Actually, it wouldn't be *THAT* difficult to wipe out all life on Earth, if that was your intention, and you controlled a major country (or equivalent) and you could afford to be patient. Asteroid orbits aren't *THAT* difficult to perturb.
1) No asteroid has ever wiped out all life on earth; not even the Chicxulub impact, which is probably the largest asteroid to hit the Earth since the Earth was molten, could cross the 70% line. Add to that the amount of life that's in deep fissures several miles under the ground, at the bottom of the ocean, in trapped lakebeds such as the one in the Antarctic, and you start to understand that wiping life out is in fact so fantastically difficult that in the three point five billion years since archaen life began on Earth, no mechanism has ever extinguished life on earth.
2) Perturbing asteroids is in fact fantastically difficult, even if you're not limited by the safety issues that one is limited by when trying to save the planet. Just getting enough fuel in orbit, or a heavy enough object to perform gravity tractoring, is outside the reach of all but a handful of nations on Earth, each of whom have multiple billion dollar space programs and several decades of experience.
3) If it's so easy, why isn't your pinky finger at your mouth while you demand ten million dollars from the UN?
One thing that's great about armchair quarterbacks is that they generally understand the rules of football. Not so much armchair astrophysicists or armchair Doctors Evil.
Yeah, that doesn't actually start until you're close enough to the Schwartzschild radius that you're not going to be able to get the energy back out of said radiation in a meaningful way anyway. It's much more realistic to use the black hole's gravity at a distance to drive things through tidal forces.
Please name the ones that couldn't be replaced by nuclear power, or other alternative sources of electricity.
Safe modern power generation is difficult in seismically active areas. No matter how safe a nuclear plant is - and I'm a nuclear supporter - you don't want one on the San Andreas fault. There are many areas of the world where, between earthquakes, bad insolation, the inability to safely access geothermal, the lack of rivers and the unreliable nature of other sources such as wind mean that currently alternative power isn't viable.
Whereas I'm all for nuclear, it is not a one-size-fits-all fix. We won't have that until we have room temperature superconduction, which will allow us long distance electrical transit, or relatively cheap fusion (of the sort that the Focus Fusion guy promises, whether or not he specifically is viable.)
If you're willing to accept random block access instead of database access, TweakTown has what you're looking for.
Incidentally, the article is about the FusionIO, which spanks the pants off of the Intel x25 one against eight. The slashdot article is fundamentally wrong.
"Intel's X25-E Extreme SSD is easily the fastest flash drive on the market,
Actually, according to pretty much everyreviewI can find, FusionIO's IoDrive spanks the pants off of the Intel Extreme, even in raid-0 eight drive combinations. It can saturate PCIe x4.
It'd be great if citations were required for broad claims like this.
That's really going overboard, dean. This is something that is most appropriately handled by a supervisor slapping the back of her wrist and saying no. There is no call for the court system, much less a class action. This is reprimand territory at best, and job loss territory at worst, the first time. Court is what you do when you want jail time or remuneration, neither of which make sense here.
I've never seen a dean so ridiculously punitive. I hope you aren't a student dean.
Ask the dean of students why you're being denied the privilege of keeping your notes, as has been standard practice at every university on earth for hundreds of years, and whether this university has any interest in student retention of knowledge, or whether it has merely become a certification program. Then, ask the dean why that teacher has not yet been brought up on disciplinary action.
Incidentally, there's no need to go to a lawyer; Rutgers students settled this finally in 1997. Those notes are your property. She has neither legal nor ethical right to ask this.
To be clear, I come from a family of academics, so when I say that this is in my opinion worthy of challenging someone's tenure, understand that I take that statement very, very seriously. Demands like this are fundamentally unethical and she should be at risk of losing her livelihood for this.
Pity we don't know who it is. I'd love the opportunity to speak with the requisite dean.
I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.
And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England,...?
Well for one, US States aren't countries. They aren't soverign. They aren't self determining. US Federal Law overrides state law in clear and specific terms.
Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries.
You live in a fantasy world. Why do you think this? The jurisprudence of federal over state law is well established as part of our founding documentation.
And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since
The states were never soverign. If you knew anything about the history of the Continental Congress, you'd know this.
Why wouldn't you just melt it? You apparently have the hardware, and fat lot of good *anyone* can do then. I would tell stories about how I inject acid into mine before freezing and then shattering them, but the truth is I still have all my old hard drives, even to the machines I've destroyed.
Packratting turns out to be a valid defense technique.:)
Learn to read, please. What grandparent poster said was that it was retarded to rate something that they haven't seen, based on the assumption that they would like it given who's in it. Believe it or not, even fanboys can find out the hard way that their favorite actor/actress has, for the first time, decided to act in a bomb. And yes, that applies to people who've already read the book.
How can he say that it's stupid to like something? Well, when it's something you cannot possibly know whether you like without being psychic...
