There are several traditional universities that are offering evening and/or online MBAs. If you want to stay on the management side of IT this might be a more useful track than a certification.
no firm wants to be on the receiving end of a subpoena
I understand that, but what is a subpoena worth in a court in another country? Generally nothing, really. Sure if you fail to show up for a civil trial in another court they could find against you because you didn't show up but they still won't be able to get far with that unless you have assets in that country that they can seize.
I can understand companies wanting to avoid dealing with it in the US court if they can, but I don't see the point of being so paranoid about it in other countries.
I don't see any reason to be afraid of being sued by Russian criminals. A few jobs ago I once had a webpage up (which attracted very little attention) that somewhat similarly exposed a particular registrar as being overwhelmingly spammer-friendly. My employer got nervous and pulled down said web page on my behalf (it was being hosted on their server at the time - yeah, I should have had it elsewhere) because they were afraid of being sued.
Frankly I don't see any reasone why it would even be a bad thing to be sued by these goons. They usually are doing their "business" in countries that don't have any kind of extradition (yeah, I know that usually doesn't matter in civil suits) agreements with the US or any other way to force me to show up for their lawsuit or be bound by its findings.
After all, once you account for all the drugs (and other stupid things) that he has done he is well over 2,000 years old. He doesn't remember anything before WWII but you can explain that through his drug use as well.
There is more at play here than just people afraid of actual scientific data ever being generated in regards to climate change. Remember that most of the GOP is strongly anti-science in virtually every aspect - and even more so when it is science funded by the federal government. The GOP will be spending untold millions the next couple years to try to uncover loose change like this to try to slow down science as much as possible. This first hearing alone likely cost the taxpayer more than the total sum of the wasteful spending.
The thing that power wheels toys really need is remote controls. When your kids are learning to drive them the kids are too capable of getting them stuck on dumb stuff and not capable enough of getting them back out. A remote control - especially one that could put the thing into reverse - would be a huge benefit.
The primary structure for double-stranded DNA is most often a double helix. Single stranded will try to form similarly complementary structures to minimize unbalanced charges. However from the primary structure you can get into secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures that go well beyond that. One really good example is the structure of a chromosome which starts with double-stranded DNA (as a double helix) wrapping around histones to form chromatin. From there it condenses further, eventually reaching the level of a chromosome with several steps along the way.
We also know that DNA can form interesting shapes as single-stranded forms that can bind to a lot of non-nucleic-acid molecules (Aptamers being good examples of these).
I know there are tons of Sony fanboys here on slashdot, but this is a bit absurd.
Did you mean anti-Sony fanboys? I've certainly never seen anybody here in Slashdot say anything positive about Sony.
What was this article but something positive about Sony? That said, if you haven't seen a Sony fanboy here yet, you haven't been around long enough. They're out there, believe me. I've been around long enough to encounter Sony, Microsoft, and Toyota fanboys here (sometimes all in one week). The only fanboys who are not allowed here are fanboys of President Obama or any other well-known democratic politician from the US.
innovations like the second screen PocketStation and the still untapped power of Remote Play and Gaikai game streaming.
The PocketStation was never released outside Japan and most playstation owners have likely never even heard of it, let alone have made use of it. And when you go in to "still untapped power", you venture deep into slashvertisement territory.
I know there are tons of Sony fanboys here on slashdot, but this is a bit absurd.
Wikipedia is still a very usable web site. By comparison slashdot went commercial some time ago and has become less usable with each passing year. Similarly while the content on wikipedia has continued to improve, the content here has continued to get worse.
Someone could learn something here, I'm pretty sure.
In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public. I don't care in the least how stoned people want to get at home as long as they stay there. The alcohol laws we currently have are intended to do much the same for drunks.
I assume you're from the US where "going out in public" automatically means you're driving a car?
In the US there is also a "drunk in public" offense where if you are sufficiently inebriated and in public, you can be charged as well. The charge is generally far less than DUI (although DUI is a total joke in the US). Basically if you are drunk and anywhere that is not private property, you can be charged with drunk in public. If we truly want to treat pot and alcohol the same way then shouldn't people who are sufficiently stoned face a corresponding charge if they are in public?
I wouldn't even care if people wanted to establish pot bars (or other such places where people can go and get stoned) as long as the people have non-intxoicated transportation to get back home when they're done.
Keep digging that hole you're in, and you might accidentally give us a meaningful statement of your own. How many tries did it take you to actually read my original comment?
