The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there.
Citation?
I was just on a jury about a year ago and the average age was somewhere around 30-35, I think there was one person close to 60, maybe two in their 50's, and three of us in our 20's.
I was actually kind of surprised at how "average joe" everyone was, while still being a pretty diverse group.
There was only one retiree in the group, and the vast majority was college educated. This same distribution was roughly true of the people prior to jury selection, too (you know, where they gather everyone up before sending off to various court rooms for selection). There weren't a lot of old or apparently uneducated people.
Your blanket statement simply does not hold up with my personal experience at all, and since you cite no references, I call bullshit.
While that's true, there are always improvements to be made.
We don't currently get the maximum amount of energy possible out of a battery that lasts for X amount of recharge cycles and is Y big. There is a limit, but new materials and manufacturing techniques get us closer and closer.
That is what incremental improvement is all about.
That's the question that needs answering. We see that there is matter, obviously, but common sense (assuming the big bang is accurate, and it has held up pretty well over the years) says their shouldn't be.
So why does matter exist? Why didn't matter and anti-matter annihilate each other evenly? They've tested it in the colliders, and sure enough, matter and anti-matter are not created equally given the conditions necessary to create them.
This is a theory to explain why what is, is. This is how science works. You take an observable fact, create a hypothesis for why it might be so, and test the hypothesis. If it works as the hypothesis describes, you're closer to knowing why the observable fact is an observable fact. When you know a bunch of reasons why observable facts exist, you start to be able to predict new things that you haven't observed yet, and you can start looking for them. If you don't find them, your theory is bunk. If you do, your theory may still be bunk, but you at least know it is pretty good.
The problem is people have this real Stockholm's Syndrom thing going on and almost always give power to people who want to fuck them over.
I personally believe capitalism has managed to hold this in check a lot better than marxism ever has, because capitalism is designed to work with selfishness instead of against it, and it is therefore is undermined less by corruption.
However, chip away at a tree long enough and eventually it will fall. Nothing is immune to corruption, and the ones to blame for allowing it to continue are us.
It doesn't save them money if the pipes are 'empty'.
You obviously don't understand how the internet works.
Since the rest of your post is based on this entirely erroneous assumption (it does, in fact, cost telco's a lot of money to send data across other people's pipes, it's only free if it is 100% within their own network, which is rare) I completely ignored it.
More than likely it went down something like this:
Founding Father A: No way man, commerce should be the States' business!
Founding Father B: I totally agree dude, but what if the states don't agree? What if they start trade wars and shit? That's bad news man, and we have no way to fix it! The Congress needs to be able put a stop to that man!
Founding Father A: Oh dude, you're right! I didn't think about that! How we make Congress the arbitrators of trade disputes?
Founding Father B: Alright dude, that sounds perfect!
Founding Father C: But what if something happens that we didn't think of though? Like, what if a State gets sneaky? Or what if a company gets so big it actually operates in more than one state? One state could get nasty and try to take all the business, and there isn't anything the other states can do!
Founding Fathers A & B: Oh shit, you're right man.
Founding Father A: Ok, so how's this? We already decided Congress should regulate international commerce right? Well, why shouldn't they regulate interstate commerce too?
Founding Fathers B & C: Brilliant! Next!
I'm certain that's how they talked back then too, I swear it.
(This is a bad example to use for Congress/El Presidente abusing the Commerce clause. This is exactly the sort of situation it was intended for - interstate commerce. Now, exactly how Congress chooses to regulate it is an entirely different yet just as polarizing story.)
That's quite a laugh, seeing how Greenspan was precisely at the top of the power pyramid that Rand was vehemently opposed to. Without a doubt, Rand would be 100% against a situation where consolidated power (i.e. government) is master of the economy, where an elite few have the ability to pull financial strings to benefit some at the expense of others, or impede the free market via one central point of failure.
Do you have any idea who Greenspan was, or how he ran the Fed?
He's the guy who was pushing so hard to de-regulate the banking industry.
