Scalia at the time was the second-most conservative member of the Court as measured on that graph, and Kennedy was fourth-most conservative. It was a split of conservatives on the matter, with one liberal member writing the dissenting opinion with which Rehnquist joined.
This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand. Look at Gonzales v. Raich, where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law, while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.
You can make a general guess, but until the opinion is published, you just don't know.
For those "higher level" cases, who is responsible for keep-alives? The library or the programmer? Or is it a mix where the programmer needs to call a function in the library?
So at 350MB per episode, 40 minutes per episode, you get 500MB per hour of video. If half of your downloads at 8GB/day usage were at that rate, you're pulling down eight hours of video per day. Are you really watching all of that?
The Constitution is not the Quran to be "interpreted" in many different ways.
Almost every amendment has at least one angle for interpretation.
- When does something printed move from news to libel?
- What arms do the people have the right to possess?
- All of the possible nuances of the way in which the state may come into possession of evidence means that "reasonable search" has changed over time.
- What is a valid public use of private property?
- If a witness dies before a trial begins, how much, if any, of a deposition made by the deceased should be allowed at trial, since they cannot be confronted by the defendant?
- The definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed markedly over time for US society. Death penalty? Castration? Long-term solitary confinement?
- Does a person have an inherent right to get married?
- If a state passes a law that directly contradicts a federal law, who wins out?
That's the Bill of Rights in order, minus Amendments III and VII, for which I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head. All of those are open to interpretation to some degree. One may have no limits, or one may have complete limits, but most people fall in-between, and that range is why there is interpretation at all.
Does it need to interface with another system (say, an accounting system)?
And then all of the follow-up questions to just this one:
Is there an API for the accounting system? If there is one, is it documented? If it is, is it coherent?
What character set does the other system use? If one of the other systems is an ancient program written for an IBM platform and using EBCDIC, you'd better make sure that your programmers know that Unicode isn't going to play happily with it.
I will ask the programmers here one request coming out of the security guys, many of whom are deploying application proxy firewalls:
Please, please, please do not neglect keep-alives if your programs are going to take a while processing things.
The last year where I work has seen multiple programs extend beyond the TCP timeout periods for our APFWs because they don't send keep-alives back within the window (or at all, really). One of them even expected network connections to be held open past the default 7200-second timeout period for TCP connections on the basis that no FIN was sent, so the system shouldn't drop the connection. Not having any experience doing network programming, I have no idea if this is something that should ideally be handled by a system library or if it should be coded by the programmer (can anyone chime in on this?), but it can be maddening to track down on a new app all the time and then have to rebuild all of the evidence to convince management.
Don't take this as trying to regulate what you're doing with your bandwidth, but I would like to understand what would be eating 8GB a day. I know some people that average 5GB or more per day, and when I ask them what they're downloading, they mention TV shows, movies, music, basically what you would expect.
Questions about legalities and ethics aside, I have always questioned why they would pull down that much. They work full-time jobs, and in some cases have families, and yet they pull down more than they could ever watch or really listen to. I guess I don't understand downloading just to download.
In the United States, discrimination on the basis of genetic information or the requesting, requiring, or purchasing of genetic information by any health care plan is prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, passed by Congress in April 2008 and signed by President Bush the following month. Similarly, employers may not discriminate on the basis of genetic data, nor may they generally request nor require an employee to undergo genetic testing (there are a few very limited exceptions).
Basically, you can learn about your genome without worry that your insurance premiums will change, because with very limited exceptions, the insurers will never have access to it.
Getting in right now may be trivial. Getting in after the next update may not be so easy. Sprint may at some point require certain OS versions even to access the network, so that even if you find a way to push off the upgrades, you may lose service (possibly excepting emergency services) unless you allow the upgrade through, closing the path to root.
Possibly. According to Engadget, the Pre will have mandatory firmware upgrades. You can defer it for up to a week, and then you get a 10-minute notice that it's going to start downloading whether you like it or not. There may be a way of disabling such proxy software in the firmware.