With luck the software they chose for this will place a high enough load on their webservers that they will eventually collapse under the load. Once that happens they will need to seek out a way to distribute the papers that doesn't reduce their servers to smouldering rubble; there is a good chance that situation will force them to just start letting everyone view the papers as regular PDF without additional software.
So, by a 'test along these lines', you really mean a test that actually works
Correct. I want a test that is scientific and quantitative. This test is the best first step towards that which I have seen to date.
That's a pretty big difference, and given that the current evidence suggests that any purely objective chemical test would be unreliable.
The goal should be a chemical test that is scientific, quantitative, easy to administer, and statistically robust. It should work at least as well as the breathalyzer (yes, I know that test is not without fault) and be as easy to administer.
Fortunately, a field sobriety test actually tests how fit you are to drive, which is what is already relevant.
A field sobriety test is the mother of all qualitative tests, really. Even if it is administered in view of the camera on the car (or a body camera if the police officer is wearing one) it is still not a robust test and they are often challenged in court on a number of grounds. A field sobriety test for pot would be at least as bad.
In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public. I don't care in the least how stoned people want to get at home as long as they stay there. The alcohol laws we currently have are intended to do much the same for drunks. If pro-pot people really want pot treated the same as alcohol they should be behind this as well, rather than treating it like some magical faultless cure for everything.
No, he did no such thing. He took a select few words and added his own spin, then tried to box my argument into a different tangent to justify his anger.
Go back and read what he wrote, then read what I actually wrote.
However, the test proposed has not been shown to be scientifically accurate
Do yourself a favor and go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said a test like this, and defined what I wanted a test to do. I did not say that this test does that. Don't make yourself look as ridiculous as he did.
It's too bad that I piss you off so greatly that you are reduced to insulting me rather than actually talking about matters or offering useful feedback to my comments. Try reading what I write next time before inserting your foot so deeply into your own mouth. Being as none of what you wrote in your angry response to me demonstrated any understanding of what I wrote, I would be repeating myself - to someone who likely would still not be reading my words - to try to reply to you. If you can turn your anger down to perhaps a 7 or 8 (from your current 11), feel free to make an attempt to read what I wrote to start off.
The great injustice is that studies so far show that the typical driver may actually be safer under the influence of marijuana, because of the effect on driving styles.
You are using a very peculiar definition of "safer" there. If you are doing 15 in a 40 mph zone with your turn signal on, you might be safe for yourself but you are a serious hazard to the other drivers on the road.
It isn't acceptable to be under the influence of any other psychoactive compounds while driving, what is special about pot? Why should pot users be given special privilege?
I've never known a stoned person to be in a hurry, so where would be the great injustice in asking them to call a friend or a cab to get to wherever they want to go?
My stance on pot has angered many from both the pro-pot and anti-pot camps. I have been waiting for a test along these lines - preferably easily-administered and quantifiable - to determine when someone has taken in too much pot to be in public. Then we can really treat pot the same way we treat alcohol - with fines for those who have taken in too much to be in public - and I would be fine with open sales. As I've said before, I don't even give half a shit how stoned you are if you stay home (or have a designated driver [taxis are fine]) but if you decide to go out driving while stoned you can spend the night in jail and get a DUI along with the drunks.
Are you married or have you ever been in a long term relationship?
I have been married for a number of years, thank you much. I have also seen a number of other marriages collapse due to one or both partners trying to continue their pre-married lives after getting married. It doesn't work like that.
You don't need to spend every single moment with your significant other in order to have a healthy relationship.
I didn't say that you do. However if someone doesn't make an effort to be available to the other partner the time between the altar and divorce court will likely not be long.
... not the PC itself, but the fact that you still seem to want to live the same life as a married man that you lived as a single man. You said your vows, now show that they mean something. Spend time with your wife. Talk with her about the new lives you are starting together.
You should be spending time with your spouse, not ignoring her while just happening to be in the same room. If you're gaming on your PC you might as well be at the bar instead, you're just as committed to the relationship at that point.
I have driven several cars with manual transmissions this year. I have not used cursive once unless you count my signature which my cursive writing instructor (from 3rd grade many decades ago) would have flunked for illegibility. As long as people can write in some legible manner with a pen or pencil there is no good argument to beat them up with cursive; just let them go from handwriting to typing.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several traditional universities that are offering evening and/or online MBAs. If you want to stay on the management side of IT this might be a more useful track than a certification.
no firm wants to be on the receiving end of a subpoena
I understand that, but what is a subpoena worth in a court in another country? Generally nothing, really. Sure if you fail to show up for a civil trial in another court they could find against you because you didn't show up but they still won't be able to get far with that unless you have assets in that country that they can seize.
