Can you sue for interference? (not that I'm sue happy, just curious..)
No. To extend the analogy, if the neighbor is playing loud music, but the law says they can play music up to 90 dB, then you cannot call the authorities. Electronic devices all have to meet maximum allowable EM emission requirements to get sold in the US. Look on the back of a microwave, or a WiFi router and you'll see information on EM emission, and how it meets code X,Y, or Z.
Now, if they have modded their electronics to exceed that limit, you may have a case. But I don't know how one could determine that. And it's probably a criminal, not civil, matter. Hmmm... I believe the stereo is as well.
The Sarbanes Oxley Act makes trusting your employees illegal.
Kind of. It only applys to financial records, and is for the benefit of the shareholders. Basically, it's a complex, but theoretically hard to fake, audit trail for a companies books and other publically released financials.
Ask it stands now what's to stop you from sending a cheek swab with your neighbor's DNA instead of yours under a false name? If a doctor is involved at least the perpetrator must make a face to face appearance under the fake name with someone who would be "accountable" before being able to carry through with his plan.
Also, with a doctor involved, HIPPA would apply, and all the mandatory privacy laws that accompany that. I don't know about non-medical DNA testing.
It'd also be quite easy for me to measure their weight
How do you propose to measure my weight without my discovering it? I assure you that your proposed scheme is more difficult then collecting some of my saliva. Also, what does my weight tell you, compared to my DNA?
The consequences of not allowing the government to violate her right to property? Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right?
First, I would claim that property is not a human right. I would ask from where the property originally derived. Even were you able to make a claim that a person owns "the sweat of one's brow", for the sake of this arguement, what someone is payed cannot soley be considered the sweat of other people's brows. For instance, milk/bread/foodstuffs require farms, which in turn use some of a limited amount of land. Computers require metals that are mined from the ground in specific locations. Although you can make the claim that the most recent N times that land was purchased using the "sweat of the brow", but traced back far enough, one arrives at the point of initial acquisition. Since this land was merely claimed, there is no inherit moral right to the land. Hence, the original aquisitions arbitraryness propogates through all transactions that derive from it.
In more recent times, virtual homesteading has become a similar concern. One could point to Microsoft as an example of being in a place to claim things early on, and deriving future benefits from early claims.
Can you explain how legislation usurps a human right? T
Second, a government can enforce certain beneficent acts on its citizens, as otherwise a society cannot function. For instance, the government has a right to compel jury duty and the contribution of monies for national defense and public works. If you can tell me how a society could exist where those two things were not required (well, jury duty could be abolished, if that were no longer deemded important from a civil liberties point of view), I would be interested in hearing it. Other human rights, such as the right to free speech, can be overpowered by sufficent societal interest. Free speech does not protect fraud, slander, or yelling "fire" in a public theater.
This is basically the majority imposing on the minority... It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.
I see. I'm sure the Mexicans are delighted we are returning California, the Indians are happy to get their gold mines, oil fields, and hell, most of the continent back, etc.
The reason like it seems like tyranny of the majority is because it is the government's money. People are simply voting on how it is spent. Since the system breaks down if everyone is given a line-item veto on "their" tax dollars, this way seems the only practical one. Lots of people disapprove of tanks; to a large degree it evens out.
...behind those restrictions? Do you also need a permission to measure your weight, or to look in the mirror?
Because it would be very easy for me to collect saliva from someone whom I know in real life, and run tests on their DNA without their knowledge or consent. Also, there is a desire to prevent coersion towards that same goal.
Didn't Ferris "hack" his attendance record in that movie?
Yes. But he wasn't a geek. He had social skills, popularity, a hot girlfriend, etcetera when teh movie began. So it doesn't fall into the mold. The hacking was a throwaway bit, a 10 second joke. The movie is about a cool kid having fun in Chicago. Cameron was the geek.
Some heads of state won't give a rat's ass about providing for their countrymen when that oil is gone. Others do care. That influences what they decide their oil is worth.
Except the decisions are all made in a central location. OPEC doesn't decide on the final price, but the definately decide on the production per country. And storing oil in the ground is not necessarily the best long term plan either. Instead, you could use that money to buy huge amounts of real estate, or stocks, or even bonds. The basic plan is for them to liquid their oil at the slowest (thus maximizing the price) rate possible, without causing people to get too hung up on alternative fuels, or crippling their consumers economies, resulting in less ability to affored fuel in the near future.
I'd much rather see an intention-revealing method name (hat tip Marcel Molina):
Funny, I'd much rather have a simple function name to type, with comments easily accessible, then have to retype them all the time. Keep comments write once/read many. As opposed to:
supply -- meaning (in this situation, and this isn't the usual meaning) how much oil they've got underneath their country -- when it's gone they're destitute, so they price accordingly
OPEC is an oligopoly. Supply is dictated solely by their pricing curves.