That's interesting, considering that the reference MISRA implementation is built on GCC, that MISRA C is used by essentially every car manufacturer, that both GHOC and Metaware's compilers include STLPort which is free software, and that the embedded jobs I've had have been evenly split between GCC, which is free, Codewarrior, which isn't, and the ARM closed source toolchains (sdt -> ads -> rvct). Also, Z is open source these days, and is used for proving medical hardware, which is life or death in many cases (x-ray machine malfunctions have a documented history of baking people to death in seconds, microwave-style.)
So I mean, sure, there are some embedded firms that don't touch open source, but both of the examples you gave do, and so do car manufacturers when coding anti-lock brakes, and so did Nintendo when making 85 million gameboy advances (the GBA toolchain, unlike the DS toolchain, was GCC). So I mean, there's a good, broad example of an entire industry with lots of life and death going on, and one of the highest production consumer embedded manufacturers on earth (I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were the highest, though I don't know for sure), relying on the tools you suggest most won't use.
Not only is your experience not "scientific" (as if experiences could be), it is not typical.
Beliefs derived solely from observation are in fact the basis and totality of science, and the hard-lined refusal to consider anything else whatsoever is the basis of the scientific method. I would expect a teacher to know that.
As far as typicality, though, if a child is socially functionally retarded, the teachers are usually the last to know. Indeed, that the homeschooled child relies so heavily on the more predictable and kinder teacher than the alpha seeking children typically leads teachers to believe that the children least skillfully adapting to their network of social peers are indeed those best adjusted, and the justification theretowards is typically given on grounds that have precisely nothing to do with their social well adjustedness, such as their preparedness for academia. Unfortunately, though this has been well documented experimentally, and has been the focus of many large scale studies, I would not expect a teacher to know it. At least, not here in the states. The Japanese have an entire branch of their educational system devoted to rescuing these children. But hey, why be aware of what the rest of the world knows, right?
I worked in higher education for many years.
Yeah, that qualifies you to speak for the psychological adjustment of withdrawing children from peer culture for their entire generative upbringing.
The consensus among my colleagues was
derived from people without psychological training. If you're really at a college, go ask someone in developmental psych. Turns out there are well understood rules about the things that happen when someone is exposed to a paucity of peer interaction, and the results aren't actually good. Among the interesting side effects is a seeming eight times increase in psychopathic tendencies.
Data is nasty stuff; it pulls the rug out from under your guesswork. Try asking someone who knows. Observation isn't comprehension, and you haven't measured anything.
In short, they were normal students who were better prepared academically that the majority of their peers.
You suspect. The data that's been derived from large scale proper studies suggests this is actually tremendously unlikely. And, whereas it isn't scientific, most prejudices have a basis; maybe you should listen to the prejudice about teachers being out of touch and unaware of what's going on under their noses. Might help you understand why the kids who actually define the success are saying different things than your observations.
Incidentally, while you're looking down your nose at grandparent poster's lack of scientific nature, I'd remind you if I thought you already knew that a single first party protracted observation has dramatically more importance than a group of second party observations. Since teachers are second parties to student/student interactions, this should sort of be going in an obvious direction. You know, what with the "you have no basis as C to tell B how A and B interacted."
Please be serious, sir. There's a reason that every single depiction of homeschoolers in the history of popular media has been of social pariahs. It's because we've all seen it happen dozens of times. Except, apparently, you. It's one of the fundamental themes of drama and group dynamics - so fundamental that it shows up in basic lists like Heller's Monomyth list in The Hero's Journey. The outsider, raised in private by high quality private tutors, comes into the group and the average, and after initially failing to make any successful contact, wins over everyone's trust. It's the basis of many children's movies, such as Richie Rich in a startlingly literal and contextually appropriate way. In a sense it's the basis of The Tempest. This sort of thing constitutes approximate
Tell that to Eiffel, Haskell, Clojure, C++ templates, et cetera. Don't confuse what certain functional languages do with something being a defining characteristic of functional languages. Many functional languages are mutable, have loops, are not pure, have state, et cetera.
The founding fathers of the US, when they declared their independence, would disagree that England wasn't a tyranny. The Declaration of Independence says, "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Yes, absolute tyranny, which for the colonies in America was the way the King's rule was seen.
I would remind you of John Adams' strenuous disagreement with this terminology, which he felt was chosen by Franklin and Jefferson to incite feelings of rage, rather than to reflect accuracy - indeed the very grounds on which I objected to the use of the term. Please remember that the soverignity that America was seeking was against the laws of Parliament, not of the King; particularly the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act. The phrase "no taxation without representation" doesn't make sense in an actual tyranny, and of course, that was the rebelling pretext: that America should be represented in Parliament if Parliamentary law was to apply to them. Indeed, the very concept of representation cannot, by definition, exist under a tyranny.
It is critical in understanding the works of our founding fathers to remember who Benjamin Franklin was: in every sense a pulpit liar, and a damned good one. He made not one but several careers from spinning things with a sort of careful carelessness, allowing his flair for writing to spill over his accuracy in speech. It is a minefield to attempt to take Franklin's writing literally. This propensity for flair over substance was the crux of Franklin's division with Adams (and indeed also between Adams and his cousin Sam, who with Jefferson and James Wilson ran slipshod over using the King as a focus for their rebellion against the acts of Parliament).
