I live near the 49th parallel now, but I used to live at around the 53'rd, and really, except for in early morning or very late afternoon/early evening, the sun wasn't all that low (and, as I said... even the period of time when it is that low is of fairly short duration).
If you're talking further north than that, the population density is so low that the NIMBY crowd should not be a problem.
A mere 350 m away, the decibel rating on a wind turbine farm is generally going to only be about 35 db. For comparison, rural night time background noise is about 40db.
This is compared to... oh... being annoyed that we are basically destroying the entire planet because some people are too effing proud to get off of their high horse and actually realize that keeping an advanced civilization in the long term just might mean we have to make some compromises?
Of course you're right... your own personal comfort means sooooo much more than the environment.
First of all, if your house is in the shadow of one of these things, then you have one that is LITERALLY on your own property, in which case you are being paid for the land it is on, or else it is extremely early or extremely late in the day, in which case the "strobe" effect (which is actually not disconcerting, you'll get more of a strobing effect from being in the shadow of a leafy tree on a windy day) won't last that long anyways.
Over time, as the information it provides genuinely proves itself useful, the brain would become increasingly dependent on the additional information being provided by it to convey an accurate presentation of things. Unless they were accustomed to dealing with periodic system disruptions, removing it for even a short period would result in the same sort of disorientation and confusion that arises if a person suddenly lost one of their senses.
Y'know, for someone who's pedantic enough to point out what seemed to be an entirely inconsequential flaw in my assertion, I would think that you'd at least have the tenacity to double check the veracity of the video before assuming that it is true. The creators admitted it was fake on a Dutch TV show. Slashdot itself even covered the story.
My first reaction to the article was along those lines as well, but then I realized that the core problem with movie "3d" is that they are trying to make a 3d image on a large screen look the same to everybody, regardless of their distance from the screen. Using stereoscopic imaging to direct different images at each eye forces people's eyes to converge towards a distance that may not necessarily correspond the distance they are actually looking at (or worse, can sometimes cause actual eye divergence if one is sitting too close to the screen).
However, if this is intended for viewing by people who are all approximately the same distance from what the images that are being sent to them appear to be, then there is no reason that such mass audience stereoscopic imagery techniques need to be employed, and it could be made quite manageable for people to look at for extended periods.
I've had plenty of dealings with the police, actually. And in my experience, 99% of the time, they are just doing their job to the best of their ability and to the extent that they understand the situation. If you cooperate with them, and treat them in a professional and polite manner, they will probably let you go as soon as they've checked your name in their computer, unless you have actually done something wrong, and they have legitimate reason to detain you (and if you know why they are detaining you, then there's no reason to be asking).
If you are being arrested, you *ALWAYS* have the right to know why, and if the reason sounds contrived or completely bogus, then make a mental note of it, because if the matter escalates, that information will be useful later. Of course, in so doing, you should continue to cooperate with them, regardless of what they say.
If the situation progresses beyond that, then you need to ask to speak to a lawyer.
It was 2002, and I was taking a course in digital electronics. One of the well-known projects for this course was to build a digital clock from regular 74xx and 74xxx IC's. We were to complete the projects on our own breadboards, and we could, if we wanted to keep the result, buy our own electronic components as well. I bought my own electronics, and as a result, could work on it when I was not necessarily in the lab. I was in a fairly reclusive hallway in the school around lunctime, testing out a circuit I had designed which would get incorporated into my final project, and I was using some LED's for feedback, which flickered quickly as my circuit ran. I was concentrating on what I was doing, and was surprised when someone from campus security came up to me and grabbed me by the shoulder. I spent the next 15 minutes in the office of campus security explaining what I was doing, and as it happened, one of the people from campus security knew the professor and could vouch for the story I was giving. They had called my professor for the course anyways, who came to security, chuckled at the whole incident, because he recognized me immediately, and said that he knew me and that I was okay.
