Interesting. So then this would say that either: a) 20% is insufficient, b) the whole theory behind refuge rows is wrong, c) there is widespread cheating on refuge rows. I'm putting my money on 'b'.
My brother is a farm manager in Iowa, and he told me that Iowa has regulations where either 10% (or 20%, I forget which) of your rows must be "refuge rows", that is, if you plant a GMO variety, you need to plant non-GMO refuge rows in the same field so that the insects (or fungus or whatever you are fighting) has some place to go live where it then should not develop resistance. Overall it is still a win, because the GMO rows are more productive, and you can plant your refuge rows on fence rows and turn-around rows that never yield as well anyway.
So... does anyone know of other states have refuge row regulations? Or is the % of refuge rows just not sufficient?
One of the first IT jobs I ever had was working for an IT manager... He couldn't solve a computer problem to save his life. That didn't matter, because he just hired competent underlings to do that work.
If he didn't have an answer, he asked us after the meeting and then followed up with our recommendations.
Yes, this. I found in my time as a pointy-hair type (not IT management, engineering management) that the most powerful question I could ask of one of my staff is: "What do you recommend?" -- Hell, their is no way I could keep up with all the technology. I expected my staff to teach me how it worked (enough of it anyway) that I could make sensible plans. Another powerful question is: "What do you need in order to make it happen?" This question only works if you actually pay attention to the answer and act on it, though:)
The best boss I ever had was an ex-Isreali commando officer. Here is why he was a great boss: 1) There was never, ever, any doubt in your mind about what he wanted, and when. (You don't send commandos on a mission they don't understand.) 2) He always asked what it took to do it, and listened intently to the answer. (You don't send commandos on a mission ill-equipped.) 3) If he couldn't give you what you asked for in #2, he looked for another plan. (You don't send commandos on suicide missions.) 4) He really cared about his people on a personal basis. (Commandos look out for each other every day in every way.) For a commando officer, these four steps are what it takes to avoid having to write The Letter to Parents. These four steps also work well for the much safer jobs we cube-dwellers have.
Really, if the *only* thing a first line manager does is make sure everyone understands the goals with great clarity, the team is half-way home. Have clear goals. Oh, it's good to give them the resources and authority to make them happen, and to follow up to see if things are on schedule and on track, and run interference with other departments, etc, etc. But all of those things are second order effects after Having Clear Goals.
Actually, if you study the revolutionary period, you will find that is, in fact, the point. King George had been doing quite a few things that annoyed the American colonists. For 9 years before first shots fired in the war, the Massachusetts Colony had been under military rule, although it wasn't very effective outside of Boston. In the rest of the colony local governments had been raising militias. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired on a detachment of British troops sent to confiscate weapons and ammunition, and the colonists resisted.
The congress that wrote the Declaration of Independence started out with around 100 delegates that were tasked with writing a letter to King George to state their grievances. As the summer wore on, the meeting took a radical turn. The less radical delegates found excuses to go home. In the end, 34 men signed the Declaration of Independence, which by that time was a treasonous document. It is interesting to note that they voted to approve the Declaration of Independence on July 2. It was signed on July 4, the date we celebrate as Independence day. It was kept secret until July 6 to give all the signers a two day head start out of town, on what one must presume was the fastest horse they could lay hands upon. The highest criminal courtroom in the colonies was just across the foyer from the room they were using, and the courtyard for the gallows was just outside the back door -- I'm sure it didn't require a lot of imagination to picture the possibilities.
So Mason and Madison, the two most closely associated with authorship of the Bill of Rights, were very much thinking of the British attempt to disarm the colonists. For other echos of British behavior, recall that between the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are protected from having to quarter soldiers in your home, you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, you are protected against giving evidence against yourself, and you are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Like, for instance, being drawn and quartered for signing something like the Declaration of Independence.