Actually, the chart in the article shows that the UK decreased emissions by 14% from 1990 to 2004 excluding land use and forestry, and by 58% when those are included. This makes me wonder who is correct, the chart or the politicians, many of whom seem to be local councils clamoring for more power to reduce emissions.
It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it. The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.
Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.
That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals. The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically. Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree. Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.
I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.
No, there's a finite improbability that we'll get where we want to go.
Before we can get an infinite improbability drive, we have to master finite probability physics. At that point, we can simply figure out the finite improbability of the existence of an infinite improbability drive, hook the system up to a nice, hot cup of tea, see it pop into existence, and then get beaten to death by a group of scientists who finally realize that the one thing that they really can't stand is a smartass.
Also, to post a patent you should have to post a $100,000 bond that the material is original. If the material is unoriginal, the bond would be forfeit. This will to some small degree decrease the trolls who use the spare time on their lawyer retainer contracts to file unuseful or obvious patents.
It also completely removes any opportunity for regular garage tinkerers to be able to patent something that they come up with. It may be rare these days, but it's not unheard-of.
The system needs an overhaul, but what you propose is so close to scrapping it that you may as well do it. Why should a concept that once worked be scrapped in its entirety because of the abuses that come from some changes to it? Wouldn't reversion to something closer to the older model be more appropriate?
I have a hard time envisioning ethical uses for technology to weaponize pathogens
Would you consider it ethical to pursue the technology to gain an understanding of it for purposes of defending against it? Development of vaccines or treatments can come from such research; the US Army still practices and develops techniques for weaponizing biological and chemical agents even as the existing stockpiles are being destroyed. The military has no intentions of using them offensively, and concluded decades ago that the effectiveness over conventional weapons is non-existent when you factor in all of the costs of extra handling precautions and risks that come with actual use. However, since other nations (and more recently non-state entities) were continuing to develop weapons, the need to understand how they could be used and how to react was important.
He was given the adulation because water landings are notoriously difficult to pull off, with the number of successful ditches so low that the procedures are still essentially educated guesswork. A random swell that catches a wingtip or engine nacelle can cause a plane to flip or to break open. Hit too steeply -- something that again can change with a swell -- and the plane may decelerate fast enough that injuries or death occur.
All planes come with a checklist for ditching in the water. Few pilots come away from actually using them unscathed.
Yes, but the margin against gay marriage was much smaller than it was a few years ago (53-47 compared to 62-38 in 2000), and the expectations are that by 2010, an initiative overturning the ban would succeed by a narrow margin, and would effectively end the chances for a renewal of the ban as support for gay marriage grows. Such a win would remove the claims of a liberal judiciary overturning the wishes of the people.
I think he's asking more about seeing the areas lit up by the other players' flashlights. It's something I've heard a few players talk about. I can see where my flashlight hits, but not where other flashlights hit. I suspect that it's a computationally difficult thing to perform.
That was exactly my thought. Some changes in the engine, addition of new special infected, and some new characters would in the past have been simply some new DLC. Microsoft's policies limiting unpaid DLC to a tiny amount over the life of the game had to have factored into this.
The SCOTUS eminent domain explanation triggered a wave of statutes that redefined the concept at the state and local level. Gay marriage has been handled in the state courts, but not seriously in the federal courts, at least until the recent filing in federal court of a constitutional challenge to California's Prop 8 ban. However, a great many proponents feel that this is the wrong way to be going about it right now, and that getting Prop 8 overturned via another initiative (currently gathering signatures for a 2010 ballot appearance) would be the better way to go.
The courts are an important part of the system, but they others are just as effective in shaping public policy.
letting the UN make the call (where we'd still have a huge voice, but the buffer of bureaucracy to stand behind).
You presume that there would be something along the lines of the UNSC that would grant some sort of additional status, instead of something like the General Assembly where the US would be one among 200+ or even the various councils where it would be one among a few dozen. US power could be quickly diluted, and in the last case could be removed if membership was on an elected basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I wonder if I'll be able to use this to get them to fix their code now.