I actually don't understand how some people can write such obfuscated code. I write comments like there is no tomorrow because in 2 days, I won't know what it does any more than another developer would!
Some shops have an policy of optimizing, with the effect being that less comments are written. Becuase the things they have to optimize on the go are fairly straightforward (but compilers don't do), they find that although the code looks less like English, it is still readable. It means a greater amount of time training people up however.
I don't work at a place like this, I've just heard talks by people who do.
find out why the gender is correlated (e.g. women at that company are given more reasonable deadlines,
How about, according to TFA:
Most of [women's] are in jobs involving quality assurance or adapting the product to a new locale, she says, and not the heavy lifting of writing code.
I would bet that "heavy lifting" code is always less documented then "quality assurance" code (which need to be changed often by the people who will be the end users) and less documented than localization code (which, since it is designed for many people to work with, must be well documented.)
The other thing I love is that with an 80/20 man/woman employee breakdown, she thinks a 70-80% ability to correctly predict the gender of someone is significant. Assuming that men and women are equally prolific, 68% is what you would expect guessing randomly with that ratio, 80% if you follow an optimal strategy, and that's before you get into being able to guess based on what type of code (heavy hitting vs. localization/quality assurance) which I cannot speculate about because I don't know the gender ratios in those specialties (or those specialties breakdown in the codebase).
Last time I was checking, only few applications were using Direct X 10.
DirectX 9. In a few years, if Vista is successful as past incarnations of Windows, DirectX 10.
For any kind of productivity more or less everybody uses bunch of wrappers or some commercial library.
I'll assume what you are saying is that everyone wraps the various APIs via internal or platform agnostic middleware. Because DirectX and OpenGL are both important, and neither can be done away with if you want to work on all platforms.
If it works as advertised, it will give developers who really care about performance the option to tap into the hugely parallel architecture available on the GPU that was inacessible to most of us so far (unless we wanted to learn the obscure proprietary semi-languages of ATI, IBM and nVidia).
If you are willing to work in a C-esqe environment, you can already do similar things via shaders, and reading the resulting output.
Grand Central seems to be just the opposite of this: It will make sure those eight cores we'll soon all have in our machines will actually get used, even if the developers who wrote the programs we run didn't care to think about parallelization.
I call vaporware. I mean, sure, if you are running 8 apps, I believe it is possible. I thought multithreading a single-threaded program was considered NP-hard, but I may be wrong on that.
Jobs announces he's going to enormously simplify the morass of parallel programming and then also take GPU programming languages far beyond NVIDIA. And he's going to make this all in the core of the OS so it will be ubiquitous.
Jobs is not running Microsoft; he is not in a position to make something ubiquitous by putting it in the core of OS X.
Frankly, as a developer who has to work with graphics, I have no desire to have yet another interface to the hardware. Choose a standard, any standard that already exists.
The original verdict was a recommendation of death, even for the man who turned the group in.
If, as the link suggests, this was a famous case. And if the FBI had been able to sow seeds of doubt about having penetrated the German High Command, then it almost makes sense. As horrific as it might be to those 8 men, during real times of war, sometimes you have to choose the least evil option. I would assume that they would be locked up for the duration of the war, and then released. And that's what happened to the two who actively defected.
All that is required is some sort of command structure and something they use to identify themselves (Hamas has the green bandana things) and then they're a "militia"
I think that the original poster didn't mean "uniforms" as in full uniforms, but "uniforms" as in Hamas's green bandana things.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing 96 in a 35 zone once, with a clean record, was enough to do it to my friend.
That's 294.15K for anyone who has (somewhat at least) overcome an infantile obsession with water.
No. To extend the analogy, if the neighbor is playing loud music, but the law says they can play music up to 90 dB, then you cannot call the authorities. Electronic devices all have to meet maximum allowable EM emission requirements to get sold in the US. Look on the back of a microwave, or a WiFi router and you'll see information on EM emission, and how it meets code X,Y, or Z.
Now, if they have modded their electronics to exceed that limit, you may have a case. But I don't know how one could determine that. And it's probably a criminal, not civil, matter. Hmmm... I believe the stereo is as well.
IANAL.
Kind of. It only applys to financial records, and is for the benefit of the shareholders. Basically, it's a complex, but theoretically hard to fake, audit trail for a companies books and other publically released financials.
Actually, that makes it more surprising that EA didn't advertise it, albeit not on Take-Two's box. And now that EA owns Take-Two, the issue is moot.
Also, with a doctor involved, HIPPA would apply, and all the mandatory privacy laws that accompany that. I don't know about non-medical DNA testing.
And, IANAL, this post is not legal advice.
How do you propose to measure my weight without my discovering it? I assure you that your proposed scheme is more difficult then collecting some of my saliva. Also, what does my weight tell you, compared to my DNA?