I can understand companies wanting to avoid dealing with it in the US court if they can, but I don't see the point of being so paranoid about it in other countries.
I don't see any reason to be afraid of being sued by Russian criminals. A few jobs ago I once had a webpage up (which attracted very little attention) that somewhat similarly exposed a particular registrar as being overwhelmingly spammer-friendly. My employer got nervous and pulled down said web page on my behalf (it was being hosted on their server at the time - yeah, I should have had it elsewhere) because they were afraid of being sued.
Frankly I don't see any reasone why it would even be a bad thing to be sued by these goons. They usually are doing their "business" in countries that don't have any kind of extradition (yeah, I know that usually doesn't matter in civil suits) agreements with the US or any other way to force me to show up for their lawsuit or be bound by its findings.
After all, once you account for all the drugs (and other stupid things) that he has done he is well over 2,000 years old. He doesn't remember anything before WWII but you can explain that through his drug use as well.
There is more at play here than just people afraid of actual scientific data ever being generated in regards to climate change. Remember that most of the GOP is strongly anti-science in virtually every aspect - and even more so when it is science funded by the federal government. The GOP will be spending untold millions the next couple years to try to uncover loose change like this to try to slow down science as much as possible. This first hearing alone likely cost the taxpayer more than the total sum of the wasteful spending.
The thing that power wheels toys really need is remote controls. When your kids are learning to drive them the kids are too capable of getting them stuck on dumb stuff and not capable enough of getting them back out. A remote control - especially one that could put the thing into reverse - would be a huge benefit.
The primary structure for double-stranded DNA is most often a double helix. Single stranded will try to form similarly complementary structures to minimize unbalanced charges. However from the primary structure you can get into secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures that go well beyond that. One really good example is the structure of a chromosome which starts with double-stranded DNA (as a double helix) wrapping around histones to form chromatin. From there it condenses further, eventually reaching the level of a chromosome with several steps along the way.
We also know that DNA can form interesting shapes as single-stranded forms that can bind to a lot of non-nucleic-acid molecules (Aptamers being good examples of these).
I know there are tons of Sony fanboys here on slashdot, but this is a bit absurd.
Did you mean anti-Sony fanboys? I've certainly never seen anybody here in Slashdot say anything positive about Sony.
What was this article but something positive about Sony? That said, if you haven't seen a Sony fanboy here yet, you haven't been around long enough. They're out there, believe me. I've been around long enough to encounter Sony, Microsoft, and Toyota fanboys here (sometimes all in one week). The only fanboys who are not allowed here are fanboys of President Obama or any other well-known democratic politician from the US.
innovations like the second screen PocketStation and the still untapped power of Remote Play and Gaikai game streaming.
The PocketStation was never released outside Japan and most playstation owners have likely never even heard of it, let alone have made use of it. And when you go in to "still untapped power", you venture deep into slashvertisement territory.
I know there are tons of Sony fanboys here on slashdot, but this is a bit absurd.
Your best response would have been to not respond. But go ahead and keep making yourself look silly if you want.
Wikipedia is still a very usable web site. By comparison slashdot went commercial some time ago and has become less usable with each passing year. Similarly while the content on wikipedia has continued to improve, the content here has continued to get worse.
Someone could learn something here, I'm pretty sure.
In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public. I don't care in the least how stoned people want to get at home as long as they stay there. The alcohol laws we currently have are intended to do much the same for drunks.
I assume you're from the US where "going out in public" automatically means you're driving a car?
In the US there is also a "drunk in public" offense where if you are sufficiently inebriated and in public, you can be charged as well. The charge is generally far less than DUI (although DUI is a total joke in the US). Basically if you are drunk and anywhere that is not private property, you can be charged with drunk in public. If we truly want to treat pot and alcohol the same way then shouldn't people who are sufficiently stoned face a corresponding charge if they are in public?
I wouldn't even care if people wanted to establish pot bars (or other such places where people can go and get stoned) as long as the people have non-intxoicated transportation to get back home when they're done.
How many tries did it take you to actually read my original comment?
Why would I read your entire comment? It's a waste of time to do more than skim anything you've written.
And how much time have you put in to making yourself look like an ass by replying to comments that you haven't read?