Also, if you read the Federalist Papers you will find that one of the arguments for language like the 2nd Amendment is to keep any government from becoming tyrannical. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, a significant majority of the states had 2nd Amendment-like language. The 2nd Amendment is an amalgam of similar language in state constitutions.
Are you kidding? Silicon Valley was founded by chemists. To quote chemist Gordon Moore: "We would hire an EE to tell us if we had built anything useful." As long as you are strong in physical chemistry you should be able to find a place. Chemists have opportunities in both fab operations and new process development. You might find your wages go farther some place like Portland, though, where there are lots of semiconductor fabs and cheaper houses.
They appear to be bending the USB spec quite seriously. A USB device is allowed to draw up to 100mA before enumeration, and up to 500mA after being enumerated and negotiating for high power. They talk about using up to 700mA with networking connected -- it's not clear to me how it could enumerate without booting first -- so they seem to be giving the middle finger to the USB specs. I predict unhappiness when people find that only some USB power sources are going to tolerate the load.
Is it so hard to put a couple of holes in the board to solder wire to?
The only community input that matters here is that from LKML. The LKML is the judge of cruft. Google knows how to find LKML. Every other company that wants code in the mainline joins the LKML community as a *peer* and leaves the attitude behind.
Exactly. Google is being outrageously arrogant, IMHO. If you want your stuff in the kernel, submit a patch that Linus is happy with -- Google somehow believes that their stuff should get merged just because they are Google.
Clue for Google: IBM, Intel, and every other major player has coded, re-coded, re-re-coded, and absorbed and acted upon LKML input, without getting their feelings hurt (leastwise they didn't whine about it publicly).
It would be best for all concerned if Google's *good* ideas were put in a form that Linus and the LKML are happy with, and merged. The bad ideas should be left out. And merging cruft just because it is from Google is a Really Bad Idea. Cruft is cruft.
You should be more worried if the package says "food". Really. There are what are called "standards of identity" for various foods, and the labeling rules are very strict (USA-centric comment, obviously). (My wife used to work in the package foods industry, and had frequent conversations with company attorneys about getting package labels approved.) A couple of examples:
"pasteurized cheese food product" -- Well, it is a product. It isn't cheese at all, it is "cheese food product". It isn't clear to me that it really is food.
"potted meat food product" -- Read the ingredient list. As I recall, tripe and lips are the first two in some order, followed by other various organ meats.
So... if it says "food" in the label -- beware. I think it's there just because a normal person might not recognize it as edible.
Hi there, city boy. What a hoot you folks are, hypocrites one and all. You should be a vegan.
I remember sitting around the family dinner table, commenting on the flavor and tenderness of particular steaks. "Pretty good. Very tender. But remember Wilfred? He was amazingly tender and flavorful.' To which someone might reply: "Wilfred was good, buy I preferred Roscoe."
Our citified cousins tended not to join the conversation...
If you aren't willing to kill it, don't eat it. I hear Mark Zuckerburg has been doing that this past year -- butchering his own meat because he decided not to eat anything he hadn't killed himself. You might want to try that. Or try being a vegan. Either way, you need a big dose of reality rays.
I disagree on when to chose the BSD or the GPL. Both make sense at different times, to achieve different aims. BSD is for "Total World Domination". Use BSD to get your whizzy new protocol stack used everywhere. Use BSD to get anyone and everyone to include the driver for the hardware you just released. If, on the other hand, you want hobbyists, students, researchers, and the larger GPL community to have access to your work under the terms of the GPL, but commercial interests either need to take another license from you in exchange for money (or just simply take a hike), then GPL makes good sense.
The license is simply a tool to control the distribution of your software. Choose a license the way you chose a screwdriver, not the way you chose a religion.
From the article, it isn't clear to me what criteria they used to include projects in their survey. It would be interesting to know the numbers based on impact of the project -- a zillion little drivers released under BSD could skew the results.
