Any Democrat is going to have Hollywood support, because the people in the business tend to be left wing, and Republicans tend to be social conservatives who like censoring things.
I forgot who it was, probably Dodd, who recently said Obama's lack of support would result in no campaign contributions, which was interpreted as some sort of blackmail or quid pro quo. What he actually meant is that, as above, Hollywood tends to support the Democrat, but it would be pointless to support someone who was against their interests. That's quite normal, and individuals make the same choices, and frequently the same "threat" to their elected officials.
Obama does not have the same kind of "good relationship" with Hollywood as Reagan did, or Aahnold, or Sonny Bono, all Republicans with direct connections to MPAA/RIAA members.
You're right, one paper doesn't mean it's true. You missed the point. The point is, this particular study has a lot of information that has proven correct. The news here is that this might be a good paper to base further research on, since it has a lot of correctness in it.
Being off by 30% is not the news here. Taken holistically, there is an awful lot of good information in one place. And it was done before the politicization of science, when climate research got you branded as an environmentalist or hippie, instead of the front for some organization with an agenda (pro-oil, anti-oil, whatever).
You mean the way Einstein predicted things that "fit after the fact"? Just last year we found at least one more of his predictions was true. He's just like Nostradamus, right?
A model gets proposed, then tested. The ones that are closest to reality are proven correct, the ones that don't are proven incorrect. You are saying that this person's credibility is strained because a lot of other people were wrong? If that is how we measure credibility, then how is anyone supposed to be credible?
If you were on the fence about buying a hybrid instead of normal ICE-only car, buy a hybrid. The more people who do that, the less oil we will need.
If you are trying to lose weight or maintain health, switch to a more vegetarian diet instead of meat. We won't have to grow food for cattle, and can use that for people.
The environmentalism angle covers deforestation and oil burning, as well as maintaining habitat for things we might like to eat from time to time.
I did not read this in depth when it hit a few days ago, but this is a fairly obvious way to jump from resource consumption to environmental protection. And part of the environmental aspects presume that we don't know for certain if global climate change is man made, but by the time we find out for sure it may be too late. So best to reduce our footprint, because that's something we have the knowledge to do now.
This was done 20 years ago and the predictions line up quite well so far. I think the take-away here is: consider that it *is* going to happen, and if so, what can we do now to be prepared? Growing a small vegetable garden and teaching your kids to hunt might not be such a crazy idea.
Engineering standards for safety are a completely different domain from laws, so you're not making sense. here.
Also, letting some guilty people go in lieu of innocents suffering is exactly what gp was talking about. The laws will catch people too stupid to bypass the laws. And yet people complain that there are ways around it and therefore it shouldn't even be a law. How can you not see that you are the contrast?
And bailouts... now you're just bringing up random things you don't like and ignoring the context of the conversation.
the law does not aim to stop everyone doing anything illegal. It merely aims to set a standard for "acceptable" behaviour and keep enough people in line.
This is about one specific law, not laws in general. From the sound of your post, given the references to "framers" and the American Congress and bailouts, you're not even talking about Sweden or China.
Instead of moderating AC up, I chose instead to reply specifically to you, hoping that next time your comments will be more on topic, less knee jerk, and preferably internally consistent.
I learned this playing Burnout on PS2. If I look at the cars I'm aiming for, I inevitably crash into them. If I look between the cars, in other words where I want to go, I magically navigate between them.
Look where you're shooting, you'll hit it most of the time. Even if you don't want to. So look at what you want to hit.
That should be obvious. The target audience doesn't want to have to read. The accents keep reminding you that you are in a different country.
It's no different from the ridiculous computer programs that crime dramas use. They want to tell you what the computer is doing without either the actors explaining it, or having to read anything other than the word "Searching..." while faces pop up on a screen.
I think it's the best of both worlds - maintaining the culture as well as possible, but integrating the audience's native language. I would never watch a dubbed film, because I want the actor's natural expression to match physically and verbally.
The only time it sucks is when the accent is terribly done. Then it's a travesty.
