Do you really think most soldiers do the work for the pay even today ? America does not have a professional military in the sense that you have mercenaries, it's got a volunteer military
It has a volunteer, professional military. They are paid to do a job, which, by and large, they do well, and do by choice.
that enables volunteers to support their family.
If the military is the only employer available to those who choose to join it, then the "support the family" argument is relevant. Otherwise, we're into needlessly emotive rambling again.
I don't think your answer is good enough.
Get over yourself, then.
Do tell : would it be good enough for you. Would you take the risk of dying, and face armed opponents for the pay of a normal soldier?
No. I can make better money (and thus pay more taxes) doing things I enjoy elsewhere. That has absolutely no bearing on what I expect of the military. I expect the government, with my taxes, to institute a competent military congruent with defending and advancing my political beliefs. How they convince people to enter that military (and what wages they choose to pay those employees) are largely irrelevant outside my existing relationship with government. If the soldiers they can get for their money come at a reduced price because of their personal beliefs, that's great.
It really does all boil down to economics at the end of the day. If you believe that doing something will give you a worthwhile return given the risk, go and do it. If not, don't.
I think the argument is that if you've got a highly ridged surface, a reflected photon is more likely to hit another part of the absorber and get a second chance to be absorbed.
Not sure how you've worked that out. At a fairly optimistic 10% efficiency, I reckon he would need about a fifth of a square meter to output 18W, given that sunlight has an energy density of 1kW/m^2, give or take. That roughly matches area of the device he's shown holding. A 30ftx2ft similar panel would have roughly 600W output.
This doesn't mean it's not bullshit, naturally; it just means that the numbers *could* add up.
(well, with the exception of the last 8 years; gads I wish that other nations would call W, Cheney, and rumsfeld war criminals and grab them when they arrive in their nation).
No, you don't get to ignore the last 8 years. You can't just say "whoops, that never happened."
Second, America did not sign Kyoto because it was massively flawed.
...and I don't care about this argument, the why is tangential.
Since you don't seem to have had a serious answer yet, I'm guessing from the photo and the duty cycle that it's a Slocum glider. These have no tether, and are (pretty much) fully autonomous. Google is your friend - they're a really neat design.
That's an entirely different question. The US has a tendency to ignore international agreements that everyone else is signing up to, despite their presence potentially giving the agreements much greater force. The two I'm specifically thinking of are Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. However, it's not unknown for the US to just ignore treaties it has signed up to - see GATS for an example. There are a few other examples here.
The specific law might not be unconstitutional, but the process by which the victim was convicted certainly can be, as can selection and implementation of the punishment.
My experience dealing with Linux developers (and realistically, software developers in general) is that they're all terrible at determining the link between hardware and software. Look at the derision you get online towards C. Linux devs are worse -- if you're not running their exact hardware on a machine you bought in the last month, then it's your problem, not theirs. "Weird, it works here. Have you tried recompiling the drivers?"
It's fairly easy to map these pins, BTW. All you have to do is set everything to an output, set it to 0, and then turn everything to an input. Everything that's high has a pullup resistor. Do the same with 1 and everything that's low has a pull-down resistor. Now you know which pins must be inputs when you're not using them.
The problem is that these paragraphs are directly contradictory. If your hardware is homogenous, then yes, it makes sense to test like that. If, however, you've got to handle a poorly-implemented badly-designed hardware spec, where you don't know if "pulling the pins high" is actually going to do that or, for instance, overwrite something in a random register that could end up bricking the device when someone else runs your test on a version of the model where the manufacturer thoughtfully didn't bump the hardware revision, then treading a little more carefully is indicated.
Do we know that what you suggest has even been thought about? No, not at all. Not even for the cases where it's blatantly obvious that it would be safe. At least, I (as a moderately interested bystander) don't have the confidence that it's been done, but it's only in the last couple of years that sleep mode has worked at all, in my practical experience. I'm happy if energy efficiency is the *next* thing they look at, not annoyed that they haven't done so already.
They don't. The bar-owners do. Snorting coke off a surface coated with WD-40 allegedly gives you an instant nose-bleed, which is a pretty obvious marker for the bar staff to know who to kick out.
Except, the average lifespan of a paper note is about 18 months depending on the denomination. Very few 1985 bills remain in circulation today.
Ah, but - with the levels they're measuring, contact contamination between notes *must* be an issue. While the notes themselves won't be in circulation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the contamination half-life isn't longer than a given bill's circulation life.
Yes it does, because if the design is proven and you've got a faulty part, you know it *must* be a production error. Just knowing what stage the fault comes from is a valuable thing.
a) Live ammo. Different technology. b) It's *fun*, and put together by a bunch of students, not a defence contractor. c) Dirt cheap. I mean, really - the most expensive part of the rig is probably the LabView license.
I'm afraid you've got it backwards. Say you have the patent you describe, and you accuse me of violating claim 3. I can knock down claim 1 and still be on the hook for claim 2 - that is, I'm still infringing unless I can *also* knock down claims 2 and 3.
This is the whole point of having dependent claims in patents. If this wasn't the case, you'd just have written:
Claim 1: A foo bar with foozle skins and green thingamajobs.
The patent you describe can still be valid if claim 1 is decided to be invalid, because the later claims describe more detailed inventions.
Allegedly the Cisco client behaves in exactly the way the GP describes.
Re:Shard of glass in my delicious pie! *gruff*
on
Mario AI Competition
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"Java only? What the hell !?"
Um... no.