Later that afternoon, during the class lecture, the prof relayed the anecdote to everybody with much amusement, not mentioning exactly who it was who, evidently, got him called down to the security office because they thought one of his students was building a bomb. He advised us all that we should be building our projects in the lab only, and not in the hallways of the school.
Why does it naturally follow that you would resist arrest just because you did nothing wrong?
I mean, it's what would they do if you cooperated, and simply asked what the reason was for the arrest? This is something that anyone being arrested has the unequivocal right to know, even if the reason is specious or outright bogus. Of course, disagreeing with the reasons given for the arrest, even if one is right, does not entitle the person to not cooperate with an arresting officer.
From what I've heard, the best thing to do when an officer detains you for any reason is ask "am I being arrested?" If the answer is "no". Then ask "am I free to go?" The answer to this question must be "yes", or else by definition, the answer to previous question was false. Remember this, because it will be useful later. If the answer is that you are free to go, then you cannot lawfully be charged with resisting arrest for trying to leave. If they still try to detain you, cooperate, and remember everything that they have said, because it will be useful in court.
If they are actually arresting you (whether by explicitly acknowledging you are under arrest, or implicitly by saying that you are not free to go), then the thing to do is to cooperate with them, regardless of whether you feel you are in the right. You are entitled to ask why you are being detained or arrested, however, and again, you should remember the answer if it is contrived or untenable, because that testimony would be grounds for a wrongful arrest charge if you are actually taken into custody. It's also prudent to ask to speak to a lawyer, if they have actually said that you are under arrest.
Wrongful arrest is pretty serious, and an officer who knows he doesn't have anything on you is probably going to let you go almost immediately as long as you cooperate. Generally, this involves no more than giving them your name and address, as well as presenting some ID that confirms this.
Is this unfair? Should it be different? Maybe... but in the end, it's a whole lot easier to just go along with a cop who has an attitude and let him realize entirely on his own how wrong he is than to try to argue with him. In the absence of any evidence against you, it's far more likely that you're just going to be let go immediately... as long as you cooperate.
The tone for most of it reads as more than just a tad sarcastic, but I can't see how that would make it offtopic. It actually seems pretty square on topic to me (more so than this comment, in fact).
Also, what would it mean for Google if Oracle was entitled to everything they asked for?
I'm just curious. What are some possible scenarios that could arise from this? What could it mean for Java? What could it mean for Android? What about other parties?
I don't think I've ever played the king's gambit opening, at least not while I'm playing white. I don't care for how open it leaves my kingside bank ranks before they are defended.
Not at all. My point is what makes you think that those attacks are self-propogation attacks, and not simply attempts to find a security hole and install a rootkit? Do you have any evidence that a linux rootkit is what was actually being used to attack your system? Or are you simply assuming that it is because you can't think of any reason that non-linux systems would try to find security holes in Linux boxes?
There is absolutely no part of it that prohibits a person who has legal and authorized access to a system from supplying their password to other people unless, by my understanding, it is being done to instigate fraud. Just like it's not illegal for me to give the PIN on my bank card to somebody else.... such an act, however, has the upshot of making me liable for funds that might go missing from my account, and presumably that penalty is sufficient for me to abstain from doing so.
You'd probably need one whopper of a good lawyer, and they would have to have a pretty crappy one, to manage to convince a judge that an employer was actually violating 18 USC 1030 with this particular request.
Until the laws prohibiting firing someone also extend to protecting an employee's personal privacy, I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is actually entirely reasonable under the "at will" employment guidelines.
Not that I'm saying it's particularly fair for an employee, only that this sort of thing is to be expected when an employer can fire an employee for any reason that isn't explicitly illegal. It makes much more sense, IMO, to outline a concise list of general categories for reasons to fire an employee, and any reason for dismissal that does not fit one of those categories would be illegal. Such reasons could include shortage of work, inability to perform expected work, unprofessional or unethical behavior, violation of specific internal policies that the employee had acknowledged awareness of (presumably when they were hired), etc...