And if you think about it as a carbon-fixing tool that can replace the carbon credit system, these things are even less relevant.
Use a little electricity to re-fix some of the CO2 you have released, and you can immediately and locally offset CO2 instead of growing a tree farm hundreds of miles away.
The fuel would likely be a side effect, kinda like whatever is behind the gas flare of an oil operation. It costs more to store and transport than it's worth, so they burn it off. In other words, not the primary goal but a side effect.
You could use a steam powered engine to use energy from the burn-off to provide electricity to run this as a carbon-fixing process. Or is that too meta?
Anyway, there are many uses for this, and it's more important to see it as pure research that can find an application later. Some of the best inventions have been re-purposing things, not inventing new things, so it's wide open as to what this offers.
Different angles make it hard to be sure you have the number right. If you look at a street photo like a book you're going to OCR, you have first the layout detection, then identify the image part and the text part. Solving this problem would be similar to identifying where the page number is, to be eliminated from the text.
Taking a laser measurement, un-warping the photo, and then doing traditional OCR would be awesome, if they had the forethought to include the laser part in their vast collection, but they didn't. Then you have the multiple "type faces" available.
Anyway, lots of places don't have a specific street address. Type something in and you get a blobby sort of approximation. Or data from Open Street Map - my home address is just a dot in the middle of the street. With street view they could get it more precise.
I would guarantee this is all shots from places like mine, where they may or may not have street names, and definitely don't have address ranges for the blocks. Connect the street name to the GPS tag in the photo, apply that to the orientation of the vehicle, and add the street numbers - accurate mapping better than any in-dash system has today.
TinyMCE is not a plugin, it's a script library. Like jQuery. The bug is in FireFox, and probably would have been there regardless of the release schedule. IF they don't test releases with TinyMCE, they would not have noticed a regression.
It was confirmed as a bug in FireFox, and the newer versions of TinyMCE work around it. The relevant comment is:
// Wait for iframe onload event on Gecko
I'm pretty sure TinyMCE is cross-platform, as much as it can be when each browser can add bugs (or at least unexpected changes in behavior).
What I haven't searched for is whether the onload event order for iframes is documented in a standard, or by convention. Either way, if you write to the standard and the browser doesn't, your plugin looks broken.
I'm not sure if you've made the connection - with NoScript, all of those properties display a blank page.
Enabling scripts brings up the content, and a bunch of stories on the right side where the "posted" time continually counts in *seconds*.
I am very sensitive to movement, and every second as I read those stories my attention is grabbed by those ever changing numbers. If it's something I really want to read, I enable scripts, refresh, and then revoke temporary scripts immediately.
I'm not stealing the web from them at all - I click, get an empty page, and close the tab/window. This could not be any more of a non-issue to me. I gave up commenting on only seeing a white page long ago, I figure it's worth one more post just for old times' sake.
Gawker, io9, LifeHacker, Gizmodo... I assume all of the Gawker properties do the same thing.
And in addition to iceaxe, I too have no DRM books.
Almost entirely Project Gutenberg, or similar projects. And scanned copies of things I already own (archival exception to copyright restrictions).
Since a Fake Book / Real Book has mostly just one-page tunes (the head and changes), you could load up 20-30 songs and play jazz for several hours, just pausing between songs long enough to push "next page". Want to change the set list? Re-arrange the PDF and send it to the band. I haven't scratched the surface of what you can do with them, but I'm doing anything that doesn't need DRM.
This is a good idea. It is entrenched, however, by the idea of a 'unix name' or 'package name'. At sourceforge, you register with a unix name, which is in the URL. So the featured project Scribus is located here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/scribus/
I need to install KDevelop, which package do I get? Easy, it should be apt-get kdevelop. What about "KDE Development Studio"? Well, I'd probably need some sort of GUI thing to let me select, and then know what the package name is.
Short, unique names are how we do things, and getting that to change will require more than just the projects changing the official names. It has to satisfy the point-and-click people as well as the command-line people.