I appreciate that you're working from source material; that's new and refreshing in this discussion. I entreat you to resolve one riddle: how can someone be represented in a tyranny? Alternately, how am I misunderstanding the Parliamentary debacle regarding juxtaposed representation by proxy through Crown citizens?
I mean, really, it's important to remember that America's founding fathers tried to be a voting part of the British empire, when you discuss their views of the British governmental system. If it was a tyranny, there would be no Parliament to be a part of.
People have, for thousands of years, misappropriated the word "tyranny" to create an emotional reaction in their audience. I hope you'll resist the urge; simply citing Ben Franklin doing the same thing that grandparent poster did doesn't actually show the founding fathers believing in a fantastically inaccurate view of the British government. The British king was not an absolute monarch, and had not been for several hundred years. The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the Magna Carta. Please be serious.
I won't touch the origins of sex offender laws
That's unfortunate, since it's the immediate context of the things I said, and distancing yourself from that does damage to the legitimacy of your arguments.
Hitler's political leanings are immaterial to the tactics he used.
You're quoting two disconnected issues and treating them as related. That's problematic.
The tactics which the GP is referring to is the gradual taking away of rights of people that aren't popular.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. Sex offenders aren't being punished because they're unpopular. You might as well suggest that murders are being persecuted for being unpopular. I immediately and candidly disagree with this viewpoint. This isn't a popularity contest. It never has been. This is a question of people who go out and hurt other people being kept in check.
I don't reply to sets of meaningless personal attacks. If you have a specific criticism to make of the things I said, great. If you just want to play name calling games, move along, please.
Circuit judges are federal. Thus, the lower court judge who made the "mistake" is federal.
Bzzt. Circuit judges can oversee the actions of judges who aren't circuit judges (in many cases this is their sole occupation.) Just because you go to a circuit judge to fix a problem doesn't mean the problem is federal. The rest of your house of cards extends from this faulty assumption.
So your comment that the judge "doesn't have a future on the bench" is ridiculous. Federal judges are appointed for life.
Yeah, and it's not like any federal judge has been removed from the bench for bad judgements, or anything. Roy Moore was elected for life, and got stripped and disbarred without screwing anybody at all. But since we aren't talking about federal judges, this is moot.
You won't get impeached for overpunishing a guy who exposed himself in public.
Yes, you will get removed from the bench for over-punishing. Over punishing is a clear case of "clear error". It happens all the time below the federal level. Since I was talking about acting below the federal level, your supposition that I need to involve a senate impeachment to remove an article three judge is inappropriate.
Incidentally, you don't actually need to be impeached to be removed from federal circuit court, despite whatever law education you may have gotten on Yahoo! Answers and watching Criminal Intent. But there's no reason to take my word for it. Notice that the opening sentence shoots you down. Yale Law Journal is slightly more authoritative than most Slashdotters, in case you intend to stand on your barrel and insist. You may also skip Wikipedia, if you intend to be taken seriously.
And just so you know, judges are held to a very high standard. A federal judge will be impeached for a hell of a lot less than ruining someone's life over taking a leak. One federal judge, Harry Claiborne, was impeached and disbarred for tax evasion, and that doesn't ruin anyone's life.
Or did you think the federal government takes tax evasion more seriously than direly inappropriate punishment which ruins a third party's life?
Additionally, appellate judges are extremely loathe to overturn a sentence issued by a trial judge.
Except when it causes serious and unjustified harm to the life of an individual. Making public all points of contact over peeing in a public park, and having a judge not suspend the action, would be a poster child case for when appellate judges would step in to prevent someone's life being destroyed over taking a leak. This is in fact the literal recorded reason for the impeachment of three federal judges: Samuel Chase ("arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials"), James Peck ("charges of abuse of the contempt power"), and Charles Swayne ("charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office"). This is also essentially the basis of Louderback's impeachment, though you wouldn't know it from the recorded reason for impeachment.
Just because you say "nuh-uh" doesn't make you correct. Thirty point seven percent of existing federal judge impeachments are for abuse of persecutorial power. Saying that it would never happen is simply the exposition of ignorance.
But, again, since I wasn't talking about impeaching a federal judge, but rather getting a circuit court to issue an advisory, none of this actually matters. I'm just enjoying having such a crystal clear recorded record of your incorrectness to display; legal issues are frequently murky and difficult to explain, but you happen to have alit on a falsehood that even cursory and basic research can disprove.
The standard is typically "clear error" to overturn.
Nonsense. There are dozens of reasons to overturn: bias, fraud, insufficient evi
They have a name for this "system" you speak of. It is called tyranny.
All amusing melodrama aside, tyranny is a form of Greek government under which a single person makes all decisions. This law was voted into place by the public before we switched to representative government, and has been validated by thousands of judges and tens of thousands of independant juries. There are very few examples in modern or ancient history of a law more thoroughly vetted and inspected than the public than this one (the death penalty and abortion come to mind, but there aren't that many others.)
