Means that there are two people in the world who match the DNA evidence. If the DNA evidence is the only evidence, then the chances that you've got the right person is 50/50.
DNA evidence alone should never convict, only exonerate.
But multiple checkouts just to avoid branching is not a good way to use Git, not a good argument against it.
Sorry, I forgot to address this. I'm not suggesting multiple checkouts to avoid branching, I'm suggesting multiple checkouts when working on multiple branches to avoid rebuilding when you switch from one to another.
branching and merging are monolithic tasks that are very cumbersome
Rubbish. In SVN you can branch, and switch your working copy to the branch in a single command-line call. With the advantage that the branch exists in the central server (yes, this is an advantage) right away so other people you work with can work on it too.
it's highly encouraged and the process is almost trivial by comparison.
The cost of branching is not related to how easy the tool makes it to create a branch. Contrary to common belief, it's equally easy in both SVN and git to create a branch. The cost of branching is equal to the cost of merging those branches together. Git is no magic bullet here, if you have 'n' branches, then the cost of merging is O(n^2-n).
But putting fileservers on read-only in case he does damage? That just tells me that you have no concept of data resiliency anyway.
If I was working out my last couple of weeks, and IT put their fileservers on read-only for me just in case I decided to act like a dick, I would be deeply offended. And I would walk out of the building and not return.
Well that all seems pretty above board - I wonder then, given how hard it often is to retrieve the black boxes - why commercial passenger planes don't stream at least some of their flight data back to a central location somewhere?
The Arduino tools are appalling, literally the worst development environment I have ever used. And I've written code in emacs. I do appreciate that many of the competing products are a little bit too complicated, but that Arduino thing is a shocker. Surely there's a middle ground somewhere?
The forums are... well.. not very helpful.
To be fair though, the library support that ships inside that dreadful "IDE" is quite good.
. But you can type in the few line example C program, and flash your first blinking LED program in a matter of minutes.
You could do that with all the other ones too. TI's Launchpad, Freescale's KINETIS board, STM have their discovery boards. They all let you blink some LEDs in a matter of minutes - and the Arduino ones are the most expensive. I rather suspect that most people don't do much more than blink some LEDs anyway, since doing anything much more complicated than that with the Arduino "IDE" is an extremely painful exercise indeed.
A locked and reinforced cockpit door prevented hijackers from gaining entry to a Chinese flight a few years back [wikipedia.org].
It sounds to me, from reading about the incident, that the locked door was less important than the fact that you can't intimidate a planeful of people by threatening them with death aboard a plane anymore. The passengers and crew jumped the hijackers, and that was the end of that. A regular old door that could be opened from the outside with a code would have worked out just the same.
The argument that it would not improve aviation safety is silly...
Is it? Why? I would have thought that the existing data is plenty, and that generally speaking airline disasters are not caused by what the interior of the cockpit looks like. How many cameras would you need? Shouldn't you have video feeds from the engines too? Perhaps high frame rate ones, so that we can see what really happened?
Additionally, already the flight data audio recordings are gruesome enough. Can you imagine the videos?
Those business owners need to state their rules publicly
You mean, like a sign over the door saying "whites only"? Is that what you mean?
This is why:
Ideally, I think you should have the right to not serve someone for any reason.
Is backwards. Ideally no-one would be refused service for any reason, whereas realistically one might be refused service because one is not behaving ideally. In an ideal world, no-one gets turned away.
but the main difference between your example and what the law is allowing is that the Grand Wizard chose to be a member of the KKK, a homosexual or a black man did not choose to be homosexual or black
I wish this idea would die. The KKK Grand Wizard probably didn't really choose to be a hateful racist, it's probably a combination of an extremely poor upbringing (being taught to hate at an early age is going to be hard to reason your way out of), and poor intellectual character. A black man probably didn't choose to be black, but if a pill existed to change the color of your skin for personal reasons (hey! I want to be blue!) then one should be free to take it. And if one wants to choose to sleep with members of the same sex, then one should also be free to do so. Religion, of course, is almost always a choice.
These categories are protected, not because they are not choices, but because we as a society have agreed that they should be. Because we've seen some of the things that happen if they are not, and we don't want to go back to that world. Except, it seems, Indianapolis does.
That's a pretty good question. The answer of course is that the laws on discrimination are fairly precisely written for a reason.
An organisation is not permitted to discriminate, either when hiring people or when doing business with them, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or religion. Perhaps there are some other categories too. Whether or not these things are choices - some are, some aren't and some can be under various circumstances - is entirely and completely irrelevant. These are the protected categories enshrined in law, and signed into effect by your country's elected officials.
An organisation is permitted to implement things like dress codes (no KKK hoods...) and other rules about whether or not you are permitted in their establishment. The Klu Klux Klan is not a religion, and so it is not protected. End of conversation, and so no - you do not have to serve him.
It's little different to refusing to serve a guy who turns up naked, or shouting and screaming at your staff, or whatever. You can throw the guy out, and have the cops help you do it if you need them to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Means that there are two people in the world who match the DNA evidence. If the DNA evidence is the only evidence, then the chances that you've got the right person is 50/50.
DNA evidence alone should never convict, only exonerate.
The study completely ignores the fact
Pathetic fallacy. Please rewrite.
as all optimal strategies become known.
Either you're a grandmaster, or you're a long way away from achieving this. I assume that it's the latter, but please forgive me if it's the former.
But multiple checkouts just to avoid branching is not a good way to use Git, not a good argument against it.
Sorry, I forgot to address this. I'm not suggesting multiple checkouts to avoid branching, I'm suggesting multiple checkouts when working on multiple branches to avoid rebuilding when you switch from one to another.
branching and merging are monolithic tasks that are very cumbersome
Rubbish. In SVN you can branch, and switch your working copy to the branch in a single command-line call. With the advantage that the branch exists in the central server (yes, this is an advantage) right away so other people you work with can work on it too.
it's highly encouraged and the process is almost trivial by comparison.