Waiting for approval is a valid point, but anyone who spent time using MFC probably has their own list of things that drive them bonkers, and most likely know where the fix needs to be. Screw approval, fix it in your code and ship the result linked statically.
No joke, even the C/C++ headers in MSVC 6 are broken, and due to licensing issues Microsoft can't release a patch for it. People just fix it locally and it's done. Of course, this is mostly STL, so it's not in the runtime DLL files so you could still dynamically link these updates.
If you choose you can install the source code to the MFC library, and step through it like your own code. Just like you can go through the C/C++ runtimes. You're not supposed to fix and re-build it, they did not release the build/project files, only the code so the PDB files could tell the debugger where to look.
If you have spent time in MFC, you quickly learn that every other line of code is likely to have some quirk that you didn't expect. Adding simple overrides requires hacks on top of hacks. And you learn how it works, even if you don't install the code.
I left MFC a long time ago, but I guarantee I could find and fix one bug a day for the next week, maybe two, just based on working with it for maybe 5 years. On top of my normal workload, not just hacking away on bugs for 16 hours. Entire websites are dedicated to working around how MFC doesn't work like it should.
The Petzold equivalent book for MFC starts out with making an MFC app in notepad, no wizards or GUI. If you understand what you are writing, and what the wizard does for you, you can make your own workarounds. All it takes is having the code to see where it is screwing up what you did to it. "The time it takes to find the bug in a program you didn't write" is negligible compared to working around it every time you write a program that works around the same problem.
It was a terrible analogy to begin with, not an argument. And you are correct that he argued one side but forgot the other.
It was more of an excuse to take a a jab at multitheism, if not deism completely, and I'm sure there are better ways to explain it without inserting personal bias.
The premise probably included the assumption that since people have believed both ways, neither one could be called the correct way. This is the scientific method, if contradictory results are observed no conclusion can be made and neither is correct. Therefore in his mind, no smiting would happen at all.
Once you understand the semantics involved, instead of picking one superficial blemish, it is much easier to discuss these things. Context is the key to understanding.
As opposed to anything larger than a photon, at first. The famous "dual slit" experiment. Then electrons, in the understanding of photovoltaic effect. Protons and Neutrons are quite a bit larger, and atoms larger yet. Then molecules of the same atom (buckyballs). Now we have a particle, with combinations of different atoms.
For most people who know anything about this duality, they learned about the dual-slit experiment, so your most common answer is likely to be "photon", the "quantum of light" and therefore a "quantum particle".
If you're doing anything other than pointing out the law, which a judge will either agree with as written or you appeal to the higher courts, you will need expert testimony.
A good expert will be $5000 plus travel, adjust for better/worse and the city. He may have paid someone $10k just to review the evidence and testify on the technical side of things. Was the video doctored? I bet the police defense asked those types of things. Poke any hole at all in the evidence.
"The lawyers" get all the money in class action lawsuits, where they have to compile piles of suits into a single one and coordinate. Excessive, even they will do a lot of work. IP suits, especially where the language of the contract is at issue (such as the Novell IP with Unix/SCO), they will spend a while interviewing people and reviewing evidence and come away with a huge payday. These are the areas where you get to say "the lawyers probably took it all."
This type of suit, "legal fees" includes a lot more than just what the lawyer gets. Especially when it's $50k over 5 years. $10k/year, allowing for one expert per year, is not a whole lot.
"You might want to consider" is about the same as "If you're in the market" plus a little of "Take a moment and think about if your wife has been complaining about something with the TV."
If you are in the market, and especially if you are in the market and don't realize it, this is probably great advice. If you are not in the market, even the normally terrible summary doesn't tell you to buy one, only consider it.
I don't understand the knee-jerk "It works for me" replies to any 3D TV story. I'm interested, I don't have one yet, and having this guy's opinion gives me more info to base my decision on.
In other words, if your needs are fulfilled right now, you are very likely not the target audience.
That's the whole point. If you're not bothering anyone, law enforcement has no business keeping tabs on you. It was designed that way, erring on the side of letting guilty people go free.