Seriously, do a little research before you start spouting off idiocy. It wasn't the position Rand was against, it was the attitude and policies she was against.
For what it's worth, I read somewhere that Greenspan was seriously disillusioned by the '08 crash, which went unregulated (not that it necessarily have fixed things) largely thanks to Greenspan himself.
Why do you hate the word? It's perfectly descriptive of what is going on.
Physical leverage is gaining mechanical advantage or power via the use of a lever. That lever can be a board resting against a rock, a pully system, a ramp, or whatever.
In the financial world, leverage is utilizing your company's assets to gain a financial advantage to increase your return on investment.
Notice how similar they are? Leverage is apt. They should have used their open source software as a lever against which to lift their profits. They did not do this (or rather they did it poorly), and they failed.
swap allows on OS to move UNUSED applications / etc off to disk, so they can be restored later to main memory when they need to run. if your system is trying to run an application that's located in swap, that's called thrashing and any application is going to perform like crap.
what do you expect when you start trying to run your app out of "memory" that's 100x slower than main memory?
I believe that was the point, Java's garbage collection encourages sloppy programming - people load everything into memory even though there is no need for it, assuming the garbage collector will take care of it. However, the garbage collector is only going to get rid of things that are no longer needed, if you tell the JVM that everything is needed then it won't get rid of anything until the app closes. Eventually it consumes enough memory for either the Java app itself to thrash the hard-disk.
This happens a lot, and the only thing that saves most Java apps is that we have enough memory to handle it (at the expense of a less responsive system - thanks Java programmers).
and if the defaults were higher you'd complain that it unnecessarily grabbed more memory than it needs. that's why it's a parameter, because every application is different. do you really think they could have one setting that worked well for an enterprise application server, your IDE, and an applet on a web page?
Again, the problem is that it doesn't deal with the issue. The default should be a detection algorithm that attempts automatically find the proper settings. There are a lot of ways to do this. If startup parameters are insufficient, should not the JVM be able to detect the problem and adjust? When you run a.Net app you don't need to adjust any starting parameters, it just goes and allocates memory as needed. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than Java's.
for the average app, you don't care about these details. if you have a high end enterprise server application you have the power to tweak things. any high-end application, regardless of the language / machine it runs in / on, is going to require memory tweaks.
Yet you need to, as it affects overall performance. That's the problem.
it's huge, but why do you care?
Just a guess, but perhaps to find the proper function contained in the library?
Dumbass.
spoken like a true non-java engineer.
Spoken like a self-important douchebag.
(Sorry, that last one isn't really a rebuttal. Just saying there is no need for you to be a dick.)
The Mythbusters claim the myth was 'busted' not because enough heat couldn't be generated, but because an individual soldier would be unable to distinguish his particular 'reflected spot', and therefore be unable to focus it onto the target.
You obviously missed the second busting of this myth, where MIT built the rig. They had a mechanism for sighting the mirrors, and were able to get a very tight spot on the boat.
They were able ignite the boat with the modern mirrors, but could not do it with polished copper.
You want to know the most effective way of lighting a boat on fire? Shooting an arrow of flaming pitch at it. That one worked the best, and had the advantage of being much simpler and faster than the deathray with modern mirrors. The deathray with copper mirrors simply didn't work.
You realize it's perfectly rational to think Obama sucks monkey testicles without having to believe Bush was the second coming.
In fact the two are very similar, generally speaking. Bush was on one side of the fence, Obama is on the other. They are both standing at the fence and bullshitting, though.
The movie myth is the popular myth. It doesn't matter if it is based on an older, more plausible myth (they often point such myths out, actually), they are testing a myth submitted by fans. If fans submit a movie myth, they test the movie myth.
For what it's worth, they almost always try to figure out a way in which it could work, myth or no.
A wooden gun cannot withstand the forces generated by a pistol. They have already tested similar myths, mostly involving cannons, and they either explode (harming the operator more than the target) or perform extremely poorly (i.e. non-lethal).
