Care to elaborate on why population density would matter? I think the more immediate problem is that the Estoninan system is built on top of a National ID card, which Canada does not have.
Because they would tax the rich and large corporations more, they would gradually cut government jobs by at least 1/3 (while optimizing of course) and eliminate pension plans for new government employees (why should working for the government entitle you to a free retirement?
Why tax large corporations more? The wealth they generate will ultimately end up in the hands of shareholders, right? Most of those share holders will be 'the rich', but some of them will be normal people holding shares directly or through mutual funds.
And yes, I'm aware that inciting violence is a crime in the US as well. I believe it shouldn't be. I sure as hell am not going to commit violence because someone else is telling me to go do it, and if I can behave responsibly despite the incitement of others I don't think they can be held responsible for my actions.
If you were to hire someone to kill another person, you would not be charged with murder, you would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In other words, it's not the violence (which the 'hirer' did not commit) that gets you in trouble; it's the intent. Similarly, when people incite violence, they (conceptually) are punished for their intent to cause violence, regardless of the means.
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you?:P
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word. Someone who wanted to describe the activity, but who thought it was acceptable, would use a different word, like 'confiscate', 'take', 'retrieve', 'gain', 'earn', 'win' etc.
How about we start tracking people into different categories post-highschool: STEM colleges for the smart people that actually do stuff. Colleges with other bullshit degrees for future office drones.
The mindless IT drone looks at the mindless office drone and congratulates himself on his superiority.
I always wondered why they never showed the Death Star going into hyperspace. It obviously has hyperdrive, since it zips from system to system pretty quickly.
I don't think they showed *anything* going into hyperspace until RotJ, presumably due to budgetary constraints.
For that matter, couldn't the Empire have just jumped within range of the Rebel base after arriving at Yavin? Maybe they were just overconfident that one orbit would be plenty of time to wipe out the Rebels?
In books, it's impossible to jump into or out of hyperspace within a gravity well, i.e., too close to a planet. I'm pretty sure this concept is an after-the-fact justification for that plot point
Yes, but the Speed of Plot required for SW significantly outpaces the Speed of Plot required for ST. A trivial answer to what is ultimately a trivial question:P
I suspect the reason for this is because when Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda were coming up with these figures, they probably consulted real-life figures and theory and extrapolated, while the author of Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections probably just made up stuff that sounded good.
Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections was authored in part by Dr. Curthis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Sydney. I can't comment on how he came up with the figures. Even if you ignore the books, which is fair, the Empire comes out on top, at least according to the site. I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I have trouble arguing against his analysis.
I've actually never had a Star Wars vs Star Trek discussion. I stumbled across the site through some Slashdot posting years ago. If you have a site which is similarly rigorous, I'd love to see it.
In case you're too lazy to follow the link, published figures have Slave-I substantially out-performing the Enterprise-D. To address the AC GP, Star Wars vessels routinely travel cross-galaxy in a matter of hours, while Star Trek vessels would take decades to travel across a significant fraction of the galaxy. I'm not the site's author, but I was thoroughly impressed with the analysis and technical knowledge brought to bear on the subject.
Tell them Debian is like the 'Industrial Strength' version of Ubuntu. Then tell them OSes are like dishwashers and ovens; just as restaurants use different models than consumers; IT (?) People use different OSes than whatever 'Them' is.
(...) it's a clever little puzzle that people enjoy composing and analyzing.
No, it is not. A poem is most certainly not a riddle, and any so-called poet who attempts to pervert poetry in such a manner ought to be keel-hauled.
That was a metaphor. I meant that relative to a poet's other options for communicating, like essays and dissertations and other prose, a poem is a puzzle because it doesn't go to the same lengths to set forth ideas clearly and avoid ambiguity. I see to my chagrin that Hatta, the GP, said almost exactly that in a previous post. You're right though; neither of us considered the requirement to convey emotional content, which prose might not do as effectively as a poem.
It's the contract version of a bait and switch. First the Devs are offered 20%, and then sometime later, possibly after the Devs made plans around this promotional event, Amazon switches 20% with 0%, hoping the Devs will settle for the dubious gains of word of mouth rather than a solid 20% in their pocket. Doing it for some specific reason or change in circumstance is one thing; doing it systematically is pretty clearly predatory.
Nobody has ever adequately explained to me why poets don't just come out and say what they mean, instead of hiding it behind layers of metaphor.
Because hiding the meaning is precisely the point. It's not supposed to be a dissertation with a well supported thesis; it's a clever little puzzle that people enjoy composing and analyzing.
I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this.
Conceded. Someone with a scientist's training who is after a big paycheck probably would not become a research scientist.
I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial.