When the Constitution was written, such abuses of power were a big enough deal that they put it in the Bill of Rights.
Zero tolerance means zero responsibility, and they are made by smart people to avoid these kinds of problems.
Any time an administrator has to make a decision that may affect a student, they open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Even if you win, a parent filing a lawsuit is at best a distraction and at worst a money drain. And just having a parent waging war, making noise at PTA meetings, or whatever they can think of to harass the administrator, it can become quite the pain. Usually, some dispute with a parent leads to this type of policy, to prevent it happening again. If it happens at one school, you can bet another school will at least consider trying to avoid the same thing.
I'm not even going to attempt to point out what's wrong with the rest of this, other than leave a quote from the article here.
After a student skips classes three times parents will be asked to explain the absences.
Luckily, you're dealing with Science, not armchair philosophers or youtube commentators. I appreciate your attempt at using logic, but don't trust the summary to explain everything. From the abstract, it seems Science has considered that you might have a point, and went back in time to address it.
The mice showed increased freezing only upon light stimulation, indicating light-induced fear memory recall. This freezing was not detected in non-fear-conditioned mice expressing ChR2 in a similar proportion of cells, nor in fear-conditioned mice with cells labelled by enhanced yellow fluorescent protein instead of ChR2. Finally, activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned in a different context, suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific. Together, our findings indicate that activating a sparse but specific ensemble of hippocampal neurons that contribute to a memory engram is sufficient for the recall of that memory
It has become clear to me that editors and submitters both have cells tagged with ChR2 pretty much at random, and typing seems to engage triggering pulses of light.
We are all part of the experiment, I think it's to see who is the last one to give up waiting for quality to improve.
I'm going to read one more summary and if it sucks I'm done. Well that was obviously a dud, I'll give it a pass and the next one will determine it. Wait, that was idle, I'll see what the next one has...
Not a test. Not one of the reports of employers asking for FB account creds say anything about being turned away for saying yes. All of them seem to report a "growing trend" based on one guy in New York who was asked for his password, refused, and withdrew his application. And another person agreed, and got the job.
According to this article, other people have been asked to "friend" HR so that they can see the person's profile, without asking for the password. Or have the user log in and click around.
So please, every time this story re-appears on Slashdot, you're not clever by coming up with the trick question angle. It's appeared on every previous Slashdot post, and a few basic searches will tell you it's not a test.
DVD on standard def TV is pretty close to perfect, for standard def.
DVD on HD can be anywhere from terrible to pretty darned good. The early discs which were burned to 4GB had a low enough bitrate that it shows. Later, they realized that using over 4GB made it hard for people to copy, since few people had a DVD burner and no one had a dual-layer burner. Then they started maxxing out the bitrate to use up all of the space (except for the extras of course).
DVD on Windows Media Player on 1080 HDMI output looks very nice - better than VLC, and slightly better than my old DVD player over component input. I don't think I could tell Blu-Ray vs. DVD more than chance without an actual A/B test, especially on movies pressed in the last 5-10 years. Even the local public stations which broadcast in 16x9 480 with the black bars on top and bottom look great when 'zoomed' to fill the screen.
I admit, I like watching NBC over the air, 1080 HD does look nice. But not so nice I'm willing to pay for it. I actually went out to buy a PS3, mostly for the Blu-Ray and less for the games. Came home with an XBOX.
Acknowledging this is election cycle politics doesn't excuse behavior, it explains behavior.
It's hardly a free pass. Almost everything that happens in politics is due to re-election. The deficit limit shenanigans that resulted in a lower credit rating, and higher borrowing costs, were an election gambit to appease the tea party and fiscal responsibility types. The entire 1980's and more were one big "I'm tougher on crime" pissing match to get votes.
Understanding how laws are passed is the first step in preventing bad laws being passed. The next step is a true institutional memory where abuses are archived, and included in SuperPAC funded advertisements right before the next election.
Your actions will not be forgotten, is the message.
The next step, is to get the people who actually care out to vote.