Scalia at the time was the second-most conservative member of the Court as measured on that graph, and Kennedy was fourth-most conservative. It was a split of conservatives on the matter, with one liberal member writing the dissenting opinion with which Rehnquist joined.
This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand. Look at Gonzales v. Raich, where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law, while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.
You can make a general guess, but until the opinion is published, you just don't know.
For those "higher level" cases, who is responsible for keep-alives? The library or the programmer? Or is it a mix where the programmer needs to call a function in the library?
So at 350MB per episode, 40 minutes per episode, you get 500MB per hour of video. If half of your downloads at 8GB/day usage were at that rate, you're pulling down eight hours of video per day. Are you really watching all of that?
The Constitution is not the Quran to be "interpreted" in many different ways.
Almost every amendment has at least one angle for interpretation.
- When does something printed move from news to libel?
- What arms do the people have the right to possess?
- All of the possible nuances of the way in which the state may come into possession of evidence means that "reasonable search" has changed over time.
- What is a valid public use of private property?
- If a witness dies before a trial begins, how much, if any, of a deposition made by the deceased should be allowed at trial, since they cannot be confronted by the defendant?
- The definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed markedly over time for US society. Death penalty? Castration? Long-term solitary confinement?
- Does a person have an inherent right to get married?
- If a state passes a law that directly contradicts a federal law, who wins out?
That's the Bill of Rights in order, minus Amendments III and VII, for which I couldn't think of anything off the top of my head. All of those are open to interpretation to some degree. One may have no limits, or one may have complete limits, but most people fall in-between, and that range is why there is interpretation at all.
Does it need to interface with another system (say, an accounting system)?
And then all of the follow-up questions to just this one:
Is there an API for the accounting system? If there is one, is it documented? If it is, is it coherent?
What character set does the other system use? If one of the other systems is an ancient program written for an IBM platform and using EBCDIC, you'd better make sure that your programmers know that Unicode isn't going to play happily with it.
I will ask the programmers here one request coming out of the security guys, many of whom are deploying application proxy firewalls:
Please, please, please do not neglect keep-alives if your programs are going to take a while processing things.
The last year where I work has seen multiple programs extend beyond the TCP timeout periods for our APFWs because they don't send keep-alives back within the window (or at all, really). One of them even expected network connections to be held open past the default 7200-second timeout period for TCP connections on the basis that no FIN was sent, so the system shouldn't drop the connection. Not having any experience doing network programming, I have no idea if this is something that should ideally be handled by a system library or if it should be coded by the programmer (can anyone chime in on this?), but it can be maddening to track down on a new app all the time and then have to rebuild all of the evidence to convince management.
Don't take this as trying to regulate what you're doing with your bandwidth, but I would like to understand what would be eating 8GB a day. I know some people that average 5GB or more per day, and when I ask them what they're downloading, they mention TV shows, movies, music, basically what you would expect.
Questions about legalities and ethics aside, I have always questioned why they would pull down that much. They work full-time jobs, and in some cases have families, and yet they pull down more than they could ever watch or really listen to. I guess I don't understand downloading just to download.
In the United States, discrimination on the basis of genetic information or the requesting, requiring, or purchasing of genetic information by any health care plan is prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, passed by Congress in April 2008 and signed by President Bush the following month. Similarly, employers may not discriminate on the basis of genetic data, nor may they generally request nor require an employee to undergo genetic testing (there are a few very limited exceptions).
Basically, you can learn about your genome without worry that your insurance premiums will change, because with very limited exceptions, the insurers will never have access to it.
Getting in right now may be trivial. Getting in after the next update may not be so easy. Sprint may at some point require certain OS versions even to access the network, so that even if you find a way to push off the upgrades, you may lose service (possibly excepting emergency services) unless you allow the upgrade through, closing the path to root.
Possibly. According to Engadget, the Pre will have mandatory firmware upgrades. You can defer it for up to a week, and then you get a 10-minute notice that it's going to start downloading whether you like it or not. There may be a way of disabling such proxy software in the firmware.