Where did I say it was an excuse? Don't try to re-frame my point. I drive as safely as I know how, but some vehicles are more challenging to drive than others. Cyclists need to be especially aware of the blind spots of other vehicles. Especially large vehicles. It's simple self-preservation.
Ever try to drive a van or a 5 ton straight truck? Guess what, it doesn't have the acceleration, braking, and agility of a Miata. Stop expecting people driving trucks to have super powers.
As someone who sometimes drives a van, please be aware of vehicle blind spots. Do not cruise in them. It astounds me how many times a motorcycle will pull up on my right hand side, just behind the rear, or even just *ahead* of my rear bumper, and cruise there. The best rule for vans and motorcycles: stay behind on the left, or get the hell past quickly on the left. Anything else is a death wish.
Where in the constitution does it say how many supreme court justices we should have? And that they alone have the power to decide constitutionality of laws passed by congress?
After you answer those questions fully, you can take up the commerce clause.
Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.
Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.
If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.
Certainly, I never said otherwise.
But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.
In addition to reading the constitution, did you read the Federalist Papers, and the so-call Anti-Federalist Papers? And study the history of the time? Not that I have, but they are among my goals for 2012. The founders were political activists. They were concerned about the suppression of political speech. The constitution leaves much unsaid. The law in the early United States drew from English law, so it seems to me it would have been understood that protections against libel and slander that come from English common law were precedent. Early decisions about how to implement the first amendment would have been made against the background of inherited English common law. Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards, I think we need to look at the common thought of the time -- a certain amount of things left out probably would fall in the category of: "Well, duh! That's obvious."(*) to Jefferson and Madison.
(*) Citation needed. It's not clear either Jefferson or Madison ever said "duh".
Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.
Political speech gets very broad protection -- your political rants and screeds, no matter how odious, pretty much are protected. When you start advocating violence against a particular person or group, however, you have reached the boundary. You are not protected from the consequences of said speech, either.
Commercial speech (ie: advertisements) get much less protection. Like the FTC might come down on you for truth in advertising issues. The FDA prohibits certain forms of advertising for prescription drugs.
If you direct attacks at a particular person, who that person is has impact on your protection. Is the person a politician either in or running for office? Fire away, pretty much. Does the person live in the public eye? Famous actors have to put up with a lot of crap. Is the person just a normal Joe trying to get by? The court tolerates much less crap aimed at them.
Libelous and slanderous speech is always subject to remedy.
Anyway, the d-bag in question clearly wasn't making a political point, and the victim certainly wasn't a politician or movie star. This was a private person trying to have some privacy, and some d-bag being a d-bag in a very public way. It is a fact that the truth is always an absolute defense against libel, so maybe if what he said was true you can't shut him down for libel. But hurtful speech directed against a private person is not going to get very much first amendment protection. And I'm OK with that. That's a very different thing from a political rant.
Well, sort of. The inquisition was at the time and still is headquartered out of the Vatican. Yes, the office of the inquisition is still open and staffed. The Spanish monarchy was simply an enthusiastic supporter -- so the "Spanish Inquisition" was simply a particularly energetic implementation of the inquisition.
Quite true. The ability to control what ads I see would go a long way towards training the advertisers. If they learned that people will block you unless you play nice, they will play nice.
By-and-large, I don't mind a static picture that doesn't gobble up screen space. Animations I absolutely hate. Sound, I hate even more absolutelier. Tracking creeps me out. I usually run with flashblock and adblockers in place. On one lab system, I haven't bothered to install all that crap -- it is always jarring to see ads pop up on one site that are obviously only there because of tracking by behavior on other sites. Being tracked is what makes me turn on script blockers.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. So then this would say that either: a) 20% is insufficient, b) the whole theory behind refuge rows is wrong, c) there is widespread cheating on refuge rows. I'm putting my money on 'b'.