After that, we need honest people to get pissed off enough that they run for office just so the establishment doesn't keep reinforcing itself. Without the earlier steps, this guy won't stand a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Any Democrat is going to have Hollywood support, because the people in the business tend to be left wing, and Republicans tend to be social conservatives who like censoring things.
I forgot who it was, probably Dodd, who recently said Obama's lack of support would result in no campaign contributions, which was interpreted as some sort of blackmail or quid pro quo. What he actually meant is that, as above, Hollywood tends to support the Democrat, but it would be pointless to support someone who was against their interests. That's quite normal, and individuals make the same choices, and frequently the same "threat" to their elected officials.
Obama does not have the same kind of "good relationship" with Hollywood as Reagan did, or Aahnold, or Sonny Bono, all Republicans with direct connections to MPAA/RIAA members.
You're right, one paper doesn't mean it's true. You missed the point. The point is, this particular study has a lot of information that has proven correct. The news here is that this might be a good paper to base further research on, since it has a lot of correctness in it.
Being off by 30% is not the news here. Taken holistically, there is an awful lot of good information in one place. And it was done before the politicization of science, when climate research got you branded as an environmentalist or hippie, instead of the front for some organization with an agenda (pro-oil, anti-oil, whatever).
You mean the way Einstein predicted things that "fit after the fact"? Just last year we found at least one more of his predictions was true. He's just like Nostradamus, right?
A model gets proposed, then tested. The ones that are closest to reality are proven correct, the ones that don't are proven incorrect. You are saying that this person's credibility is strained because a lot of other people were wrong? If that is how we measure credibility, then how is anyone supposed to be credible?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/space/05gravity.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
There was a 2007 story about this, but from what I can tell the experiment didn't conclude until 2011.
If you were on the fence about buying a hybrid instead of normal ICE-only car, buy a hybrid. The more people who do that, the less oil we will need.
If you are trying to lose weight or maintain health, switch to a more vegetarian diet instead of meat. We won't have to grow food for cattle, and can use that for people.
The environmentalism angle covers deforestation and oil burning, as well as maintaining habitat for things we might like to eat from time to time.
I did not read this in depth when it hit a few days ago, but this is a fairly obvious way to jump from resource consumption to environmental protection. And part of the environmental aspects presume that we don't know for certain if global climate change is man made, but by the time we find out for sure it may be too late. So best to reduce our footprint, because that's something we have the knowledge to do now.
This was done 20 years ago and the predictions line up quite well so far. I think the take-away here is: consider that it *is* going to happen, and if so, what can we do now to be prepared? Growing a small vegetable garden and teaching your kids to hunt might not be such a crazy idea.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html
Engineering standards for safety are a completely different domain from laws, so you're not making sense. here.
Also, letting some guilty people go in lieu of innocents suffering is exactly what gp was talking about. The laws will catch people too stupid to bypass the laws. And yet people complain that there are ways around it and therefore it shouldn't even be a law. How can you not see that you are the contrast?
And bailouts... now you're just bringing up random things you don't like and ignoring the context of the conversation.
the law does not aim to stop everyone doing anything illegal. It merely aims to set a standard for "acceptable" behaviour and keep enough people in line.
This is about one specific law, not laws in general. From the sound of your post, given the references to "framers" and the American Congress and bailouts, you're not even talking about Sweden or China.
Instead of moderating AC up, I chose instead to reply specifically to you, hoping that next time your comments will be more on topic, less knee jerk, and preferably internally consistent.
I learned this playing Burnout on PS2. If I look at the cars I'm aiming for, I inevitably crash into them. If I look between the cars, in other words where I want to go, I magically navigate between them.
Look where you're shooting, you'll hit it most of the time. Even if you don't want to. So look at what you want to hit.
That should be obvious. The target audience doesn't want to have to read. The accents keep reminding you that you are in a different country.
It's no different from the ridiculous computer programs that crime dramas use. They want to tell you what the computer is doing without either the actors explaining it, or having to read anything other than the word "Searching..." while faces pop up on a screen.