You just could not be wronger here.
We fought a war to get rid of the English tyranny.
The English weren't a tyranny when we were subject to them, nor was their treatment of us tyrannical. Typically people misuse "fascist" in a fashion like this; it's quite refreshing to see something else be bandied about cluelessly, if only briefly. A personal favor: could you try falwellianism? That's another mode of government which most people don't actually know about, but it's more obscure, and I want to see if this baseless vitriol and random namedropping without regard for actual logical basis works when it's attached to a word that stupid people don't equate with "evil".
Through amendments to it, we now have rights that our founding fathers thought that everyone was entitled to.
... except felons. You should try reading the document you talk about. People have a right to liberties regardless of their identity, but not regardless of their actions or history. You can't be denied your rights because of your race, your gender, your religion, but you sure as hell can for sticking it in some kid's butt.
Guess what, Hitler used same tactics
No, he didn't. Godwin isn't spoken here.
German people to go along with his fascist rule
Hitler was totalitarian. Mussolini was the fascist. There's a pretty big difference.
He took a group that was unpopular (Jews) and took away their rights
God, dude, do you even think before you speak? Rapists aren't an ethnic group. Rapists are rapists because they chose to rape. There is absolutely no parallel between stripping an ethnic group of their rights then killing them and between forcing sexual predators to expose their communications.
A smarter person would be embarrassed to say something like that. If you have a Jewish friend, ask them their opinion of the comparison you just made.
The American people are are just like the German people, because of their hatred for sex offenders they are willing to let the constitution and all freedoms to be lost for everyone.
Yeah, we're Nazis because we ignore a part of the constitution that isn't actually there, and making sex offenders give up their passwords is very similar to murdering six and a half million people.
You, sir, are a debating genius. I won't be reading your next reply, but given what I've read in what you wrote, I suspect that won't stop you from writing it; it's quite clear that you're looking for a soapbox to preach from, and that you haven't at all thought through the text coming from your pulpit.
I'm amazed that you believe tracking rapists equates to the holocaust. Seriously, this is a new low from a Slashdotter from what I've read, and I've been here almost 12 years. That's really the most appalling comparison I've read on the internet in a year or more, and that includes IRC.
Rapists are Jews in Nazi Germany. Dude, if you aren't part of this "oppressed minority", I can't imagine why you think this way. I really hope the people you know in real life don't know who you are on Slashdot.
This is exactly why we have things like a constitution and checks and balances. To prevent the majority from oppressing minorities.
Yeah, that minority of violent rapists really needs to be protected from the majority, who don't even know who they are. Can you point to any part of the constitution, or any check or balance, which applies to the rights of sex offenders to operate without supervision? Because frankly this sounds like FUD to me.
Or maybe you're not familiar with the word "oppression", which applies a lot better to the victims of the rapists than the rapists themselves. Are you aware that the average released rapist spends less than a year on the outside before being hauled in for their next rape attempt?
There's a point beyond which you should be informed before speaking up. Dealing with sex offenders is well beyond that point.
It's actually more like two and a half days, according to GE. You need to take into account loading and unloading the boat, shipping from the factory, shipping to the store from the docks, the cost of fighting bad weather, packaging the devices, the cost of stores managing their inventory, et cetera. Which is, you know, not to suggest that 2.5 days is a problem or anything. Still, just so you know, someone who knows this process end to end has cooked up two days nine hours as an average to FooMart in middle america.
Still, thank you for being the first person to actually put effort into debunking this pathetically obvious myth.
But FTFA: "Staton said although the measure may violate the privacy of sex offenders, the need to protect children "outweighs a lot of the rights of these individuals."
So it's alright then...
This precedent was set in the early 1800s. Yes, felons lose a whole lot of rights, especially violent ones. Try looking into it, instead of assuming this case is an exception. Even after they've done their time, rapists have to check in twice a week. This isn't anywhere near as draconian as some of the things that happen to them, such as permanent chemical castration, which has been going on for more than 50 years.
This country doesn't belong to you, and the populace has spoken as a group to disagree with you. We aren't going to get out of our country, whose laws have worked this way for 200 years, just because you don't like it. If you want this to change, stop whining on the internet, and start voting and campaigning. The vast bulk of sex offenders in this country are rapists - more than 95%, if you look at the numbers. A judge can suspend the requirement to turn over identifying information pending appeal. If a person is required to do this for peeing in a public place, they need to talk to a judge on the telephone. Very simple, very easy, very free.
Sex offenders who aren't appallingly evil people have options. Just because you don't know what those options are doesn't mean other, more sensible people need to start leaving the country just because you're riled up about a system you don't understand.
Name one person who's been forced to turn over their passwords for peeing in public, and I'll name a judge who doesn't have a future on the bench. Until then, masturbating hypotheticals into the conversation doesn't invent problems in a system you have very little information about.
but do you think it's fair that someone who got cited for doing something stupid after having a bit too much to drink would have no online privacy, period?