The point I, and I believe Bush, was making is that selling out for a big paycheck is not the only reason to question a scientist's work, and further that scientists on the 'Big Oil' side aren't the only ones with a possible ulterior motive. A climate scientist dedicated to an academic career may experience pressure to conform to the AGW theory because any research that contravenes AGW may be dismissed as shilling for Big Oil.
Therefore, an analysis which only goes as far as "Big Oil scientists are paid to produce results that Big Oil is looking for; while everyone else is primarily interested in the idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something" is incomplete at best, and naive at worst.
Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).
You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either scientists want money, and therefore will work outside of Academia, or they want truth, and will work inside Academia.
I'm studying Computer Science at a post-graduate level, and I'm not aware of a single student or professor who is only after truth without caring about the practical requirements of Academic career advancement. At my school, to be hired as a professor you need X publications, and at least Y need to be Journal Papers. To get tenure you need even more publications and journal papers. And if you want funding, or to be published, you need to be aware of which methods and fields are currently in vogue. Conditional Random Fields are big. Sentiment Analysis is big. WordNet is big. If I want my career to go somewhere (I don't, I'm going back to Industry), I should work those into my Thesis.
That's just an anecdote. Maybe I'm at a particularly mercenary faculty. Maybe Computer Science is different from other sciences. But I doubt it. I see no reason to believe that scientists in general care any less about their careers than any other group of people.
Well, what one wonders is why this guy got caught?
He also had the laptop pop fake warning messages saying that the laptop was malfunctioning, and that putting it near hot steam might clear up the issue. This prompted many victims to take the computer into their washrooms while they showered.
Eventually someone brought their computer to a MacStore instead, and the tech there found the spyware.
When he says 'embedded programming', he probably means programming for a microprocessor without an OS. That's what I do at work, and I constantly forget that phones are also 'embedded systems'.
There is no such thing as an "accident" when human agency is involved*
Spare us your masturbatory attempts to redefine language. Consult any dictionary for accident and you will see at least one entry saying it is an unfortunate and unintended occurrence.
Furthermore, ask any sampling of native speakers of English (the more usual method of ascertaining linguistic validity), and they will agree that an unfortunate and unintended occurrence is indeed an accident. Given the centrality of non-intention to the definition, human agency is almost mandatory.
Cutting the Internet to an entire country isn't an "accident" it is stupidity.
Stupidity and accidents are hardly mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they often go hand-in-hand. Those entries for accident that don't say 'unintended' will likely say 'unforeseen' instead, which is quite distinct from 'unforeseeable'. Negative consequences of an action are often unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) because the actor is too stupid to consider them.
The reason developing countries rely so heavily on mobile phones isn't because it is a good solution but because copper gets ripped up by thieves almost as soon as it is laid. Though I do enjoy reading about potential Darwin award winners who try and "scavenge" power cables.
Given that they live in developing countries, it's quite possible that these potential Darwin award winners are merely poor people with few options, driven to risk life and limb stealing power cables to salvage just to survive. I call that desperation, and an ugly tragedy, rather than amusing; but perhaps I'm just a bleeding-heart socialist.
Why is it that every time a tech employee or company makes a mistake, some idiot thinks someone should be investigated and/or charged with a criminal offense? Do you work? Do you think your every mistake should be scrutinized by government employees for wrong-doing?
Don't you know how expensive and unwieldy the justice system is? It's a massive beast that routinely destroys people's lives totally by accident[1]. Making something illegal should be a desperate, last-resort measure for keeping civilization running smoothly.
And I'm no pie-in-sky libertarian, either. I'm a collectivist, statist, socialist Canadian.
Even ignoring a comment above, which says that the cable was exposed by landslides or heavy rains, the company should be held accountable to whatever contracts it signed while installing and operating the cable, not be investigated for 'endangering the public'. How does that even follow?
[1] Assuming that, taken as a whole, the justice system is trying to be just, even if individual actors within it are not. Regardless, that the Justice system destroys people's lives due to the malicious or cynical political machinations of internal actors merely strengthens my point; that it should be kept out of any dispute for as long as possible.
I will go so far as to say if you are entering college intending to be a programmer and don't already have more then 3 languages and library packages under your belt you should reconsider your carrier choice.
What a load of crap. If your program can only produce good programmers from people who already know programming, then your program is worthless.
Furthermore, for every guy who taught himself programming and is brilliant at it, there's one who taught himself every bad habit in the book, and is basically irredeemable.
Or you could ignore human word boundaries and make "named after" a phrase with a specific meaning. I imagine that by special casing such constructs you could improve performance immensely.
You are correct. The technical term for it is 'multi word expression'
Slashdot Mirror
Care to elaborate on why population density would matter? I think the more immediate problem is that the Estoninan system is built on top of a National ID card, which Canada does not have.
Because they would tax the rich and large corporations more, they would gradually cut government jobs by at least 1/3 (while optimizing of course) and eliminate pension plans for new government employees (why should working for the government entitle you to a free retirement?