I think it's the best of both worlds - maintaining the culture as well as possible, but integrating the audience's native language. I would never watch a dubbed film, because I want the actor's natural expression to match physically and verbally.
The only time it sucks is when the accent is terribly done. Then it's a travesty.
And if you think about it as a carbon-fixing tool that can replace the carbon credit system, these things are even less relevant.
Use a little electricity to re-fix some of the CO2 you have released, and you can immediately and locally offset CO2 instead of growing a tree farm hundreds of miles away.
The fuel would likely be a side effect, kinda like whatever is behind the gas flare of an oil operation. It costs more to store and transport than it's worth, so they burn it off. In other words, not the primary goal but a side effect.
You could use a steam powered engine to use energy from the burn-off to provide electricity to run this as a carbon-fixing process. Or is that too meta?
Anyway, there are many uses for this, and it's more important to see it as pure research that can find an application later. Some of the best inventions have been re-purposing things, not inventing new things, so it's wide open as to what this offers.
Different angles make it hard to be sure you have the number right. If you look at a street photo like a book you're going to OCR, you have first the layout detection, then identify the image part and the text part. Solving this problem would be similar to identifying where the page number is, to be eliminated from the text.
Taking a laser measurement, un-warping the photo, and then doing traditional OCR would be awesome, if they had the forethought to include the laser part in their vast collection, but they didn't. Then you have the multiple "type faces" available.
Anyway, lots of places don't have a specific street address. Type something in and you get a blobby sort of approximation. Or data from Open Street Map - my home address is just a dot in the middle of the street. With street view they could get it more precise.
I would guarantee this is all shots from places like mine, where they may or may not have street names, and definitely don't have address ranges for the blocks. Connect the street name to the GPS tag in the photo, apply that to the orientation of the vehicle, and add the street numbers - accurate mapping better than any in-dash system has today.
TinyMCE is not a plugin, it's a script library. Like jQuery. The bug is in FireFox, and probably would have been there regardless of the release schedule. IF they don't test releases with TinyMCE, they would not have noticed a regression.
It was confirmed as a bug in FireFox, and the newer versions of TinyMCE work around it. The relevant comment is:
I'm pretty sure TinyMCE is cross-platform, as much as it can be when each browser can add bugs (or at least unexpected changes in behavior).
What I haven't searched for is whether the onload event order for iframes is documented in a standard, or by convention. Either way, if you write to the standard and the browser doesn't, your plugin looks broken.
I'm not sure if you've made the connection - with NoScript, all of those properties display a blank page.
Enabling scripts brings up the content, and a bunch of stories on the right side where the "posted" time continually counts in *seconds*.
I am very sensitive to movement, and every second as I read those stories my attention is grabbed by those ever changing numbers. If it's something I really want to read, I enable scripts, refresh, and then revoke temporary scripts immediately.
I'm not stealing the web from them at all - I click, get an empty page, and close the tab/window. This could not be any more of a non-issue to me. I gave up commenting on only seeing a white page long ago, I figure it's worth one more post just for old times' sake.
Gawker, io9, LifeHacker, Gizmodo... I assume all of the Gawker properties do the same thing.
And in addition to iceaxe, I too have no DRM books.
Almost entirely Project Gutenberg, or similar projects. And scanned copies of things I already own (archival exception to copyright restrictions).
Since a Fake Book / Real Book has mostly just one-page tunes (the head and changes), you could load up 20-30 songs and play jazz for several hours, just pausing between songs long enough to push "next page". Want to change the set list? Re-arrange the PDF and send it to the band. I haven't scratched the surface of what you can do with them, but I'm doing anything that doesn't need DRM.
This is a good idea. It is entrenched, however, by the idea of a 'unix name' or 'package name'. At sourceforge, you register with a unix name, which is in the URL. So the featured project Scribus is located here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/scribus/
I need to install KDevelop, which package do I get? Easy, it should be apt-get kdevelop. What about "KDE Development Studio"? Well, I'd probably need some sort of GUI thing to let me select, and then know what the package name is.