No. Name one such person, and I will personally call the circuit judge and fix it. Otherwise, drop it.
For similar reasons, we do not "leave [other] convicts the fuck alone". Perhaps you should find out what parole and warrant officers do, or what a felon has to do after they get out of jail. Just because they've done their time doesn't mean that they're suddenly less dangerous to the surrounding populace. Indeed, if you take the time to talk to a psychologist, you'll find that there are a handful of behavioral disorders which are currently considered incurable, and that sexual predators are among them.
When you commit any felony, you permanently lose rights. That's one of the founding principles of our legal system. That's been there ever since the Shakers originally designed the system.
Maybe you should find out what depo-provera is, before you get so worked up over a password. Many of these people are forcibly chemically castrated. This is really a tiny thing compared to the rest of the life-long things that happen to these people.
Slashdot Mirror
1) No asteroid has ever wiped out all life on earth; not even the Chicxulub impact, which is probably the largest asteroid to hit the Earth since the Earth was molten, could cross the 70% line. Add to that the amount of life that's in deep fissures several miles under the ground, at the bottom of the ocean, in trapped lakebeds such as the one in the Antarctic, and you start to understand that wiping life out is in fact so fantastically difficult that in the three point five billion years since archaen life began on Earth, no mechanism has ever extinguished life on earth.
2) Perturbing asteroids is in fact fantastically difficult, even if you're not limited by the safety issues that one is limited by when trying to save the planet. Just getting enough fuel in orbit, or a heavy enough object to perform gravity tractoring, is outside the reach of all but a handful of nations on Earth, each of whom have multiple billion dollar space programs and several decades of experience.
3) If it's so easy, why isn't your pinky finger at your mouth while you demand ten million dollars from the UN?
One thing that's great about armchair quarterbacks is that they generally understand the rules of football. Not so much armchair astrophysicists or armchair Doctors Evil.
Yeah, that doesn't actually start until you're close enough to the Schwartzschild radius that you're not going to be able to get the energy back out of said radiation in a meaningful way anyway. It's much more realistic to use the black hole's gravity at a distance to drive things through tidal forces.
Safe modern power generation is difficult in seismically active areas. No matter how safe a nuclear plant is - and I'm a nuclear supporter - you don't want one on the San Andreas fault. There are many areas of the world where, between earthquakes, bad insolation, the inability to safely access geothermal, the lack of rivers and the unreliable nature of other sources such as wind mean that currently alternative power isn't viable.
Whereas I'm all for nuclear, it is not a one-size-fits-all fix. We won't have that until we have room temperature superconduction, which will allow us long distance electrical transit, or relatively cheap fusion (of the sort that the Focus Fusion guy promises, whether or not he specifically is viable.)
If you're willing to accept random block access instead of database access, TweakTown has what you're looking for.
Incidentally, the article is about the FusionIO, which spanks the pants off of the Intel x25 one against eight. The slashdot article is fundamentally wrong.
Actually, according to pretty much every review I can find, FusionIO's IoDrive spanks the pants off of the Intel Extreme, even in raid-0 eight drive combinations. It can saturate PCIe x4.
It'd be great if citations were required for broad claims like this.
That's really going overboard, dean. This is something that is most appropriately handled by a supervisor slapping the back of her wrist and saying no. There is no call for the court system, much less a class action. This is reprimand territory at best, and job loss territory at worst, the first time. Court is what you do when you want jail time or remuneration, neither of which make sense here.
I've never seen a dean so ridiculously punitive. I hope you aren't a student dean.
Ask the dean of students why you're being denied the privilege of keeping your notes, as has been standard practice at every university on earth for hundreds of years, and whether this university has any interest in student retention of knowledge, or whether it has merely become a certification program. Then, ask the dean why that teacher has not yet been brought up on disciplinary action.
Incidentally, there's no need to go to a lawyer; Rutgers students settled this finally in 1997. Those notes are your property. She has neither legal nor ethical right to ask this.
To be clear, I come from a family of academics, so when I say that this is in my opinion worthy of challenging someone's tenure, understand that I take that statement very, very seriously. Demands like this are fundamentally unethical and she should be at risk of losing her livelihood for this.
Pity we don't know who it is. I'd love the opportunity to speak with the requisite dean.
Well for one, US States aren't countries. They aren't soverign. They aren't self determining. US Federal Law overrides state law in clear and specific terms.
You live in a fantasy world. Why do you think this? The jurisprudence of federal over state law is well established as part of our founding documentation.
The states were never soverign. If you knew anything about the history of the Continental Congress, you'd know this.
Why wouldn't you just melt it? You apparently have the hardware, and fat lot of good *anyone* can do then. I would tell stories about how I inject acid into mine before freezing and then shattering them, but the truth is I still have all my old hard drives, even to the machines I've destroyed.