Neither does firing them. I'm pretty sure that one could find other people to do the same job quite happily who would be willing to give up facebook for a decent paying job.
Could somebody enlighten me as to what, exactly the employer did that was actually wrong?
I mean, I thought that the only things that you weren't allowed to fire an employee over are race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or religion. I don't think that not surrendering your facebook password fits into any of those.
So isn't this sort of what you can reasonably expect to happen when you have at-will employment?
I would think threatening to shoot down any of their airline's planes in this matter would be overkill, not to mention probably would be considered almost an act of war.
More than likely, the USA probably told them that their airlines would be denied entry into the USA.
I have yet to see any pdf reader other than Adobe's that will work properly with the PDF's that this company produces.
I have no real dedication to Adobe one way or the other, but I seriously do like that company's map products, many of which utilize several more advanced pdf features such as layers for customization.
If somebody would make an open source pdf reader that could actually handle such PDF's, I'd drop Adobe like a hot potato... it's the only 32-bit application I have on my 64-bit linux system, and the only reason I even have the 32-bit compatibility libraries installed.
And let's say that I discover an item (or possibly a group of items) in a store such that after tax, the total price in pennies ends with the number 8.
And let's say that I intend to buy something from a store such that its price in pennies, after tax, would end with the number 4, 3, or 2.
If I combine these purchases into one, and then pay in cash, then the resulting price will be rounded to the nearest nickel, which means they would round down.
If I then later exploit the store return policy to return the first items on the list for a refund, since I paid in cash, I should receive cash back, which again, should be rounded to the nearest nickel... but this time, they would have to round it up, and I would get an extra 2 cents back.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Canada.
I live near the 49th parallel now, but I used to live at around the 53'rd, and really, except for in early morning or very late afternoon/early evening, the sun wasn't all that low (and, as I said... even the period of time when it is that low is of fairly short duration).
If you're talking further north than that, the population density is so low that the NIMBY crowd should not be a problem.
Please.
A mere 350 m away, the decibel rating on a wind turbine farm is generally going to only be about 35 db. For comparison, rural night time background noise is about 40db.
Ooooooh.... they're "annoying" to live near.
This is compared to ... oh... being annoyed that we are basically destroying the entire planet because some people are too effing proud to get off of their high horse and actually realize that keeping an advanced civilization in the long term just might mean we have to make some compromises?
Of course you're right... your own personal comfort means sooooo much more than the environment.
First of all, if your house is in the shadow of one of these things, then you have one that is LITERALLY on your own property, in which case you are being paid for the land it is on, or else it is extremely early or extremely late in the day, in which case the "strobe" effect (which is actually not disconcerting, you'll get more of a strobing effect from being in the shadow of a leafy tree on a windy day) won't last that long anyways.
FTA:
He says it's worth $, so if I offer him a hundred bucks, that's actually being really generous right?
Oh... what's that? He won't take it, because he thinks it's actually worth more?
Then it's not *REALLY* worth $0, is it?
Something in between, actually.
Over time, as the information it provides genuinely proves itself useful, the brain would become increasingly dependent on the additional information being provided by it to convey an accurate presentation of things. Unless they were accustomed to dealing with periodic system disruptions, removing it for even a short period would result in the same sort of disorientation and confusion that arises if a person suddenly lost one of their senses.
Y'know, for someone who's pedantic enough to point out what seemed to be an entirely inconsequential flaw in my assertion, I would think that you'd at least have the tenacity to double check the veracity of the video before assuming that it is true. The creators admitted it was fake on a Dutch TV show. Slashdot itself even covered the story.
Unless you are something other than human, no... no, you may not.
My first reaction to the article was along those lines as well, but then I realized that the core problem with movie "3d" is that they are trying to make a 3d image on a large screen look the same to everybody, regardless of their distance from the screen. Using stereoscopic imaging to direct different images at each eye forces people's eyes to converge towards a distance that may not necessarily correspond the distance they are actually looking at (or worse, can sometimes cause actual eye divergence if one is sitting too close to the screen).