Why tax large corporations more? The wealth they generate will ultimately end up in the hands of shareholders, right? Most of those share holders will be 'the rich', but some of them will be normal people holding shares directly or through mutual funds.
That article links to Wikipedia's List of Unsual Deaths. You just wasted an hour out of my day! :P
And yes, I'm aware that inciting violence is a crime in the US as well. I believe it shouldn't be. I sure as hell am not going to commit violence because someone else is telling me to go do it, and if I can behave responsibly despite the incitement of others I don't think they can be held responsible for my actions.
If you were to hire someone to kill another person, you would not be charged with murder, you would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In other words, it's not the violence (which the 'hirer' did not commit) that gets you in trouble; it's the intent. Similarly, when people incite violence, they (conceptually) are punished for their intent to cause violence, regardless of the means.
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you? :P
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word. Someone who wanted to describe the activity, but who thought it was acceptable, would use a different word, like 'confiscate', 'take', 'retrieve', 'gain', 'earn', 'win' etc.
How about we start tracking people into different categories post-highschool: STEM colleges for the smart people that actually do stuff. Colleges with other bullshit degrees for future office drones.
The mindless IT drone looks at the mindless office drone and congratulates himself on his superiority.
I always wondered why they never showed the Death Star going into hyperspace. It obviously has hyperdrive, since it zips from system to system pretty quickly.
I don't think they showed *anything* going into hyperspace until RotJ, presumably due to budgetary constraints.
For that matter, couldn't the Empire have just jumped within range of the Rebel base after arriving at Yavin? Maybe they were just overconfident that one orbit would be plenty of time to wipe out the Rebels?
In books, it's impossible to jump into or out of hyperspace within a gravity well, i.e., too close to a planet. I'm pretty sure this concept is an after-the-fact justification for that plot point
Yes, but the Speed of Plot required for SW significantly outpaces the Speed of Plot required for ST. A trivial answer to what is ultimately a trivial question :P
I suspect the reason for this is because when Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda were coming up with these figures, they probably consulted real-life figures and theory and extrapolated, while the author of Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections probably just made up stuff that sounded good.
Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections was authored in part by Dr. Curthis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Sydney. I can't comment on how he came up with the figures. Even if you ignore the books, which is fair, the Empire comes out on top, at least according to the site. I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I have trouble arguing against his analysis.
I've actually never had a Star Wars vs Star Trek discussion. I stumbled across the site through some Slashdot posting years ago. If you have a site which is similarly rigorous, I'd love to see it.
This issue has been thoroughly settled for years.
In case you're too lazy to follow the link, published figures have Slave-I substantially out-performing the Enterprise-D. To address the AC GP, Star Wars vessels routinely travel cross-galaxy in a matter of hours, while Star Trek vessels would take decades to travel across a significant fraction of the galaxy. I'm not the site's author, but I was thoroughly impressed with the analysis and technical knowledge brought to bear on the subject.
Tell them Debian is like the 'Industrial Strength' version of Ubuntu. Then tell them OSes are like dishwashers and ovens; just as restaurants use different models than consumers; IT (?) People use different OSes than whatever 'Them' is.
(...) it's a clever little puzzle that people enjoy composing and analyzing.
No, it is not. A poem is most certainly not a riddle, and any so-called poet who attempts to pervert poetry in such a manner ought to be keel-hauled.
That was a metaphor. I meant that relative to a poet's other options for communicating, like essays and dissertations and other prose, a poem is a puzzle because it doesn't go to the same lengths to set forth ideas clearly and avoid ambiguity. I see to my chagrin that Hatta, the GP, said almost exactly that in a previous post. You're right though; neither of us considered the requirement to convey emotional content, which prose might not do as effectively as a poem.
It's the contract version of a bait and switch. First the Devs are offered 20%, and then sometime later, possibly after the Devs made plans around this promotional event, Amazon switches 20% with 0%, hoping the Devs will settle for the dubious gains of word of mouth rather than a solid 20% in their pocket. Doing it for some specific reason or change in circumstance is one thing; doing it systematically is pretty clearly predatory.
Nobody has ever adequately explained to me why poets don't just come out and say what they mean, instead of hiding it behind layers of metaphor.
Because hiding the meaning is precisely the point. It's not supposed to be a dissertation with a well supported thesis; it's a clever little puzzle that people enjoy composing and analyzing.
I'm just pointing out that if what scientists really want is money, that "research scientist" is a poor method for achieving the goal, and most of the people who are research scientists are smart enough to be aware of this.
Conceded. Someone with a scientist's training who is after a big paycheck probably would not become a research scientist.
I expect they still want reasonable and just compensation for their work, however, the notion that all scientists are willing to sell out for the modest money they are paid, seems ludicrously conspiratorial.