Packratting turns out to be a valid defense technique. :)
Learn to read, please. What grandparent poster said was that it was retarded to rate something that they haven't seen, based on the assumption that they would like it given who's in it. Believe it or not, even fanboys can find out the hard way that their favorite actor/actress has, for the first time, decided to act in a bomb. And yes, that applies to people who've already read the book.
How can he say that it's stupid to like something? Well, when it's something you cannot possibly know whether you like without being psychic...
That's interesting, considering that the reference MISRA implementation is built on GCC, that MISRA C is used by essentially every car manufacturer, that both GHOC and Metaware's compilers include STLPort which is free software, and that the embedded jobs I've had have been evenly split between GCC, which is free, Codewarrior, which isn't, and the ARM closed source toolchains (sdt -> ads -> rvct). Also, Z is open source these days, and is used for proving medical hardware, which is life or death in many cases (x-ray machine malfunctions have a documented history of baking people to death in seconds, microwave-style.)
So I mean, sure, there are some embedded firms that don't touch open source, but both of the examples you gave do, and so do car manufacturers when coding anti-lock brakes, and so did Nintendo when making 85 million gameboy advances (the GBA toolchain, unlike the DS toolchain, was GCC). So I mean, there's a good, broad example of an entire industry with lots of life and death going on, and one of the highest production consumer embedded manufacturers on earth (I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were the highest, though I don't know for sure), relying on the tools you suggest most won't use.
I think you're safer with many. ;)
God, really?
Beliefs derived solely from observation are in fact the basis and totality of science, and the hard-lined refusal to consider anything else whatsoever is the basis of the scientific method. I would expect a teacher to know that.
As far as typicality, though, if a child is socially functionally retarded, the teachers are usually the last to know. Indeed, that the homeschooled child relies so heavily on the more predictable and kinder teacher than the alpha seeking children typically leads teachers to believe that the children least skillfully adapting to their network of social peers are indeed those best adjusted, and the justification theretowards is typically given on grounds that have precisely nothing to do with their social well adjustedness, such as their preparedness for academia. Unfortunately, though this has been well documented experimentally, and has been the focus of many large scale studies, I would not expect a teacher to know it. At least, not here in the states. The Japanese have an entire branch of their educational system devoted to rescuing these children. But hey, why be aware of what the rest of the world knows, right?
Yeah, that qualifies you to speak for the psychological adjustment of withdrawing children from peer culture for their entire generative upbringing.
derived from people without psychological training. If you're really at a college, go ask someone in developmental psych. Turns out there are well understood rules about the things that happen when someone is exposed to a paucity of peer interaction, and the results aren't actually good. Among the interesting side effects is a seeming eight times increase in psychopathic tendencies.
Data is nasty stuff; it pulls the rug out from under your guesswork. Try asking someone who knows. Observation isn't comprehension, and you haven't measured anything.
You suspect. The data that's been derived from large scale proper studies suggests this is actually tremendously unlikely. And, whereas it isn't scientific, most prejudices have a basis; maybe you should listen to the prejudice about teachers being out of touch and unaware of what's going on under their noses. Might help you understand why the kids who actually define the success are saying different things than your observations.
Incidentally, while you're looking down your nose at grandparent poster's lack of scientific nature, I'd remind you if I thought you already knew that a single first party protracted observation has dramatically more importance than a group of second party observations. Since teachers are second parties to student/student interactions, this should sort of be going in an obvious direction. You know, what with the "you have no basis as C to tell B how A and B interacted."
Please be serious, sir. There's a reason that every single depiction of homeschoolers in the history of popular media has been of social pariahs. It's because we've all seen it happen dozens of times. Except, apparently, you. It's one of the fundamental themes of drama and group dynamics - so fundamental that it shows up in basic lists like Heller's Monomyth list in The Hero's Journey. The outsider, raised in private by high quality private tutors, comes into the group and the average, and after initially failing to make any successful contact, wins over everyone's trust. It's the basis of many children's movies, such as Richie Rich in a startlingly literal and contextually appropriate way. In a sense it's the basis of The Tempest. This sort of thing constitutes approximate
Tell that to Eiffel, Haskell, Clojure, C++ templates, et cetera. Don't confuse what certain functional languages do with something being a defining characteristic of functional languages. Many functional languages are mutable, have loops, are not pure, have state, et cetera.
No, it isn't. The standard is maintained by the ISO and costs money. That there happen to be free compilers for C doesn't mean that C itself is free.
And geothermal, which is as reliable if not moreso than hydro (droughts hurt hydro, but the core of the planet's pretty reliably warn).
I appreciate the compliment. If you enjoy my writing, my blog is in my signature. The domain is very easy to remember.
I would remind you of John Adams' strenuous disagreement with this terminology, which he felt was chosen by Franklin and Jefferson to incite feelings of rage, rather than to reflect accuracy - indeed the very grounds on which I objected to the use of the term. Please remember that the soverignity that America was seeking was against the laws of Parliament, not of the King; particularly the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act. The phrase "no taxation without representation" doesn't make sense in an actual tyranny, and of course, that was the rebelling pretext: that America should be represented in Parliament if Parliamentary law was to apply to them. Indeed, the very concept of representation cannot, by definition, exist under a tyranny.
