Actually, I had the pleasure of going through one of these things at BWI a month or so ago. I will note that they quickly steered children towards the regular metal detector - it seems they might have thought of the same thing.
However, having gone through one of these I will say that I didn't know what it did until I read the info page after going through. Also, it took much longer than a metal detector scan (although not as long as taking my laptop out of its case, that is the worst rule ever).
The reason you should pay teachers more is because, with a competitive salary, more competent people will go into education. As it is, the truly excellent can make far more money in private industry, but if teaching salaries are high there will be a higher quality of candidates. Then there will be no excuse for hiring a bad teacher.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.;)
I will second that - I know that I was two grade levels ahead in my school, so that when I graduated I had completed Calculus C (the course after the Calculus BC test) and, with my own initiative, had started with linear algebra and differential equations. Traditionally college courses, more than a small number of the top of my class had taken calculus before graduating. On the other hand, the regular mathematics track, which most of my school landed in, graduated with only pre-calculus, if that. There are some schools that have highly accelerated Gifted and talented courses, but most students are not in them.
I'm sorry - what?
A problem I'm seeing with my granddaughter is the geeky pantywaist types that were given wedgies in the gym locker room when they were 13 are now the people teaching our 13 year olds and most of them haven't matured any in the mean time. Wouldn't the ones giving the "wedgies" be the immature ones? Maybe I'm too young to understand your references, but it seems like you're saying that the education system is made up of people who got picked on as children, which is bad because... they got picked on?
As someone who has worked in web security, let me say that many of us have been begging for stricter control over security protocols for years. With all the AJAX going around, more and more sites are proving vulnerable to browsers that are just too friendly with the same-origin policy. If you check out the OWASP Top 10, you'll see that a whole bunch of these attacks could be prevented by better browser security.
The best case would be a restructuring Javascript and the DOM as well, but I would be excited to see any increased security. After I used a reflected XSS attack to essentially gain control over a client's browser and all their cookies last year, I don't trust any web application.
I don't know about secure... Some of these things I may have to lay on browser object models and server-side languages, but both XSS and CSRF aren't helped by Javascript. After seeing some of the possible browser SOP violations (same origin policy) using Javascript, I no longer trust any Javascript/HTML based applications.
There may be a possibility of a Side channel attack. Also, as you may know, the recent RSA recommendation is for at least a 2048-bit key. Of course, I tend to think that's just being cautious... Might as well use 2048 bit though.
I don't get it... what's wrong with the Ivy League? It's not a guarantee that you will be good in your field, but they're not top schools for nothing. Personally, I'd vote for the smartest candidate that was running that matched my values. I don't understand why being smart is suddenly a bad thing. Let's vote for Bush or McCain - they're fucking retarded!
To be fair, that is the fundamental idea underlying "tax-breaks" for charities. Essentially, the theory is that you have already contributed your money to a government sanctioned entity, and therefore do not need to contribute it to the government again. It's not perfect, but it is an interesting method.
To be fair, modern economic theory states that government spending, i.e. economic intervention, is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this was the entire idea behind Roosevelt's "New Deal," which was responsible for bringing us out of the Great Depression, in conjunction with WWI.
The entire crux of a liberal and Democratic argument is the modern economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, called Keynesian economics. Simply, Keynesian economics states that government intervention in the economy can have both a positive and stabilizing effect. Specifically, government spending can stimulate the economy (a la Tennessee Valley Authority electricity).
While social benefits are a large part of Dem policy, the economic theory is more closely based on government participation in the economy directly, which seems to make sense, given that the government has the responsibility to ensure the stability and prosperity of its population.
Many would point to the war in Iraq as reminiscent of FDR's policy and the situation during WWII. The comparison is usually that if WWII brought us out of the Great Depression, then Iraq should bring us out of a recession. The elemental problem here is that current actions violate the rest of the principles. Government spending can indeed stimulate the economy in the short term, but its not magic. There must be some fundamental alteration of the economic situation in order to maintain that stimulus. In WWII, the US built massive infrastructure systems that proceeded to help the US in the long run, and using the money from weapons building and militarization, we lent huge funds to Europe. When debtors pay back, banks make money, and that was essentially what the US acted like (greatly simplified).
Obviously this isn't a rigorous treatment, but it underlies the general theory that its not if the government spends money that's important, but what it spends money on. I agree with you that the Democrats generally have a better idea of what to spend it on, at least historically.
I don't understand your point. Do you not mind getting prosecuted for copyright infringement? Youtube does, which is why they abide by the DMCA, which states that the hosting party must take down the material. If the poster believes that the notice is in error, they apply with an appeal. If they believe that the original posting was falsified knowingly, they can countersue and the federal government can prosecute the delivering party.
Heh, obviously you just think you're better than everyone else, so you won't care how many qualified professionals say your position is idiotic. Trying to convince you via Linux and Window's own documents (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/KMcode.mspx) doesn't work, so go ahead. You are a C++ god among men and know better than any of them!
C\C++, then if you want to be pedantic. Your system drivers are written in C, so you will be using the C elements of the language anyway. -7 replies ago
"In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in 1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed: 1) the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's _especially_ broken for kernels. 2) any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel. 3) you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++."
-Linus Torvalds
Go ahead and post your C++ credentials, but I think Linus has more experience with kernel drivers.
for writing C++ drivers in kernel mode for windows. As you see, many of those improvements over C are lost in kernel mode. Also, many people that I know consider it bad form to try and use C++ for drivers in the Linux kernel, since it is written in C.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I had the pleasure of going through one of these things at BWI a month or so ago. I will note that they quickly steered children towards the regular metal detector - it seems they might have thought of the same thing.
However, having gone through one of these I will say that I didn't know what it did until I read the info page after going through. Also, it took much longer than a metal detector scan (although not as long as taking my laptop out of its case, that is the worst rule ever).
