Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.
Notice how the intersection of the slots "moves" at a rate faster than the actual movement of the material having the slots. Now imagine something containing those slots moving at a speed approaching the speed of light relative to another stationary thing like it. You are located near the end the slot intersections are approaching. But from your perspective, the slot intersections would appear to be going away from you because the nearer intersection events arrive first.
The idea isn't to get rid of all the CO2. You can't because, as you point out, it is too slow. But, it can be put to use. Very high concentrations of CO2 (e.g. over 5%, instead of the 0.0384% present now) can not only make the plants grow more vigorously, but also kill off the pests. You just can't walk into that area unless you are in an air isolation suit.
Why not pipe (some of) the waste CO2 into a sealed greenhouse/biosphere system. Plants (the green biological kind) like that stuff and grow a lot faster when it is available in higher concentrations. Then pipe the oxygen they produce back to the coal burning power plant.
Actually, a great many of those kinds of problems happen during delivery and installation. Normally such transformers undergo certain tests during the installation. Many transformers also have their coolant added during installation. And it could have been damaged by one of those little black holes flying out at near light speed.
Sorry, I haven't written a whole book. I've only written a few chapters of one. Sorry I haven't started a food company... ever... and especially not one that has nothing but Flash as the home page. I only helped start an internet provider. I do work hard when the jobs are available. I don't wish for the money; I wish for the jobs so I can work hard.
People in higher tax brackets are still getting more money even if they pay more taxes. It is they who are whining. Most of these people in higher tax brackets are the ones who decide to pay their employees an amount that, if everyone were flat taxed, would leave them not enough for basic food and shelter.
The problem with economists, and other politicians, including the two major party presidential candidates we're stuck with, is that regardless of their knowledge of how to achieve anything (be it economics or anything else), they are more swayed by what they desire to achieve. Economists with a right-wing preference would look at an economy that swings wildly up and down over and over and say "see, it's working just fine". Economists with a left-wing preference would look at a state run economy that hands out money to people that don't work hard and say "see, it's working just fine".
What people need to do is figure out what kind of economy they want and choose the politicians who are dedicated to having that kind. They'll find whoever they need to get to achieve it. At the same time, everyone else who wanted a different kind of economy will be hell bent on sabotaging this effort. Ultimately, the only economy that has a chance of being politically stable is whatever economy is a political median, that is where half the population wants to go one way and half the population wants to go the other way.
So, don't ask the politicians about how they will achieve "fixing" our economy. Instead, ask them what their vision of a good economy is.
Actually, that quote had a particular context to it, relating to the Harvard faculty rather than the elected Congress. And the number in the quote gets changed a lot and I'm not even sure I have the right one. "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard." --William F. Buckley, Jr.
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket,...
Then maybe you are in the wrong tax bracket. Try being in mine for a while. I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
An error that can happen in C code might be that register address is not given the "volatile" attribute, and is therefore not actually read in all cases where the code would seem to be doing so. A function intended to read the register might be doing a loop reading the register until some other condition becomes true. In most cases that condition is true immediately, but in rare cases that condition is delayed. So the function only read the register once and merely assumed it re-read it all the remaining times.
Other possible errors can involve handling calibration data. The sensor might need to be tested over a range of values to correlate electrical readings to meaningful physics. It would store these calibration points in memory and use them to convert a reading to data. But if the array used to do this has a "one-off bug", the readings can be corrupt sometimes.
The code could be using an invalid pointer someone. Once that happens, all bets are off for anything that depends on its values in memory not being changed by something else.
Lab tests do not necessarily give accurate results. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to the bumpy ride you'd get if you were in the police car during a chase. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to the unreliable electrical supply in the vehicle. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to a wide variety of other gases that could be concurrently present with (or without) the alcohol being tested. Even if many of these variations are tested for in the lab, how about all the combinations together?
That's how things are wired in the USA for 240 volt circuits. The transformer secondary is tapped at the midpoint and grounded at that tap. All 3 wires are supplied to the building. 120 volt circuits can be wired between the midpoint neutral and either of the other wires. 240 volt circuits can be wired between the 2 non-neutral wires. While AC is, of course, alternating polarity in time, at any one instant, one of those wires is positive while the other is negative relative to the neutral. So the voltage difference between them will be 240 volts.
If you insert the two probes into the outlet holes for power, and one of those probes is broken, you can still get a reading that shows the charge potential for just one side. Digital meters pull so little current from the measurement that they actually can read charge potential alone. It could then show as much as 120 volts even for a 240 volt circuit, giving a reading that could appear to make sense since 120 volt circuits are the most common here, while the actual circuit is really 240 volts. A good electrician will cross check his meter to be sure it is not giving a faulty reading.
If the police officer relies on the reading from the device, then it is not really the police officer's judgment being presented, but just a re-iteration of what he read. Is the police officer able to testify about the accuracy of the device? Is the police officer able to testify about whether a device driver that reads values from an ADC register is doing so with the correct clock synchronization to ensure that does skew the time differential meaning of the results?
If the device can't be proven to be accurate, then it's no different than an expert witness who testified against the defendant later refusing to disclose his credentials that would, in theory, show him to be an expert in the field. Courts do throw out such testimonies, and sometimes even declare mistrials (if the judge feels the fraudulent testimony cannot be ignored by the jury). And such "experts" don't get used, anymore (if not actually jailed for contempt).
Of course defense attorneys try to get their clients off. That's their job. Prosecutors also try to get the defendant convicted. That's their job. The defendant is either really innocent or really guilty and it's the judge's job to make sure the process is headed to finding the correct answer.