It is critical in understanding the works of our founding fathers to remember who Benjamin Franklin was: in every sense a pulpit liar, and a damned good one. He made not one but several careers from spinning things with a sort of careful carelessness, allowing his flair for writing to spill over his accuracy in speech. It is a minefield to attempt to take Franklin's writing literally. This propensity for flair over substance was the crux of Franklin's division with Adams (and indeed also between Adams and his cousin Sam, who with Jefferson and James Wilson ran slipshod over using the King as a focus for their rebellion against the acts of Parliament).
I appreciate that you're working from source material; that's new and refreshing in this discussion. I entreat you to resolve one riddle: how can someone be represented in a tyranny? Alternately, how am I misunderstanding the Parliamentary debacle regarding juxtaposed representation by proxy through Crown citizens?
I mean, really, it's important to remember that America's founding fathers tried to be a voting part of the British empire, when you discuss their views of the British governmental system. If it was a tyranny, there would be no Parliament to be a part of.
People have, for thousands of years, misappropriated the word "tyranny" to create an emotional reaction in their audience. I hope you'll resist the urge; simply citing Ben Franklin doing the same thing that grandparent poster did doesn't actually show the founding fathers believing in a fantastically inaccurate view of the British government. The British king was not an absolute monarch, and had not been for several hundred years. The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the Magna Carta. Please be serious.
That's unfortunate, since it's the immediate context of the things I said, and distancing yourself from that does damage to the legitimacy of your arguments.
You're quoting two disconnected issues and treating them as related. That's problematic.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. Sex offenders aren't being punished because they're unpopular. You might as well suggest that murders are being persecuted for being unpopular. I immediately and candidly disagree with this viewpoint. This isn't a popularity contest. It never has been. This is a question of people who go out and hurt other people being kept in check.
The equivalent argument in a mo
I don't reply to sets of meaningless personal attacks. If you have a specific criticism to make of the things I said, great. If you just want to play name calling games, move along, please.
Bzzt. Circuit judges can oversee the actions of judges who aren't circuit judges (in many cases this is their sole occupation.) Just because you go to a circuit judge to fix a problem doesn't mean the problem is federal. The rest of your house of cards extends from this faulty assumption.
Yeah, and it's not like any federal judge has been removed from the bench for bad judgements, or anything. Roy Moore was elected for life, and got stripped and disbarred without screwing anybody at all. But since we aren't talking about federal judges, this is moot.
Yes, you will get removed from the bench for over-punishing. Over punishing is a clear case of "clear error". It happens all the time below the federal level. Since I was talking about acting below the federal level, your supposition that I need to involve a senate impeachment to remove an article three judge is inappropriate.
Incidentally, you don't actually need to be impeached to be removed from federal circuit court, despite whatever law education you may have gotten on Yahoo! Answers and watching Criminal Intent. But there's no reason to take my word for it. Notice that the opening sentence shoots you down. Yale Law Journal is slightly more authoritative than most Slashdotters, in case you intend to stand on your barrel and insist. You may also skip Wikipedia, if you intend to be taken seriously.
And just so you know, judges are held to a very high standard. A federal judge will be impeached for a hell of a lot less than ruining someone's life over taking a leak. One federal judge, Harry Claiborne, was impeached and disbarred for tax evasion, and that doesn't ruin anyone's life.
Or did you think the federal government takes tax evasion more seriously than direly inappropriate punishment which ruins a third party's life?
Except when it causes serious and unjustified harm to the life of an individual. Making public all points of contact over peeing in a public park, and having a judge not suspend the action, would be a poster child case for when appellate judges would step in to prevent someone's life being destroyed over taking a leak. This is in fact the literal recorded reason for the impeachment of three federal judges: Samuel Chase ("arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials"), James Peck ("charges of abuse of the contempt power"), and Charles Swayne ("charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office"). This is also essentially the basis of Louderback's impeachment, though you wouldn't know it from the recorded reason for impeachment.
Just because you say "nuh-uh" doesn't make you correct. Thirty point seven percent of existing federal judge impeachments are for abuse of persecutorial power. Saying that it would never happen is simply the exposition of ignorance.
But, again, since I wasn't talking about impeaching a federal judge, but rather getting a circuit court to issue an advisory, none of this actually matters. I'm just enjoying having such a crystal clear recorded record of your incorrectness to display; legal issues are frequently murky and difficult to explain, but you happen to have alit on a falsehood that even cursory and basic research can disprove.
Nonsense. There are dozens of reasons to overturn: bias, fraud, insufficient evi
All amusing melodrama aside, tyranny is a form of Greek government under which a single person makes all decisions. This law was voted into place by the public before we switched to representative government, and has been validated by thousands of judges and tens of thousands of independant juries. There are very few examples in modern or ancient history of a law more thoroughly vetted and inspected than the public than this one (the death penalty and abortion come to mind, but there aren't that many others.)