Actually, the chart in the article shows that the UK decreased emissions by 14% from 1990 to 2004 excluding land use and forestry, and by 58% when those are included. This makes me wonder who is correct, the chart or the politicians, many of whom seem to be local councils clamoring for more power to reduce emissions.
It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it. The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.
Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.
That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals. The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically. Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree. Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.
I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.
No, there's a finite improbability that we'll get where we want to go.
Before we can get an infinite improbability drive, we have to master finite probability physics. At that point, we can simply figure out the finite improbability of the existence of an infinite improbability drive, hook the system up to a nice, hot cup of tea, see it pop into existence, and then get beaten to death by a group of scientists who finally realize that the one thing that they really can't stand is a smartass.
Also, to post a patent you should have to post a $100,000 bond that the material is original. If the material is unoriginal, the bond would be forfeit. This will to some small degree decrease the trolls who use the spare time on their lawyer retainer contracts to file unuseful or obvious patents.
It also completely removes any opportunity for regular garage tinkerers to be able to patent something that they come up with. It may be rare these days, but it's not unheard-of.
The system needs an overhaul, but what you propose is so close to scrapping it that you may as well do it. Why should a concept that once worked be scrapped in its entirety because of the abuses that come from some changes to it? Wouldn't reversion to something closer to the older model be more appropriate?
I have a hard time envisioning ethical uses for technology to weaponize pathogens
Would you consider it ethical to pursue the technology to gain an understanding of it for purposes of defending against it? Development of vaccines or treatments can come from such research; the US Army still practices and develops techniques for weaponizing biological and chemical agents even as the existing stockpiles are being destroyed. The military has no intentions of using them offensively, and concluded decades ago that the effectiveness over conventional weapons is non-existent when you factor in all of the costs of extra handling precautions and risks that come with actual use. However, since other nations (and more recently non-state entities) were continuing to develop weapons, the need to understand how they could be used and how to react was important.
He was given the adulation because water landings are notoriously difficult to pull off, with the number of successful ditches so low that the procedures are still essentially educated guesswork. A random swell that catches a wingtip or engine nacelle can cause a plane to flip or to break open. Hit too steeply -- something that again can change with a swell -- and the plane may decelerate fast enough that injuries or death occur.
All planes come with a checklist for ditching in the water. Few pilots come away from actually using them unscathed.
Yes, but the margin against gay marriage was much smaller than it was a few years ago (53-47 compared to 62-38 in 2000), and the expectations are that by 2010, an initiative overturning the ban would succeed by a narrow margin, and would effectively end the chances for a renewal of the ban as support for gay marriage grows. Such a win would remove the claims of a liberal judiciary overturning the wishes of the people.
I think he's asking more about seeing the areas lit up by the other players' flashlights. It's something I've heard a few players talk about. I can see where my flashlight hits, but not where other flashlights hit. I suspect that it's a computationally difficult thing to perform.
That was exactly my thought. Some changes in the engine, addition of new special infected, and some new characters would in the past have been simply some new DLC. Microsoft's policies limiting unpaid DLC to a tiny amount over the life of the game had to have factored into this.
The SCOTUS eminent domain explanation triggered a wave of statutes that redefined the concept at the state and local level. Gay marriage has been handled in the state courts, but not seriously in the federal courts, at least until the recent filing in federal court of a constitutional challenge to California's Prop 8 ban. However, a great many proponents feel that this is the wrong way to be going about it right now, and that getting Prop 8 overturned via another initiative (currently gathering signatures for a 2010 ballot appearance) would be the better way to go.
The courts are an important part of the system, but they others are just as effective in shaping public policy.
letting the UN make the call (where we'd still have a huge voice, but the buffer of bureaucracy to stand behind).
You presume that there would be something along the lines of the UNSC that would grant some sort of additional status, instead of something like the General Assembly where the US would be one among 200+ or even the various councils where it would be one among a few dozen. US power could be quickly diluted, and in the last case could be removed if membership was on an elected basis.
And I thought CINCLANTFLT was cool...
I prefer Western Hearth 12-Grain, thank you.