Controllers written in any language are welcome, as long as they can be interfaced to an unmodified version of the marioai package - directly if written in Java, through the TCP interface otherwise. In any case, the controllers must be able to run in real time on an Intel machine running either Mac OS X (preferred), Ubuntu Linux or Windows XP.
Slashdot Mirror
It has a volunteer, professional military. They are paid to do a job, which, by and large, they do well, and do by choice.
If the military is the only employer available to those who choose to join it, then the "support the family" argument is relevant. Otherwise, we're into needlessly emotive rambling again.
Get over yourself, then.
No. I can make better money (and thus pay more taxes) doing things I enjoy elsewhere. That has absolutely no bearing on what I expect of the military. I expect the government, with my taxes, to institute a competent military congruent with defending and advancing my political beliefs. How they convince people to enter that military (and what wages they choose to pay those employees) are largely irrelevant outside my existing relationship with government. If the soldiers they can get for their money come at a reduced price because of their personal beliefs, that's great.
It really does all boil down to economics at the end of the day. If you believe that doing something will give you a worthwhile return given the risk, go and do it. If not, don't.
Needless emotivity aside, because we will pay them to do so. That's what having a professional military means.
"Touch me, I'm 7!"
I think the argument is that if you've got a highly ridged surface, a reflected photon is more likely to hit another part of the absorber and get a second chance to be absorbed.
Not sure how you've worked that out. At a fairly optimistic 10% efficiency, I reckon he would need about a fifth of a square meter to output 18W, given that sunlight has an energy density of 1kW/m^2, give or take. That roughly matches area of the device he's shown holding. A 30ftx2ft similar panel would have roughly 600W output.
This doesn't mean it's not bullshit, naturally; it just means that the numbers *could* add up.
First, we do sign these, but ignore them if we do not ratify them. All of signatures are conditional on getting ratificaiton.
Yes. This is almost precisely my point.
Second, exactly what violations are we doing in GATS? To the best of my knowledge we are obeying it, as well as obey all that we sign
Antigua disagrees, and so does the WTO.
(well, with the exception of the last 8 years; gads I wish that other nations would call W, Cheney, and rumsfeld war criminals and grab them when they arrive in their nation).
No, you don't get to ignore the last 8 years. You can't just say "whoops, that never happened."
Second, America did not sign Kyoto because it was massively flawed.
...and I don't care about this argument, the why is tangential.
Since you don't seem to have had a serious answer yet, I'm guessing from the photo and the duty cycle that it's a Slocum glider. These have no tether, and are (pretty much) fully autonomous. Google is your friend - they're a really neat design.
That's an entirely different question. The US has a tendency to ignore international agreements that everyone else is signing up to, despite their presence potentially giving the agreements much greater force. The two I'm specifically thinking of are Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. However, it's not unknown for the US to just ignore treaties it has signed up to - see GATS for an example. There are a few other examples here.
The specific law might not be unconstitutional, but the process by which the victim was convicted certainly can be, as can selection and implementation of the punishment.
Oh, for mod points...
The problem is that these paragraphs are directly contradictory. If your hardware is homogenous, then yes, it makes sense to test like that. If, however, you've got to handle a poorly-implemented badly-designed hardware spec, where you don't know if "pulling the pins high" is actually going to do that or, for instance, overwrite something in a random register that could end up bricking the device when someone else runs your test on a version of the model where the manufacturer thoughtfully didn't bump the hardware revision, then treading a little more carefully is indicated.
Do we know that what you suggest has even been thought about? No, not at all. Not even for the cases where it's blatantly obvious that it would be safe. At least, I (as a moderately interested bystander) don't have the confidence that it's been done, but it's only in the last couple of years that sleep mode has worked at all, in my practical experience. I'm happy if energy efficiency is the *next* thing they look at, not annoyed that they haven't done so already.
If it's whooshed me, I'm not alone - currently modded +3 insightful.
So what? The tech is still interesting.
But machetes don't run out of ammunition.
They don't. The bar-owners do. Snorting coke off a surface coated with WD-40 allegedly gives you an instant nose-bleed, which is a pretty obvious marker for the bar staff to know who to kick out.
Ah, but - with the levels they're measuring, contact contamination between notes *must* be an issue. While the notes themselves won't be in circulation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the contamination half-life isn't longer than a given bill's circulation life.
Yes it does, because if the design is proven and you've got a faulty part, you know it *must* be a production error. Just knowing what stage the fault comes from is a valuable thing.
It's new because:
a) Live ammo. Different technology.
b) It's *fun*, and put together by a bunch of students, not a defence contractor.
c) Dirt cheap. I mean, really - the most expensive part of the rig is probably the LabView license.
I'm afraid you've got it backwards. Say you have the patent you describe, and you accuse me of violating claim 3. I can knock down claim 1 and still be on the hook for claim 2 - that is, I'm still infringing unless I can *also* knock down claims 2 and 3.
This is the whole point of having dependent claims in patents. If this wasn't the case, you'd just have written:
Claim 1: A foo bar with foozle skins and green thingamajobs.
The patent you describe can still be valid if claim 1 is decided to be invalid, because the later claims describe more detailed inventions.
It is if the app developer omits to handle it because "oh, that'll never happen." This is not an uncommon attitude, unfortunately.
Allegedly the Cisco client behaves in exactly the way the GP describes.
Um... no.
Annoyed? Amused is, I think, a more likely reaction.
Hm. That was me. Not sure why that posted AC.
So when it rains, we're actually getting pissed on by Aliens.
That explains so much about the UK.