Hell, even iron isn't very good, have you seen how thick the barrels have to be on old iron cannons? They are huge.
Today we use steel, which is much stronger than unalloyed iron, which is much stronger than the strongest hardwood.
Now, you might be able to make a gun out of composite materials (carbon fiber and ceramics, probably) that could withstand the forces generated yet make it through security, but why do that when you could probably find a way to hide a real gun in your carry-on. All you have to do is fool the screener, it would be a lot easier than developing a gun that could pass through a metal detector.
The full body X-Ray would catch such a thing anyway.
He did show what may be a vestigial spine the other day by giving a big F-U to his base - saying something along the lines of "a little relief for everybody is better than no relief at all for the lower and middle classes". The dems are frantically trying to circumvent this the same way they did health care - by skipping the rectifying of the two bills and passing the senate bill as-is while they still have the majority.
Perhaps he can actually begin to grow a whole spine from this experience. Who knows? I was pretty disappointed with his performance on health care (I was behind him after his big speech, but in the following months it just got worse and worse), maybe he'll do a little better now that it's clear his base alone won't get him re-elected in 2012.
I dunno, did he promise more hope? Or was it more like "hope the change is good".
He certainly delivered on change, and you could say he delivered on hope too, since it now takes a hell of a lot more hope than it used to to believe we'll ever get out of this mess.
I'm joking I'm joking! They are both smart and good at what they do, and their differing personalities play well off each other on-screen (I've heard otherwise off-screen).
Slashdot Mirror
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there.
Citation?
I was just on a jury about a year ago and the average age was somewhere around 30-35, I think there was one person close to 60, maybe two in their 50's, and three of us in our 20's.
I was actually kind of surprised at how "average joe" everyone was, while still being a pretty diverse group.
There was only one retiree in the group, and the vast majority was college educated. This same distribution was roughly true of the people prior to jury selection, too (you know, where they gather everyone up before sending off to various court rooms for selection). There weren't a lot of old or apparently uneducated people.
Your blanket statement simply does not hold up with my personal experience at all, and since you cite no references, I call bullshit.
While that's true, there are always improvements to be made.
We don't currently get the maximum amount of energy possible out of a battery that lasts for X amount of recharge cycles and is Y big. There is a limit, but new materials and manufacturing techniques get us closer and closer.
That is what incremental improvement is all about.
Wow, haven't been following physics much, eh?
Yes, but why?
That's the question that needs answering. We see that there is matter, obviously, but common sense (assuming the big bang is accurate, and it has held up pretty well over the years) says their shouldn't be.
So why does matter exist? Why didn't matter and anti-matter annihilate each other evenly? They've tested it in the colliders, and sure enough, matter and anti-matter are not created equally given the conditions necessary to create them.
This is a theory to explain why what is, is. This is how science works. You take an observable fact, create a hypothesis for why it might be so, and test the hypothesis. If it works as the hypothesis describes, you're closer to knowing why the observable fact is an observable fact. When you know a bunch of reasons why observable facts exist, you start to be able to predict new things that you haven't observed yet, and you can start looking for them. If you don't find them, your theory is bunk. If you do, your theory may still be bunk, but you at least know it is pretty good.
The power is always with the people.
The problem is people have this real Stockholm's Syndrom thing going on and almost always give power to people who want to fuck them over.
I personally believe capitalism has managed to hold this in check a lot better than marxism ever has, because capitalism is designed to work with selfishness instead of against it, and it is therefore is undermined less by corruption.
However, chip away at a tree long enough and eventually it will fall. Nothing is immune to corruption, and the ones to blame for allowing it to continue are us.
Depends on if your carrier's network gets saturated.
If so, definitely.
If not, no, it won't.
That's basic supply and demand there.
Apparently you've never heard of copyright nor royalties.
The cost is not in distributing the content, it's in displaying it.
It doesn't save them money if the pipes are 'empty'.
You obviously don't understand how the internet works.