You just could not be wronger here.
The English weren't a tyranny when we were subject to them, nor was their treatment of us tyrannical. Typically people misuse "fascist" in a fashion like this; it's quite refreshing to see something else be bandied about cluelessly, if only briefly. A personal favor: could you try falwellianism? That's another mode of government which most people don't actually know about, but it's more obscure, and I want to see if this baseless vitriol and random namedropping without regard for actual logical basis works when it's attached to a word that stupid people don't equate with "evil".
... except felons. You should try reading the document you talk about. People have a right to liberties regardless of their identity, but not regardless of their actions or history. You can't be denied your rights because of your race, your gender, your religion, but you sure as hell can for sticking it in some kid's butt.
No, he didn't. Godwin isn't spoken here.
Hitler was totalitarian. Mussolini was the fascist. There's a pretty big difference.
God, dude, do you even think before you speak? Rapists aren't an ethnic group. Rapists are rapists because they chose to rape. There is absolutely no parallel between stripping an ethnic group of their rights then killing them and between forcing sexual predators to expose their communications.
A smarter person would be embarrassed to say something like that. If you have a Jewish friend, ask them their opinion of the comparison you just made.
Yeah, we're Nazis because we ignore a part of the constitution that isn't actually there, and making sex offenders give up their passwords is very similar to murdering six and a half million people.
You, sir, are a debating genius. I won't be reading your next reply, but given what I've read in what you wrote, I suspect that won't stop you from writing it; it's quite clear that you're looking for a soapbox to preach from, and that you haven't at all thought through the text coming from your pulpit.
I'm amazed that you believe tracking rapists equates to the holocaust. Seriously, this is a new low from a Slashdotter from what I've read, and I've been here almost 12 years. That's really the most appalling comparison I've read on the internet in a year or more, and that includes IRC.
Rapists are Jews in Nazi Germany. Dude, if you aren't part of this "oppressed minority", I can't imagine why you think this way. I really hope the people you know in real life don't know who you are on Slashdot.
Yeah, that minority of violent rapists really needs to be protected from the majority, who don't even know who they are. Can you point to any part of the constitution, or any check or balance, which applies to the rights of sex offenders to operate without supervision? Because frankly this sounds like FUD to me.
Or maybe you're not familiar with the word "oppression", which applies a lot better to the victims of the rapists than the rapists themselves. Are you aware that the average released rapist spends less than a year on the outside before being hauled in for their next rape attempt?
There's a point beyond which you should be informed before speaking up. Dealing with sex offenders is well beyond that point.
It's actually more like two and a half days, according to GE. You need to take into account loading and unloading the boat, shipping from the factory, shipping to the store from the docks, the cost of fighting bad weather, packaging the devices, the cost of stores managing their inventory, et cetera. Which is, you know, not to suggest that 2.5 days is a problem or anything. Still, just so you know, someone who knows this process end to end has cooked up two days nine hours as an average to FooMart in middle america.
Still, thank you for being the first person to actually put effort into debunking this pathetically obvious myth.
This precedent was set in the early 1800s. Yes, felons lose a whole lot of rights, especially violent ones. Try looking into it, instead of assuming this case is an exception. Even after they've done their time, rapists have to check in twice a week. This isn't anywhere near as draconian as some of the things that happen to them, such as permanent chemical castration, which has been going on for more than 50 years.
This country doesn't belong to you, and the populace has spoken as a group to disagree with you. We aren't going to get out of our country, whose laws have worked this way for 200 years, just because you don't like it. If you want this to change, stop whining on the internet, and start voting and campaigning. The vast bulk of sex offenders in this country are rapists - more than 95%, if you look at the numbers. A judge can suspend the requirement to turn over identifying information pending appeal. If a person is required to do this for peeing in a public place, they need to talk to a judge on the telephone. Very simple, very easy, very free.
Sex offenders who aren't appallingly evil people have options. Just because you don't know what those options are doesn't mean other, more sensible people need to start leaving the country just because you're riled up about a system you don't understand.
Name one person who's been forced to turn over their passwords for peeing in public, and I'll name a judge who doesn't have a future on the bench. Until then, masturbating hypotheticals into the conversation doesn't invent problems in a system you have very little information about.
No. Name one such person, and I will personally call the circuit judge and fix it. Otherwise, drop it.
No.
For similar reasons, we do not "leave [other] convicts the fuck alone". Perhaps you should find out what parole and warrant officers do, or what a felon has to do after they get out of jail. Just because they've done their time doesn't mean that they're suddenly less dangerous to the surrounding populace. Indeed, if you take the time to talk to a psychologist, you'll find that there are a handful of behavioral disorders which are currently considered incurable, and that sexual predators are among them.
When you commit any felony, you permanently lose rights. That's one of the founding principles of our legal system. That's been there ever since the Shakers originally designed the system.
Maybe you should find out what depo-provera is, before you get so worked up over a password. Many of these people are forcibly chemically castrated. This is really a tiny thing compared to the rest of the life-long things that happen to these people.