The cost of branching is not related to how easy the tool makes it to create a branch. Contrary to common belief, it's equally easy in both SVN and git to create a branch. The cost of branching is equal to the cost of merging those branches together. Git is no magic bullet here, if you have 'n' branches, then the cost of merging is O(n^2-n).
What if you want to switch away to a different branch to work on something else without losing where you're at?
Then I will check out a new copy - disk space is cheap and my time wasted waiting for a build when I switch back again is expensive.
But putting fileservers on read-only in case he does damage? That just tells me that you have no concept of data resiliency anyway.
If I was working out my last couple of weeks, and IT put their fileservers on read-only for me just in case I decided to act like a dick, I would be deeply offended. And I would walk out of the building and not return.
Well that all seems pretty above board - I wonder then, given how hard it often is to retrieve the black boxes - why commercial passenger planes don't stream at least some of their flight data back to a central location somewhere?
Yes of course they do.
The Arduino tools are appalling, literally the worst development environment I have ever used. And I've written code in emacs. I do appreciate that many of the competing products are a little bit too complicated, but that Arduino thing is a shocker. Surely there's a middle ground somewhere?
The forums are... well.. not very helpful.
To be fair though, the library support that ships inside that dreadful "IDE" is quite good.
. But you can type in the few line example C program, and flash your first blinking LED program in a matter of minutes.
You could do that with all the other ones too. TI's Launchpad, Freescale's KINETIS board, STM have their discovery boards. They all let you blink some LEDs in a matter of minutes - and the Arduino ones are the most expensive. I rather suspect that most people don't do much more than blink some LEDs anyway, since doing anything much more complicated than that with the Arduino "IDE" is an extremely painful exercise indeed.
His point was wrong. It should have read:
"Cockpit video camera will not help determine the cause of any crashes. Including this one."
All that will happen is that you'll see them on the news.
No. Thanks.
it will be because the footage has commercial value to news organisations.
Bingo. Follow the money.
66MB/s of bandwidth required globally .... Bandwidth is apparently between 5 and 7 USD per MB, so about 4c per second.
Is this still true if you're flying over the pacific ocean at 500 miles an hour? Or are you talking about your cable bill?
Without video, there is no way to determine if someone is having a psychotic episode which causes them to act irrationally
How come? Do they turn blue or something? I bet he looked perfectly calm and controlled while he set the autopilot to "crash into the ground" mode.
A locked and reinforced cockpit door prevented hijackers from gaining entry to a Chinese flight a few years back [wikipedia.org].
It sounds to me, from reading about the incident, that the locked door was less important than the fact that you can't intimidate a planeful of people by threatening them with death aboard a plane anymore. The passengers and crew jumped the hijackers, and that was the end of that. A regular old door that could be opened from the outside with a code would have worked out just the same.
The argument that it would not improve aviation safety is silly...
Is it? Why? I would have thought that the existing data is plenty, and that generally speaking airline disasters are not caused by what the interior of the cockpit looks like. How many cameras would you need? Shouldn't you have video feeds from the engines too? Perhaps high frame rate ones, so that we can see what really happened?
Additionally, already the flight data audio recordings are gruesome enough. Can you imagine the videos?
Armed passengers
Good Lord. That would work out just great. Solution to any problem of unrest of any form - Guns!
Judging by the moderation on your comment, apparently not.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, in any reasonable forum, would be the end of the debate.
However, this is the internet. So. Carry on.
Those business owners need to state their rules publicly
You mean, like a sign over the door saying "whites only"? Is that what you mean?
This is why:
Ideally, I think you should have the right to not serve someone for any reason.
Is backwards. Ideally no-one would be refused service for any reason, whereas realistically one might be refused service because one is not behaving ideally. In an ideal world, no-one gets turned away.
Thanks. It seems to be going pretty well so far.
Michael Conway's sure got a kickass tan.
but the main difference between your example and what the law is allowing is that the Grand Wizard chose to be a member of the KKK, a homosexual or a black man did not choose to be homosexual or black
I wish this idea would die. The KKK Grand Wizard probably didn't really choose to be a hateful racist, it's probably a combination of an extremely poor upbringing (being taught to hate at an early age is going to be hard to reason your way out of), and poor intellectual character. A black man probably didn't choose to be black, but if a pill existed to change the color of your skin for personal reasons (hey! I want to be blue!) then one should be free to take it. And if one wants to choose to sleep with members of the same sex, then one should also be free to do so. Religion, of course, is almost always a choice.
These categories are protected, not because they are not choices, but because we as a society have agreed that they should be. Because we've seen some of the things that happen if they are not, and we don't want to go back to that world. Except, it seems, Indianapolis does.
A very intelligent and insightful comment. What are they going to do? Ask you for your gay card?
That's a pretty good question. The answer of course is that the laws on discrimination are fairly precisely written for a reason.
An organisation is not permitted to discriminate, either when hiring people or when doing business with them, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender or religion. Perhaps there are some other categories too. Whether or not these things are choices - some are, some aren't and some can be under various circumstances - is entirely and completely irrelevant. These are the protected categories enshrined in law, and signed into effect by your country's elected officials.
An organisation is permitted to implement things like dress codes (no KKK hoods...) and other rules about whether or not you are permitted in their establishment. The Klu Klux Klan is not a religion, and so it is not protected. End of conversation, and so no - you do not have to serve him.
It's little different to refusing to serve a guy who turns up naked, or shouting and screaming at your staff, or whatever. You can throw the guy out, and have the cops help you do it if you need them to do so.