Since the rest of your post is based on this entirely erroneous assumption (it does, in fact, cost telco's a lot of money to send data across other people's pipes, it's only free if it is 100% within their own network, which is rare) I completely ignored it.
It isn't obvious? I mean, the clause clearly states "to prevent trade wars".
Oh wait, no it doesn't. My bad.
More than likely it went down something like this:
Founding Father A: No way man, commerce should be the States' business!
Founding Father B: I totally agree dude, but what if the states don't agree? What if they start trade wars and shit? That's bad news man, and we have no way to fix it! The Congress needs to be able put a stop to that man!
Founding Father A: Oh dude, you're right! I didn't think about that! How we make Congress the arbitrators of trade disputes?
Founding Father B: Alright dude, that sounds perfect!
Founding Father C: But what if something happens that we didn't think of though? Like, what if a State gets sneaky? Or what if a company gets so big it actually operates in more than one state? One state could get nasty and try to take all the business, and there isn't anything the other states can do!
Founding Fathers A & B: Oh shit, you're right man.
Founding Father A: Ok, so how's this? We already decided Congress should regulate international commerce right? Well, why shouldn't they regulate interstate commerce too?
Founding Fathers B & C: Brilliant! Next!
I'm certain that's how they talked back then too, I swear it.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
Cheers!
(This is a bad example to use for Congress/El Presidente abusing the Commerce clause. This is exactly the sort of situation it was intended for - interstate commerce. Now, exactly how Congress chooses to regulate it is an entirely different yet just as polarizing story.)
That's quite a laugh, seeing how Greenspan was precisely at the top of the power pyramid that Rand was vehemently opposed to. Without a doubt, Rand would be 100% against a situation where consolidated power (i.e. government) is master of the economy, where an elite few have the ability to pull financial strings to benefit some at the expense of others, or impede the free market via one central point of failure.
Do you have any idea who Greenspan was, or how he ran the Fed?
He's the guy who was pushing so hard to de-regulate the banking industry.
Seriously, do a little research before you start spouting off idiocy. It wasn't the position Rand was against, it was the attitude and policies she was against.
For what it's worth, I read somewhere that Greenspan was seriously disillusioned by the '08 crash, which went unregulated (not that it necessarily have fixed things) largely thanks to Greenspan himself.
...to leverage (gosh I hate this word) their...
Why do you hate the word? It's perfectly descriptive of what is going on.
Physical leverage is gaining mechanical advantage or power via the use of a lever. That lever can be a board resting against a rock, a pully system, a ramp, or whatever.
In the financial world, leverage is utilizing your company's assets to gain a financial advantage to increase your return on investment.
Notice how similar they are? Leverage is apt. They should have used their open source software as a lever against which to lift their profits. They did not do this (or rather they did it poorly), and they failed.
And the vast majority of Java programmers are not engineer level, which is why most Java apps suck balls when it comes to performance.
swap allows on OS to move UNUSED applications / etc off to disk, so they can be restored later to main memory when they need to run. if your system is trying to run an application that's located in swap, that's called thrashing and any application is going to perform like crap.
what do you expect when you start trying to run your app out of "memory" that's 100x slower than main memory?
I believe that was the point, Java's garbage collection encourages sloppy programming - people load everything into memory even though there is no need for it, assuming the garbage collector will take care of it. However, the garbage collector is only going to get rid of things that are no longer needed, if you tell the JVM that everything is needed then it won't get rid of anything until the app closes. Eventually it consumes enough memory for either the Java app itself to thrash the hard-disk.
This happens a lot, and the only thing that saves most Java apps is that we have enough memory to handle it (at the expense of a less responsive system - thanks Java programmers).
and if the defaults were higher you'd complain that it unnecessarily grabbed more memory than it needs. that's why it's a parameter, because every application is different. do you really think they could have one setting that worked well for an enterprise application server, your IDE, and an applet on a web page?