However, if this is intended for viewing by people who are all approximately the same distance from what the images that are being sent to them appear to be, then there is no reason that such mass audience stereoscopic imagery techniques need to be employed, and it could be made quite manageable for people to look at for extended periods.
I've had plenty of dealings with the police, actually. And in my experience, 99% of the time, they are just doing their job to the best of their ability and to the extent that they understand the situation. If you cooperate with them, and treat them in a professional and polite manner, they will probably let you go as soon as they've checked your name in their computer, unless you have actually done something wrong, and they have legitimate reason to detain you (and if you know why they are detaining you, then there's no reason to be asking).
If you are being arrested, you *ALWAYS* have the right to know why, and if the reason sounds contrived or completely bogus, then make a mental note of it, because if the matter escalates, that information will be useful later. Of course, in so doing, you should continue to cooperate with them, regardless of what they say.
If the situation progresses beyond that, then you need to ask to speak to a lawyer.
It was 2002, and I was taking a course in digital electronics. One of the well-known projects for this course was to build a digital clock from regular 74xx and 74xxx IC's. We were to complete the projects on our own breadboards, and we could, if we wanted to keep the result, buy our own electronic components as well. I bought my own electronics, and as a result, could work on it when I was not necessarily in the lab. I was in a fairly reclusive hallway in the school around lunctime, testing out a circuit I had designed which would get incorporated into my final project, and I was using some LED's for feedback, which flickered quickly as my circuit ran. I was concentrating on what I was doing, and was surprised when someone from campus security came up to me and grabbed me by the shoulder. I spent the next 15 minutes in the office of campus security explaining what I was doing, and as it happened, one of the people from campus security knew the professor and could vouch for the story I was giving. They had called my professor for the course anyways, who came to security, chuckled at the whole incident, because he recognized me immediately, and said that he knew me and that I was okay.
Later that afternoon, during the class lecture, the prof relayed the anecdote to everybody with much amusement, not mentioning exactly who it was who, evidently, got him called down to the security office because they thought one of his students was building a bomb. He advised us all that we should be building our projects in the lab only, and not in the hallways of the school.
Why does it naturally follow that you would resist arrest just because you did nothing wrong?
I mean, it's what would they do if you cooperated, and simply asked what the reason was for the arrest? This is something that anyone being arrested has the unequivocal right to know, even if the reason is specious or outright bogus. Of course, disagreeing with the reasons given for the arrest, even if one is right, does not entitle the person to not cooperate with an arresting officer.
From what I've heard, the best thing to do when an officer detains you for any reason is ask "am I being arrested?" If the answer is "no". Then ask "am I free to go?" The answer to this question must be "yes", or else by definition, the answer to previous question was false. Remember this, because it will be useful later. If the answer is that you are free to go, then you cannot lawfully be charged with resisting arrest for trying to leave. If they still try to detain you, cooperate, and remember everything that they have said, because it will be useful in court.
If they are actually arresting you (whether by explicitly acknowledging you are under arrest, or implicitly by saying that you are not free to go), then the thing to do is to cooperate with them, regardless of whether you feel you are in the right. You are entitled to ask why you are being detained or arrested, however, and again, you should remember the answer if it is contrived or untenable, because that testimony would be grounds for a wrongful arrest charge if you are actually taken into custody. It's also prudent to ask to speak to a lawyer, if they have actually said that you are under arrest.
Wrongful arrest is pretty serious, and an officer who knows he doesn't have anything on you is probably going to let you go almost immediately as long as you cooperate. Generally, this involves no more than giving them your name and address, as well as presenting some ID that confirms this.
Is this unfair? Should it be different? Maybe... but in the end, it's a whole lot easier to just go along with a cop who has an attitude and let him realize entirely on his own how wrong he is than to try to argue with him. In the absence of any evidence against you, it's far more likely that you're just going to be let go immediately... as long as you cooperate.