First, I would claim that property is not a human right. I would ask from where the property originally derived. Even were you able to make a claim that a person owns "the sweat of one's brow", for the sake of this arguement, what someone is payed cannot soley be considered the sweat of other people's brows. For instance, milk/bread/foodstuffs require farms, which in turn use some of a limited amount of land. Computers require metals that are mined from the ground in specific locations. Although you can make the claim that the most recent N times that land was purchased using the "sweat of the brow", but traced back far enough, one arrives at the point of initial acquisition. Since this land was merely claimed, there is no inherit moral right to the land. Hence, the original aquisitions arbitraryness propogates through all transactions that derive from it.
In more recent times, virtual homesteading has become a similar concern. One could point to Microsoft as an example of being in a place to claim things early on, and deriving future benefits from early claims.
Second, a government can enforce certain beneficent acts on its citizens, as otherwise a society cannot function. For instance, the government has a right to compel jury duty and the contribution of monies for national defense and public works. If you can tell me how a society could exist where those two things were not required (well, jury duty could be abolished, if that were no longer deemded important from a civil liberties point of view), I would be interested in hearing it. Other human rights, such as the right to free speech, can be overpowered by sufficent societal interest. Free speech does not protect fraud, slander, or yelling "fire" in a public theater.
I see. I'm sure the Mexicans are delighted we are returning California, the Indians are happy to get their gold mines, oil fields, and hell, most of the continent back, etc.
The reason like it seems like tyranny of the majority is because it is the government's money. People are simply voting on how it is spent. Since the system breaks down if everyone is given a line-item veto on "their" tax dollars, this way seems the only practical one. Lots of people disapprove of tanks; to a large degree it evens out.
Because it would be very easy for me to collect saliva from someone whom I know in real life, and run tests on their DNA without their knowledge or consent. Also, there is a desire to prevent coersion towards that same goal.
Except Cameron didn't get the girl... he got his ass kicked by his father. He got to see the girl naked when she and Ferris went skinny dipping...
There was no "got the girl". Ferris started with the girl. Ferris ended with the girl. Cameron got in trouble for wrecking his dad's Ferrari.
Yes. But he wasn't a geek. He had social skills, popularity, a hot girlfriend, etcetera when teh movie began. So it doesn't fall into the mold. The hacking was a throwaway bit, a 10 second joke. The movie is about a cool kid having fun in Chicago. Cameron was the geek.
Alternatively, the idea may be good, but you are a bad writer. Either way, the script would be crap.
Summary says six... plus one. You may have missed the memo, but six plus one now equals seven.
Except the decisions are all made in a central location. OPEC doesn't decide on the final price, but the definately decide on the production per country. And storing oil in the ground is not necessarily the best long term plan either. Instead, you could use that money to buy huge amounts of real estate, or stocks, or even bonds. The basic plan is for them to liquid their oil at the slowest (thus maximizing the price) rate possible, without causing people to get too hung up on alternative fuels, or crippling their consumers economies, resulting in less ability to affored fuel in the near future.
Funny, I'd much rather have a simple function name to type, with comments easily accessible, then have to retype them all the time. Keep comments write once/read many. As opposed to:
Orders* FindRecentOrdersForCustomerOrReturn -Avoiding Lameness Filter- INVALID_HANDLE_VALUEForAnInvalidCustomerOrNULLForNoOrders ( const Person& Customer )....
OPEC is an oligopoly. Supply is dictated solely by their pricing curves.
Some shops have an policy of optimizing, with the effect being that less comments are written. Becuase the things they have to optimize on the go are fairly straightforward (but compilers don't do), they find that although the code looks less like English, it is still readable. It means a greater amount of time training people up however.
I don't work at a place like this, I've just heard talks by people who do.
DirectX 9. In a few years, if Vista is successful as past incarnations of Windows, DirectX 10.
I'll assume what you are saying is that everyone wraps the various APIs via internal or platform agnostic middleware. Because DirectX and OpenGL are both important, and neither can be done away with if you want to work on all platforms.
If you are willing to work in a C-esqe environment, you can already do similar things via shaders, and reading the resulting output.
I call vaporware. I mean, sure, if you are running 8 apps, I believe it is possible. I thought multithreading a single-threaded program was considered NP-hard, but I may be wrong on that.
Jobs is not running Microsoft; he is not in a position to make something ubiquitous by putting it in the core of OS X.
Frankly, as a developer who has to work with graphics, I have no desire to have yet another interface to the hardware. Choose a standard, any standard that already exists.
If, as the link suggests, this was a famous case. And if the FBI had been able to sow seeds of doubt about having penetrated the German High Command, then it almost makes sense. As horrific as it might be to those 8 men, during real times of war, sometimes you have to choose the least evil option. I would assume that they would be locked up for the duration of the war, and then released. And that's what happened to the two who actively defected.
I think that the original poster didn't mean "uniforms" as in full uniforms, but "uniforms" as in Hamas's green bandana things.