Short, unique names are how we do things, and getting that to change will require more than just the projects changing the official names. It has to satisfy the point-and-click people as well as the command-line people.
Waiting for approval is a valid point, but anyone who spent time using MFC probably has their own list of things that drive them bonkers, and most likely know where the fix needs to be. Screw approval, fix it in your code and ship the result linked statically.
No joke, even the C/C++ headers in MSVC 6 are broken, and due to licensing issues Microsoft can't release a patch for it. People just fix it locally and it's done. Of course, this is mostly STL, so it's not in the runtime DLL files so you could still dynamically link these updates.
http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html
If you choose you can install the source code to the MFC library, and step through it like your own code. Just like you can go through the C/C++ runtimes. You're not supposed to fix and re-build it, they did not release the build/project files, only the code so the PDB files could tell the debugger where to look.
If you have spent time in MFC, you quickly learn that every other line of code is likely to have some quirk that you didn't expect. Adding simple overrides requires hacks on top of hacks. And you learn how it works, even if you don't install the code.
I left MFC a long time ago, but I guarantee I could find and fix one bug a day for the next week, maybe two, just based on working with it for maybe 5 years. On top of my normal workload, not just hacking away on bugs for 16 hours. Entire websites are dedicated to working around how MFC doesn't work like it should.
The Petzold equivalent book for MFC starts out with making an MFC app in notepad, no wizards or GUI. If you understand what you are writing, and what the wizard does for you, you can make your own workarounds. All it takes is having the code to see where it is screwing up what you did to it. "The time it takes to find the bug in a program you didn't write" is negligible compared to working around it every time you write a program that works around the same problem.
http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Windows-MFC-Second-Edition/dp/1572316950
It was a terrible analogy to begin with, not an argument. And you are correct that he argued one side but forgot the other.
It was more of an excuse to take a a jab at multitheism, if not deism completely, and I'm sure there are better ways to explain it without inserting personal bias.
The premise probably included the assumption that since people have believed both ways, neither one could be called the correct way. This is the scientific method, if contradictory results are observed no conclusion can be made and neither is correct. Therefore in his mind, no smiting would happen at all.
Once you understand the semantics involved, instead of picking one superficial blemish, it is much easier to discuss these things. Context is the key to understanding.
As opposed to anything larger than a photon, at first. The famous "dual slit" experiment. Then electrons, in the understanding of photovoltaic effect. Protons and Neutrons are quite a bit larger, and atoms larger yet. Then molecules of the same atom (buckyballs). Now we have a particle, with combinations of different atoms.
For most people who know anything about this duality, they learned about the dual-slit experiment, so your most common answer is likely to be "photon", the "quantum of light" and therefore a "quantum particle".
If you're doing anything other than pointing out the law, which a judge will either agree with as written or you appeal to the higher courts, you will need expert testimony.
A good expert will be $5000 plus travel, adjust for better/worse and the city. He may have paid someone $10k just to review the evidence and testify on the technical side of things. Was the video doctored? I bet the police defense asked those types of things. Poke any hole at all in the evidence.
"The lawyers" get all the money in class action lawsuits, where they have to compile piles of suits into a single one and coordinate. Excessive, even they will do a lot of work. IP suits, especially where the language of the contract is at issue (such as the Novell IP with Unix/SCO), they will spend a while interviewing people and reviewing evidence and come away with a huge payday. These are the areas where you get to say "the lawyers probably took it all."
This type of suit, "legal fees" includes a lot more than just what the lawyer gets. Especially when it's $50k over 5 years. $10k/year, allowing for one expert per year, is not a whole lot.
"You might want to consider" is about the same as "If you're in the market" plus a little of "Take a moment and think about if your wife has been complaining about something with the TV."
If you are in the market, and especially if you are in the market and don't realize it, this is probably great advice. If you are not in the market, even the normally terrible summary doesn't tell you to buy one, only consider it.
I don't understand the knee-jerk "It works for me" replies to any 3D TV story. I'm interested, I don't have one yet, and having this guy's opinion gives me more info to base my decision on.