My brother is a farm manager in Iowa, and he told me that Iowa has regulations where either 10% (or 20%, I forget which) of your rows must be "refuge rows", that is, if you plant a GMO variety, you need to plant non-GMO refuge rows in the same field so that the insects (or fungus or whatever you are fighting) has some place to go live where it then should not develop resistance. Overall it is still a win, because the GMO rows are more productive, and you can plant your refuge rows on fence rows and turn-around rows that never yield as well anyway.
So... does anyone know of other states have refuge row regulations? Or is the % of refuge rows just not sufficient?
One of the first IT jobs I ever had was working for an IT manager ... He couldn't solve a computer problem to save his life. That didn't matter, because he just hired competent underlings to do that work.
If he didn't have an answer, he asked us after the meeting and then followed up with our recommendations.
Yes, this. I found in my time as a pointy-hair type (not IT management, engineering management) that the most powerful question I could ask of one of my staff is: "What do you recommend?" -- Hell, their is no way I could keep up with all the technology. I expected my staff to teach me how it worked (enough of it anyway) that I could make sensible plans. Another powerful question is: "What do you need in order to make it happen?" This question only works if you actually pay attention to the answer and act on it, though :)
The best boss I ever had was an ex-Isreali commando officer. Here is why he was a great boss:
1) There was never, ever, any doubt in your mind about what he wanted, and when. (You don't send commandos on a mission they don't understand.)
2) He always asked what it took to do it, and listened intently to the answer. (You don't send commandos on a mission ill-equipped.)
3) If he couldn't give you what you asked for in #2, he looked for another plan. (You don't send commandos on suicide missions.)
4) He really cared about his people on a personal basis. (Commandos look out for each other every day in every way.)
For a commando officer, these four steps are what it takes to avoid having to write The Letter to Parents. These four steps also work well for the much safer jobs we cube-dwellers have.
Really, if the *only* thing a first line manager does is make sure everyone understands the goals with great clarity, the team is half-way home. Have clear goals. Oh, it's good to give them the resources and authority to make them happen, and to follow up to see if things are on schedule and on track, and run interference with other departments, etc, etc. But all of those things are second order effects after Having Clear Goals.
Actually, if you study the revolutionary period, you will find that is, in fact, the point. King George had been doing quite a few things that annoyed the American colonists. For 9 years before first shots fired in the war, the Massachusetts Colony had been under military rule, although it wasn't very effective outside of Boston. In the rest of the colony local governments had been raising militias. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired on a detachment of British troops sent to confiscate weapons and ammunition, and the colonists resisted.
The congress that wrote the Declaration of Independence started out with around 100 delegates that were tasked with writing a letter to King George to state their grievances. As the summer wore on, the meeting took a radical turn. The less radical delegates found excuses to go home. In the end, 34 men signed the Declaration of Independence, which by that time was a treasonous document. It is interesting to note that they voted to approve the Declaration of Independence on July 2. It was signed on July 4, the date we celebrate as Independence day. It was kept secret until July 6 to give all the signers a two day head start out of town, on what one must presume was the fastest horse they could lay hands upon. The highest criminal courtroom in the colonies was just across the foyer from the room they were using, and the courtyard for the gallows was just outside the back door -- I'm sure it didn't require a lot of imagination to picture the possibilities.
So Mason and Madison, the two most closely associated with authorship of the Bill of Rights, were very much thinking of the British attempt to disarm the colonists. For other echos of British behavior, recall that between the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you are protected from having to quarter soldiers in your home, you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, you are protected against giving evidence against yourself, and you are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Like, for instance, being drawn and quartered for signing something like the Declaration of Independence.
Also, if you read the Federalist Papers you will find that one of the arguments for language like the 2nd Amendment is to keep any government from becoming tyrannical. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, a significant majority of the states had 2nd Amendment-like language. The 2nd Amendment is an amalgam of similar language in state constitutions.
As an American with a Swiss grandfather, I beg to differ.
What country is that, exactly? Since I have mod points, I'm tempted to mod you 'funny'.... but I can't tell if you are clueless or just trolling.