That's called "network neutrality." Maybe you think that there should be laws in place to make sure that equality takes place? ;)
Optics != Optometry. Obviously your English teacher failed you.
'Fraid not. No recursive descriptions allowed.
f(x) = 4 - 19.5x +16.5x^2
Domain: all real numbers.
The next number is 190.
The reason you should pay teachers more is because, with a competitive salary, more competent people will go into education. As it is, the truly excellent can make far more money in private industry, but if teaching salaries are high there will be a higher quality of candidates. Then there will be no excuse for hiring a bad teacher.
;)
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.
I will second that - I know that I was two grade levels ahead in my school, so that when I graduated I had completed Calculus C (the course after the Calculus BC test) and, with my own initiative, had started with linear algebra and differential equations. Traditionally college courses, more than a small number of the top of my class had taken calculus before graduating. On the other hand, the regular mathematics track, which most of my school landed in, graduated with only pre-calculus, if that. There are some schools that have highly accelerated Gifted and talented courses, but most students are not in them.
As someone who has worked in web security, let me say that many of us have been begging for stricter control over security protocols for years. With all the AJAX going around, more and more sites are proving vulnerable to browsers that are just too friendly with the same-origin policy. If you check out the OWASP Top 10, you'll see that a whole bunch of these attacks could be prevented by better browser security.
The best case would be a restructuring Javascript and the DOM as well, but I would be excited to see any increased security. After I used a reflected XSS attack to essentially gain control over a client's browser and all their cookies last year, I don't trust any web application.
I don't know about secure... Some of these things I may have to lay on browser object models and server-side languages, but both XSS and CSRF aren't helped by Javascript. After seeing some of the possible browser SOP violations (same origin policy) using Javascript, I no longer trust any Javascript/HTML based applications.
There may be a possibility of a Side channel attack. Also, as you may know, the recent RSA recommendation is for at least a 2048-bit key. Of course, I tend to think that's just being cautious... Might as well use 2048 bit though.
Seconded. Oh, and Delta encoding is a wonderful thing.
I don't get it... what's wrong with the Ivy League? It's not a guarantee that you will be good in your field, but they're not top schools for nothing. Personally, I'd vote for the smartest candidate that was running that matched my values. I don't understand why being smart is suddenly a bad thing. Let's vote for Bush or McCain - they're fucking retarded!
To be fair, that is the fundamental idea underlying "tax-breaks" for charities. Essentially, the theory is that you have already contributed your money to a government sanctioned entity, and therefore do not need to contribute it to the government again. It's not perfect, but it is an interesting method.
Actually, we consented. Otherwise the libertarian wouldn't have a pitifully small constituency.
I'm not giving my money to a church that will use it to bring in even more people in can preach its message of intolerance to. Period.
To be fair, modern economic theory states that government spending, i.e. economic intervention, is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this was the entire idea behind Roosevelt's "New Deal," which was responsible for bringing us out of the Great Depression, in conjunction with WWI.
The entire crux of a liberal and Democratic argument is the modern economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, called Keynesian economics. Simply, Keynesian economics states that government intervention in the economy can have both a positive and stabilizing effect. Specifically, government spending can stimulate the economy (a la Tennessee Valley Authority electricity).
While social benefits are a large part of Dem policy, the economic theory is more closely based on government participation in the economy directly, which seems to make sense, given that the government has the responsibility to ensure the stability and prosperity of its population.
Many would point to the war in Iraq as reminiscent of FDR's policy and the situation during WWII. The comparison is usually that if WWII brought us out of the Great Depression, then Iraq should bring us out of a recession. The elemental problem here is that current actions violate the rest of the principles. Government spending can indeed stimulate the economy in the short term, but its not magic. There must be some fundamental alteration of the economic situation in order to maintain that stimulus. In WWII, the US built massive infrastructure systems that proceeded to help the US in the long run, and using the money from weapons building and militarization, we lent huge funds to Europe. When debtors pay back, banks make money, and that was essentially what the US acted like (greatly simplified).
Obviously this isn't a rigorous treatment, but it underlies the general theory that its not if the government spends money that's important, but what it spends money on. I agree with you that the Democrats generally have a better idea of what to spend it on, at least historically.
I don't understand your point. Do you not mind getting prosecuted for copyright infringement? Youtube does, which is why they abide by the DMCA, which states that the hosting party must take down the material. If the poster believes that the notice is in error, they apply with an appeal. If they believe that the original posting was falsified knowingly, they can countersue and the federal government can prosecute the delivering party.
Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that.
Heh, obviously you just think you're better than everyone else, so you won't care how many qualified professionals say your position is idiotic. Trying to convince you via Linux and Window's own documents (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/KMcode.mspx) doesn't work, so go ahead. You are a C++ god among men and know better than any of them!
"In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in
1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed: 1) the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's _especially_ broken for kernels. 2) any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel. 3) you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++."
-Linus Torvalds
Go ahead and post your C++ credentials, but I think Linus has more experience with kernel drivers.
It does when you can't use g++ in the kernel, but gcc works just fine...
P.S. "C++ has all capabilities and features as C" - that's why I said C/C++
Hahahaha, C is obsolete? Ever heard of the Linux kernel. I'd like to see you try to write a C++ embedded driver that would be picked up by linus.
Oh, and most of those benefits are unavailable or cut down in kernel mode:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/KMcode.mspx
I'm sorry I should have been more descriptive on my position:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/KMcode.mspx
for writing C++ drivers in kernel mode for windows. As you see, many of those improvements over C are lost in kernel mode. Also, many people that I know consider it bad form to try and use C++ for drivers in the Linux kernel, since it is written in C.
Ok, explain how C++ access the hardware layer differently than C.
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."