In other words, if your needs are fulfilled right now, you are very likely not the target audience.
That's the whole point. If you're not bothering anyone, law enforcement has no business keeping tabs on you. It was designed that way, erring on the side of letting guilty people go free.
When the Constitution was written, such abuses of power were a big enough deal that they put it in the Bill of Rights.
It's the same idea behind "âoeBetter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
http://works.bepress.com/alexander_volokh/9/
Zero tolerance means zero responsibility, and they are made by smart people to avoid these kinds of problems.
Any time an administrator has to make a decision that may affect a student, they open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Even if you win, a parent filing a lawsuit is at best a distraction and at worst a money drain. And just having a parent waging war, making noise at PTA meetings, or whatever they can think of to harass the administrator, it can become quite the pain. Usually, some dispute with a parent leads to this type of policy, to prevent it happening again. If it happens at one school, you can bet another school will at least consider trying to avoid the same thing.
I'm not even going to attempt to point out what's wrong with the rest of this, other than leave a quote from the article here.
Luckily, you're dealing with Science, not armchair philosophers or youtube commentators. I appreciate your attempt at using logic, but don't trust the summary to explain everything. From the abstract, it seems Science has considered that you might have a point, and went back in time to address it.
It has become clear to me that editors and submitters both have cells tagged with ChR2 pretty much at random, and typing seems to engage triggering pulses of light.
We are all part of the experiment, I think it's to see who is the last one to give up waiting for quality to improve.
I'm going to read one more summary and if it sucks I'm done. Well that was obviously a dud, I'll give it a pass and the next one will determine it. Wait, that was idle, I'll see what the next one has...
Not a test. Not one of the reports of employers asking for FB account creds say anything about being turned away for saying yes. All of them seem to report a "growing trend" based on one guy in New York who was asked for his password, refused, and withdrew his application. And another person agreed, and got the job.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/143441856.html
According to this article, other people have been asked to "friend" HR so that they can see the person's profile, without asking for the password. Or have the user log in and click around.
http://con.ca/news/6572
So please, every time this story re-appears on Slashdot, you're not clever by coming up with the trick question angle. It's appeared on every previous Slashdot post, and a few basic searches will tell you it's not a test.
DVD on standard def TV is pretty close to perfect, for standard def.
DVD on HD can be anywhere from terrible to pretty darned good. The early discs which were burned to 4GB had a low enough bitrate that it shows. Later, they realized that using over 4GB made it hard for people to copy, since few people had a DVD burner and no one had a dual-layer burner. Then they started maxxing out the bitrate to use up all of the space (except for the extras of course).
DVD on Windows Media Player on 1080 HDMI output looks very nice - better than VLC, and slightly better than my old DVD player over component input. I don't think I could tell Blu-Ray vs. DVD more than chance without an actual A/B test, especially on movies pressed in the last 5-10 years. Even the local public stations which broadcast in 16x9 480 with the black bars on top and bottom look great when 'zoomed' to fill the screen.
I admit, I like watching NBC over the air, 1080 HD does look nice. But not so nice I'm willing to pay for it. I actually went out to buy a PS3, mostly for the Blu-Ray and less for the games. Came home with an XBOX.
Acknowledging this is election cycle politics doesn't excuse behavior, it explains behavior.
It's hardly a free pass. Almost everything that happens in politics is due to re-election. The deficit limit shenanigans that resulted in a lower credit rating, and higher borrowing costs, were an election gambit to appease the tea party and fiscal responsibility types. The entire 1980's and more were one big "I'm tougher on crime" pissing match to get votes.
Understanding how laws are passed is the first step in preventing bad laws being passed. The next step is a true institutional memory where abuses are archived, and included in SuperPAC funded advertisements right before the next election.
Your actions will not be forgotten, is the message.
The next step, is to get the people who actually care out to vote.
After that, we need honest people to get pissed off enough that they run for office just so the establishment doesn't keep reinforcing itself. Without the earlier steps, this guy won't stand a chance.