Again, the problem is that it doesn't deal with the issue. The default should be a detection algorithm that attempts automatically find the proper settings. There are a lot of ways to do this. If startup parameters are insufficient, should not the JVM be able to detect the problem and adjust? When you run a .Net app you don't need to adjust any starting parameters, it just goes and allocates memory as needed. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than Java's.
for the average app, you don't care about these details. if you have a high end enterprise server application you have the power to tweak things. any high-end application, regardless of the language / machine it runs in / on, is going to require memory tweaks.
Yet you need to, as it affects overall performance. That's the problem.
it's huge, but why do you care?
Just a guess, but perhaps to find the proper function contained in the library?
Dumbass.
spoken like a true non-java engineer.
Spoken like a self-important douchebag.
(Sorry, that last one isn't really a rebuttal. Just saying there is no need for you to be a dick.)
You mean still alive and still a big player in the IT industry?
Granted, they don't have the position they once had, but neither does IBM, or HP, or Microsoft (or Apple, going the opposite direction).
Things change, adapt or die. Novell adapted, Sun died.
The Mythbusters claim the myth was 'busted' not because enough heat couldn't be generated, but because an individual soldier would be unable to distinguish his particular 'reflected spot', and therefore be unable to focus it onto the target.
You obviously missed the second busting of this myth, where MIT built the rig. They had a mechanism for sighting the mirrors, and were able to get a very tight spot on the boat.
They were able ignite the boat with the modern mirrors, but could not do it with polished copper.
You want to know the most effective way of lighting a boat on fire? Shooting an arrow of flaming pitch at it. That one worked the best, and had the advantage of being much simpler and faster than the deathray with modern mirrors. The deathray with copper mirrors simply didn't work.
You realize it's perfectly rational to think Obama sucks monkey testicles without having to believe Bush was the second coming.
In fact the two are very similar, generally speaking. Bush was on one side of the fence, Obama is on the other. They are both standing at the fence and bullshitting, though.
The movie myth is the popular myth. It doesn't matter if it is based on an older, more plausible myth (they often point such myths out, actually), they are testing a myth submitted by fans. If fans submit a movie myth, they test the movie myth.
For what it's worth, they almost always try to figure out a way in which it could work, myth or no.
A wooden gun cannot withstand the forces generated by a pistol. They have already tested similar myths, mostly involving cannons, and they either explode (harming the operator more than the target) or perform extremely poorly (i.e. non-lethal).
Hell, even iron isn't very good, have you seen how thick the barrels have to be on old iron cannons? They are huge.
Today we use steel, which is much stronger than unalloyed iron, which is much stronger than the strongest hardwood.
Now, you might be able to make a gun out of composite materials (carbon fiber and ceramics, probably) that could withstand the forces generated yet make it through security, but why do that when you could probably find a way to hide a real gun in your carry-on. All you have to do is fool the screener, it would be a lot easier than developing a gun that could pass through a metal detector.
The full body X-Ray would catch such a thing anyway.
He did show what may be a vestigial spine the other day by giving a big F-U to his base - saying something along the lines of "a little relief for everybody is better than no relief at all for the lower and middle classes". The dems are frantically trying to circumvent this the same way they did health care - by skipping the rectifying of the two bills and passing the senate bill as-is while they still have the majority.
Perhaps he can actually begin to grow a whole spine from this experience. Who knows? I was pretty disappointed with his performance on health care (I was behind him after his big speech, but in the following months it just got worse and worse), maybe he'll do a little better now that it's clear his base alone won't get him re-elected in 2012.
I dunno, did he promise more hope? Or was it more like "hope the change is good".
He certainly delivered on change, and you could say he delivered on hope too, since it now takes a hell of a lot more hope than it used to to believe we'll ever get out of this mess.
It all depends on how you look at it.
Got to be Jamie, Adam is there for the hijinks.
I'm joking I'm joking! They are both smart and good at what they do, and their differing personalities play well off each other on-screen (I've heard otherwise off-screen).
This is bad, really bad.
Does nobody listen to Stephen Hawking? They're almost certainly out to conquer us!
Yes.