The tone for most of it reads as more than just a tad sarcastic, but I can't see how that would make it offtopic. It actually seems pretty square on topic to me (more so than this comment, in fact).
If jaywalking isn't an arrestable offense, then how can a jaywalker resist arrest?
Also, what would it mean for Google if Oracle was entitled to everything they asked for?
I'm just curious. What are some possible scenarios that could arise from this? What could it mean for Java? What could it mean for Android? What about other parties?
I don't think I've ever played the king's gambit opening, at least not while I'm playing white. I don't care for how open it leaves my kingside bank ranks before they are defended.
Not at all. My point is what makes you think that those attacks are self-propogation attacks, and not simply attempts to find a security hole and install a rootkit? Do you have any evidence that a linux rootkit is what was actually being used to attack your system? Or are you simply assuming that it is because you can't think of any reason that non-linux systems would try to find security holes in Linux boxes?
Uh.... say what?
Reread 18 USC 1030.
There is absolutely no part of it that prohibits a person who has legal and authorized access to a system from supplying their password to other people unless, by my understanding, it is being done to instigate fraud. Just like it's not illegal for me to give the PIN on my bank card to somebody else.... such an act, however, has the upshot of making me liable for funds that might go missing from my account, and presumably that penalty is sufficient for me to abstain from doing so.
You'd probably need one whopper of a good lawyer, and they would have to have a pretty crappy one, to manage to convince a judge that an employer was actually violating 18 USC 1030 with this particular request.
Until the laws prohibiting firing someone also extend to protecting an employee's personal privacy, I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is actually entirely reasonable under the "at will" employment guidelines.
Not that I'm saying it's particularly fair for an employee, only that this sort of thing is to be expected when an employer can fire an employee for any reason that isn't explicitly illegal. It makes much more sense, IMO, to outline a concise list of general categories for reasons to fire an employee, and any reason for dismissal that does not fit one of those categories would be illegal. Such reasons could include shortage of work, inability to perform expected work, unprofessional or unethical behavior, violation of specific internal policies that the employee had acknowledged awareness of (presumably when they were hired), etc...
Neither does firing them. I'm pretty sure that one could find other people to do the same job quite happily who would be willing to give up facebook for a decent paying job.
Could somebody enlighten me as to what, exactly the employer did that was actually wrong?
I mean, I thought that the only things that you weren't allowed to fire an employee over are race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or religion. I don't think that not surrendering your facebook password fits into any of those.
So isn't this sort of what you can reasonably expect to happen when you have at-will employment?
It's undefended, but from what I've seen, living within easy cycling distance to that border, it's not at all easy to cross without being noticed.
I would think threatening to shoot down any of their airline's planes in this matter would be overkill, not to mention probably would be considered almost an act of war.
More than likely, the USA probably told them that their airlines would be denied entry into the USA.
Not before the same border crossing restrictions as what exist between the USA and Canada are implemented among the 50 states you currently have.
I have yet to see any pdf reader other than Adobe's that will work properly with the PDF's that this company produces.
I have no real dedication to Adobe one way or the other, but I seriously do like that company's map products, many of which utilize several more advanced pdf features such as layers for customization.
If somebody would make an open source pdf reader that could actually handle such PDF's, I'd drop Adobe like a hot potato... it's the only 32-bit application I have on my 64-bit linux system, and the only reason I even have the 32-bit compatibility libraries installed.
And let's say that I discover an item (or possibly a group of items) in a store such that after tax, the total price in pennies ends with the number 8.
And let's say that I intend to buy something from a store such that its price in pennies, after tax, would end with the number 4, 3, or 2.
If I combine these purchases into one, and then pay in cash, then the resulting price will be rounded to the nearest nickel, which means they would round down.
If I then later exploit the store return policy to return the first items on the list for a refund, since I paid in cash, I should receive cash back, which again, should be rounded to the nearest nickel... but this time, they would have to round it up, and I would get an extra 2 cents back.
Lather, rinse, repeat.