into your browser as part of the search. I loved it, and was disappointed when it was killed off.

Google is far from the answer. Even google itself admits that this is a deep and hard question.

Windows ignores leading zeros???

Bleep, so that rules out the use of 0nn_xxxx for filenames.

Looks like my "only use 1-9" wasn't so crazy after all.