Keep digging that hole you're in, and you might accidentally give us a meaningful statement of your own. How many tries did it take you to actually read my original comment?
With luck the software they chose for this will place a high enough load on their webservers that they will eventually collapse under the load. Once that happens they will need to seek out a way to distribute the papers that doesn't reduce their servers to smouldering rubble; there is a good chance that situation will force them to just start letting everyone view the papers as regular PDF without additional software.
So, by a 'test along these lines', you really mean a test that actually works
Correct. I want a test that is scientific and quantitative. This test is the best first step towards that which I have seen to date.
That's a pretty big difference, and given that the current evidence suggests that any purely objective chemical test would be unreliable.
The goal should be a chemical test that is scientific, quantitative, easy to administer, and statistically robust. It should work at least as well as the breathalyzer (yes, I know that test is not without fault) and be as easy to administer.
Fortunately, a field sobriety test actually tests how fit you are to drive, which is what is already relevant.
A field sobriety test is the mother of all qualitative tests, really. Even if it is administered in view of the camera on the car (or a body camera if the police officer is wearing one) it is still not a robust test and they are often challenged in court on a number of grounds. A field sobriety test for pot would be at least as bad.
In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public. I don't care in the least how stoned people want to get at home as long as they stay there. The alcohol laws we currently have are intended to do much the same for drunks. If pro-pot people really want pot treated the same as alcohol they should be behind this as well, rather than treating it like some magical faultless cure for everything.
Actually, he addressed your entire argument
No, he did no such thing. He took a select few words and added his own spin, then tried to box my argument into a different tangent to justify his anger.
Go back and read what he wrote, then read what I actually wrote.
However, the test proposed has not been shown to be scientifically accurate
Do yourself a favor and go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said a test like this, and defined what I wanted a test to do. I did not say that this test does that. Don't make yourself look as ridiculous as he did.
It's too bad that I piss you off so greatly that you are reduced to insulting me rather than actually talking about matters or offering useful feedback to my comments. Try reading what I write next time before inserting your foot so deeply into your own mouth. Being as none of what you wrote in your angry response to me demonstrated any understanding of what I wrote, I would be repeating myself - to someone who likely would still not be reading my words - to try to reply to you. If you can turn your anger down to perhaps a 7 or 8 (from your current 11), feel free to make an attempt to read what I wrote to start off.
The great injustice is that studies so far show that the typical driver may actually be safer under the influence of marijuana, because of the effect on driving styles.
You are using a very peculiar definition of "safer" there. If you are doing 15 in a 40 mph zone with your turn signal on, you might be safe for yourself but you are a serious hazard to the other drivers on the road.
It isn't acceptable to be under the influence of any other psychoactive compounds while driving, what is special about pot? Why should pot users be given special privilege?
I've never known a stoned person to be in a hurry, so where would be the great injustice in asking them to call a friend or a cab to get to wherever they want to go?
My stance on pot has angered many from both the pro-pot and anti-pot camps. I have been waiting for a test along these lines - preferably easily-administered and quantifiable - to determine when someone has taken in too much pot to be in public. Then we can really treat pot the same way we treat alcohol - with fines for those who have taken in too much to be in public - and I would be fine with open sales. As I've said before, I don't even give half a shit how stoned you are if you stay home (or have a designated driver [taxis are fine]) but if you decide to go out driving while stoned you can spend the night in jail and get a DUI along with the drunks.
Are you married or have you ever been in a long term relationship?
I have been married for a number of years, thank you much. I have also seen a number of other marriages collapse due to one or both partners trying to continue their pre-married lives after getting married. It doesn't work like that.
You don't need to spend every single moment with your significant other in order to have a healthy relationship.
I didn't say that you do. However if someone doesn't make an effort to be available to the other partner the time between the altar and divorce court will likely not be long.
... not the PC itself, but the fact that you still seem to want to live the same life as a married man that you lived as a single man. You said your vows, now show that they mean something. Spend time with your wife. Talk with her about the new lives you are starting together.
You should be spending time with your spouse, not ignoring her while just happening to be in the same room. If you're gaming on your PC you might as well be at the bar instead, you're just as committed to the relationship at that point.
I have driven several cars with manual transmissions this year. I have not used cursive once unless you count my signature which my cursive writing instructor (from 3rd grade many decades ago) would have flunked for illegibility. As long as people can write in some legible manner with a pen or pencil there is no good argument to beat them up with cursive; just let them go from handwriting to typing.