The point I, and I believe Bush, was making is that selling out for a big paycheck is not the only reason to question a scientist's work, and further that scientists on the 'Big Oil' side aren't the only ones with a possible ulterior motive. A climate scientist dedicated to an academic career may experience pressure to conform to the AGW theory because any research that contravenes AGW may be dismissed as shilling for Big Oil.
Therefore, an analysis which only goes as far as "Big Oil scientists are paid to produce results that Big Oil is looking for; while everyone else is primarily interested in the idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something" is incomplete at best, and naive at worst.
Also, I think Computer Science may be qualitatively different from other sciences (I also have a degree in it).
We can only hope.
You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either scientists want money, and therefore will work outside of Academia, or they want truth, and will work inside Academia.
I'm studying Computer Science at a post-graduate level, and I'm not aware of a single student or professor who is only after truth without caring about the practical requirements of Academic career advancement. At my school, to be hired as a professor you need X publications, and at least Y need to be Journal Papers. To get tenure you need even more publications and journal papers. And if you want funding, or to be published, you need to be aware of which methods and fields are currently in vogue. Conditional Random Fields are big. Sentiment Analysis is big. WordNet is big. If I want my career to go somewhere (I don't, I'm going back to Industry), I should work those into my Thesis.
That's just an anecdote. Maybe I'm at a particularly mercenary faculty. Maybe Computer Science is different from other sciences. But I doubt it. I see no reason to believe that scientists in general care any less about their careers than any other group of people.
Well, what one wonders is why this guy got caught?
He also had the laptop pop fake warning messages saying that the laptop was malfunctioning, and that putting it near hot steam might clear up the issue. This prompted many victims to take the computer into their washrooms while they showered.
Eventually someone brought their computer to a MacStore instead, and the tech there found the spyware.
I was just thinking that. Wish I had mod points. Well said.
Here is a link to the actual paper. Be warned, it's a PDF.
When he says 'embedded programming', he probably means programming for a microprocessor without an OS. That's what I do at work, and I constantly forget that phones are also 'embedded systems'.
There is no such thing as an "accident" when human agency is involved*
Spare us your masturbatory attempts to redefine language. Consult any dictionary for accident and you will see at least one entry saying it is an unfortunate and unintended occurrence.
Furthermore, ask any sampling of native speakers of English (the more usual method of ascertaining linguistic validity), and they will agree that an unfortunate and unintended occurrence is indeed an accident. Given the centrality of non-intention to the definition, human agency is almost mandatory.
Cutting the Internet to an entire country isn't an "accident" it is stupidity.
Stupidity and accidents are hardly mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they often go hand-in-hand. Those entries for accident that don't say 'unintended' will likely say 'unforeseen' instead, which is quite distinct from 'unforeseeable'. Negative consequences of an action are often unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) because the actor is too stupid to consider them.
The reason developing countries rely so heavily on mobile phones isn't because it is a good solution but because copper gets ripped up by thieves almost as soon as it is laid. Though I do enjoy reading about potential Darwin award winners who try and "scavenge" power cables.
Given that they live in developing countries, it's quite possible that these potential Darwin award winners are merely poor people with few options, driven to risk life and limb stealing power cables to salvage just to survive. I call that desperation, and an ugly tragedy, rather than amusing; but perhaps I'm just a bleeding-heart socialist.
Why is it that every time a tech employee or company makes a mistake, some idiot thinks someone should be investigated and/or charged with a criminal offense? Do you work? Do you think your every mistake should be scrutinized by government employees for wrong-doing?
Don't you know how expensive and unwieldy the justice system is? It's a massive beast that routinely destroys people's lives totally by accident[1]. Making something illegal should be a desperate, last-resort measure for keeping civilization running smoothly.
And I'm no pie-in-sky libertarian, either. I'm a collectivist, statist, socialist Canadian.
Even ignoring a comment above, which says that the cable was exposed by landslides or heavy rains, the company should be held accountable to whatever contracts it signed while installing and operating the cable, not be investigated for 'endangering the public'. How does that even follow?
[1] Assuming that, taken as a whole, the justice system is trying to be just, even if individual actors within it are not. Regardless, that the Justice system destroys people's lives due to the malicious or cynical political machinations of internal actors merely strengthens my point; that it should be kept out of any dispute for as long as possible.
I will go so far as to say if you are entering college intending to be a programmer and don't already have more then 3 languages and library packages under your belt you should reconsider your carrier choice.
What a load of crap. If your program can only produce good programmers from people who already know programming, then your program is worthless.
Furthermore, for every guy who taught himself programming and is brilliant at it, there's one who taught himself every bad habit in the book, and is basically irredeemable.
Or you could ignore human word boundaries and make "named after" a phrase with a specific meaning. I imagine that by special casing such constructs you could improve performance immensely.
You are correct. The technical term for it is 'multi word expression'