Are you kidding? Silicon Valley was founded by chemists. To quote chemist Gordon Moore: "We would hire an EE to tell us if we had built anything useful." As long as you are strong in physical chemistry you should be able to find a place. Chemists have opportunities in both fab operations and new process development. You might find your wages go farther some place like Portland, though, where there are lots of semiconductor fabs and cheaper houses.
PA isn't part of Sili Valley? That's news to those of us who live here in Silicon Valley.
Punch cards are easy. Get out a bottle of MangnaSee, pour some on a magnetic tape, and stick it under a microscope...
They appear to be bending the USB spec quite seriously. A USB device is allowed to draw up to 100mA before enumeration, and up to 500mA after being enumerated and negotiating for high power. They talk about using up to 700mA with networking connected -- it's not clear to me how it could enumerate without booting first -- so they seem to be giving the middle finger to the USB specs. I predict unhappiness when people find that only some USB power sources are going to tolerate the load.
Is it so hard to put a couple of holes in the board to solder wire to?
The only community input that matters here is that from LKML. The LKML is the judge of cruft. Google knows how to find LKML. Every other company that wants code in the mainline joins the LKML community as a *peer* and leaves the attitude behind.
Exactly. Google is being outrageously arrogant, IMHO. If you want your stuff in the kernel, submit a patch that Linus is happy with -- Google somehow believes that their stuff should get merged just because they are Google.
Clue for Google: IBM, Intel, and every other major player has coded, re-coded, re-re-coded, and absorbed and acted upon LKML input, without getting their feelings hurt (leastwise they didn't whine about it publicly).
It would be best for all concerned if Google's *good* ideas were put in a form that Linus and the LKML are happy with, and merged. The bad ideas should be left out. And merging cruft just because it is from Google is a Really Bad Idea. Cruft is cruft.
You should be more worried if the package says "food". Really. There are what are called "standards of identity" for various foods, and the labeling rules are very strict (USA-centric comment, obviously). (My wife used to work in the package foods industry, and had frequent conversations with company attorneys about getting package labels approved.) A couple of examples:
"pasteurized cheese food product" -- Well, it is a product. It isn't cheese at all, it is "cheese food product". It isn't clear to me that it really is food.
"potted meat food product" -- Read the ingredient list. As I recall, tripe and lips are the first two in some order, followed by other various organ meats.
So... if it says "food" in the label -- beware. I think it's there just because a normal person might not recognize it as edible.
Hi there, city boy. What a hoot you folks are, hypocrites one and all. You should be a vegan.
I remember sitting around the family dinner table, commenting on the flavor and tenderness of particular steaks. "Pretty good. Very tender. But remember Wilfred? He was amazingly tender and flavorful.' To which someone might reply: "Wilfred was good, buy I preferred Roscoe."
Our citified cousins tended not to join the conversation...
If you aren't willing to kill it, don't eat it. I hear Mark Zuckerburg has been doing that this past year -- butchering his own meat because he decided not to eat anything he hadn't killed himself. You might want to try that. Or try being a vegan. Either way, you need a big dose of reality rays.
I disagree on when to chose the BSD or the GPL. Both make sense at different times, to achieve different aims. BSD is for "Total World Domination". Use BSD to get your whizzy new protocol stack used everywhere. Use BSD to get anyone and everyone to include the driver for the hardware you just released. If, on the other hand, you want hobbyists, students, researchers, and the larger GPL community to have access to your work under the terms of the GPL, but commercial interests either need to take another license from you in exchange for money (or just simply take a hike), then GPL makes good sense.
The license is simply a tool to control the distribution of your software. Choose a license the way you chose a screwdriver, not the way you chose a religion.
From the article, it isn't clear to me what criteria they used to include projects in their survey. It would be interesting to know the numbers based on impact of the project -- a zillion little drivers released under BSD could skew the results.
Which is a total non-answer to my question, and doesn't exactly make your case. That clause only serves to muddy the waters.
If you think the second amendment is crystal clear, then explain the limits, if any, to the rights guaranteed by it.
Where did I say it was an excuse? Don't try to re-frame my point. I drive as safely as I know how, but some vehicles are more challenging to drive than others. Cyclists need to be especially aware of the blind spots of other vehicles. Especially large vehicles. It's simple self-preservation.
Ever try to drive a van or a 5 ton straight truck? Guess what, it doesn't have the acceleration, braking, and agility of a Miata. Stop expecting people driving trucks to have super powers.
As someone who sometimes drives a van, please be aware of vehicle blind spots. Do not cruise in them. It astounds me how many times a motorcycle will pull up on my right hand side, just behind the rear, or even just *ahead* of my rear bumper, and cruise there. The best rule for vans and motorcycles: stay behind on the left, or get the hell past quickly on the left. Anything else is a death wish.
Explain the limits, if any, to rights granted under the second amendment.
Where in the constitution does it say how many supreme court justices we should have? And that they alone have the power to decide constitutionality of laws passed by congress?
After you answer those questions fully, you can take up the commerce clause.
Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.
Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.
If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.
Certainly, I never said otherwise.
But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.
In addition to reading the constitution, did you read the Federalist Papers, and the so-call Anti-Federalist Papers? And study the history of the time? Not that I have, but they are among my goals for 2012. The founders were political activists. They were concerned about the suppression of political speech. The constitution leaves much unsaid. The law in the early United States drew from English law, so it seems to me it would have been understood that protections against libel and slander that come from English common law were precedent. Early decisions about how to implement the first amendment would have been made against the background of inherited English common law. Where the constitution seems vague by today's standards, I think we need to look at the common thought of the time -- a certain amount of things left out probably would fall in the category of: "Well, duh! That's obvious."(*) to Jefferson and Madison.
(*) Citation needed. It's not clear either Jefferson or Madison ever said "duh".
Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.
Political speech gets very broad protection -- your political rants and screeds, no matter how odious, pretty much are protected. When you start advocating violence against a particular person or group, however, you have reached the boundary. You are not protected from the consequences of said speech, either.
Commercial speech (ie: advertisements) get much less protection. Like the FTC might come down on you for truth in advertising issues. The FDA prohibits certain forms of advertising for prescription drugs.
If you direct attacks at a particular person, who that person is has impact on your protection. Is the person a politician either in or running for office? Fire away, pretty much. Does the person live in the public eye? Famous actors have to put up with a lot of crap. Is the person just a normal Joe trying to get by? The court tolerates much less crap aimed at them.
Libelous and slanderous speech is always subject to remedy.
Anyway, the d-bag in question clearly wasn't making a political point, and the victim certainly wasn't a politician or movie star. This was a private person trying to have some privacy, and some d-bag being a d-bag in a very public way. It is a fact that the truth is always an absolute defense against libel, so maybe if what he said was true you can't shut him down for libel. But hurtful speech directed against a private person is not going to get very much first amendment protection. And I'm OK with that. That's a very different thing from a political rant.
Well, sort of. The inquisition was at the time and still is headquartered out of the Vatican. Yes, the office of the inquisition is still open and staffed. The Spanish monarchy was simply an enthusiastic supporter -- so the "Spanish Inquisition" was simply a particularly energetic implementation of the inquisition.
Quite true. The ability to control what ads I see would go a long way towards training the advertisers. If they learned that people will block you unless you play nice, they will play nice.
By-and-large, I don't mind a static picture that doesn't gobble up screen space. Animations I absolutely hate. Sound, I hate even more absolutelier. Tracking creeps me out. I usually run with flashblock and adblockers in place. On one lab system, I haven't bothered to install all that crap -- it is always jarring to see ads pop up on one site that are obviously only there because of tracking by behavior on other sites. Being tracked is what makes me turn on script blockers.