This should then result in police departments returning these defective devices for a refund, and further lawsuits as a result. I wonder if they care more about their IP than selling a product. What we need to do is get the word out to all police departments and prosecutors that they face serious hurdles keeping real offenders off the streets if they use this company's products. Let these company executives choose between being able to prove the accuracy of the device in court (if it is so) or going out of business from lack of sales in all 50 states.
They just have an expert witness examine the code. It would be someone with experience in the kind of assembly code involved, and experience developing firmware for measurement devices like this. It is the testimony of the expert, not the source code itself, that would be presented to the jury. Just because you can't grok assembly code doesn't mean no one can. Obviously someone had to write the stuff.
Sadly, it may be the case that this manufacturer hired someone like you to develop it, and it was their first time writing for that CPU architecture, and under the memory and speed constraints involved in the hardware selected for the device. Perhaps it gives flaky results simply because values are not read from registers in sufficient time for it to have the correct meaning. The hardware may be providing the next interval reading, but the software assumes it's from an earlier time interval, and differentiates the values incorrectly. There are lot of other possible problems that can happen when interfacing between software and hardware. Just look at all the bugs device drivers in common computer systems have.
Don't forget here that we are talking about a device that gets substantially less testing than a driver in Windows, and gets deployed for use in mobile environments that subject the device to hostile conditions like vibration and mishandling. And consider that there are fewer of these devices made and sold than there are beta test copies of a new version of Windows. Which will have the greater scale of testing in the intended environment?
"No one . . . needs to see a schematic of wiring to know that when he flips the switch on the wall, the light will come on," Schwartz said.
And what would this guy do if he finds that sometimes the light doesn't come on? Or the light goes off on its own? Or comes on by itself? Or flickers and buzzes? An electrician would need to know the wiring involved. A diagram or schematic would be used, if available, or else he would have to trace the wires (reverse engineering).
And this analogy doesn't even apply to a measurement device. What if he uses a volt meter that says the voltage is 120 volts... does he assume that because the meter deflected that it's reading is correct? It could be a 240 volt circuit that has each wire only 120 volts relative to ground.
Any device that cannot be independently verified as operating correctly at all times should not have any of its results submitted in court for any purpose other than to argue that the device is defective in a case against the manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.
Notice how the intersection of the slots "moves" at a rate faster than the actual movement of the material having the slots. Now imagine something containing those slots moving at a speed approaching the speed of light relative to another stationary thing like it. You are located near the end the slot intersections are approaching. But from your perspective, the slot intersections would appear to be going away from you because the nearer intersection events arrive first.
They have some of the craziest URLs on YouTube that I have seen. I can only imagine the huge nightmare of that design.
I put a copy of the video here for you for a while. Hurry up and get it before that server gets slashdotted.
The idea isn't to get rid of all the CO2. You can't because, as you point out, it is too slow. But, it can be put to use. Very high concentrations of CO2 (e.g. over 5%, instead of the 0.0384% present now) can not only make the plants grow more vigorously, but also kill off the pests. You just can't walk into that area unless you are in an air isolation suit.
Why not pipe (some of) the waste CO2 into a sealed greenhouse/biosphere system. Plants (the green biological kind) like that stuff and grow a lot faster when it is available in higher concentrations. Then pipe the oxygen they produce back to the coal burning power plant.
Nerds love seeing news about lawyers screwing up. So this should be classified under entertainment or comedy.
Actually, a great many of those kinds of problems happen during delivery and installation. Normally such transformers undergo certain tests during the installation. Many transformers also have their coolant added during installation. And it could have been damaged by one of those little black holes flying out at near light speed.
RTFA! The freeloaders don't get Stanford credit for the free courses.
You have to look in-house for proprietary crap. That's what proprietary means. Have fun.
The LPC language used in LPMUD is available in a non-MUD system. It is called Pike.
Amazingly fast to be Slashdotted after only one comment is even posted here. Someone must have picked some wimpy hardware.
Sorry, I haven't written a whole book. I've only written a few chapters of one. Sorry I haven't started a food company ... ever ... and especially not one that has nothing but Flash as the home page. I only helped start an internet provider. I do work hard when the jobs are available. I don't wish for the money; I wish for the jobs so I can work hard.
People in higher tax brackets are still getting more money even if they pay more taxes. It is they who are whining. Most of these people in higher tax brackets are the ones who decide to pay their employees an amount that, if everyone were flat taxed, would leave them not enough for basic food and shelter.
The problem with economists, and other politicians, including the two major party presidential candidates we're stuck with, is that regardless of their knowledge of how to achieve anything (be it economics or anything else), they are more swayed by what they desire to achieve. Economists with a right-wing preference would look at an economy that swings wildly up and down over and over and say "see, it's working just fine". Economists with a left-wing preference would look at a state run economy that hands out money to people that don't work hard and say "see, it's working just fine".
What people need to do is figure out what kind of economy they want and choose the politicians who are dedicated to having that kind. They'll find whoever they need to get to achieve it. At the same time, everyone else who wanted a different kind of economy will be hell bent on sabotaging this effort. Ultimately, the only economy that has a chance of being politically stable is whatever economy is a political median, that is where half the population wants to go one way and half the population wants to go the other way.
So, don't ask the politicians about how they will achieve "fixing" our economy. Instead, ask them what their vision of a good economy is.
Actually, that quote had a particular context to it, relating to the Harvard faculty rather than the elected Congress. And the number in the quote gets changed a lot and I'm not even sure I have the right one. "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard." --William F. Buckley, Jr.
From the CNN article:
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, ...
Then maybe you are in the wrong tax bracket. Try being in mine for a while. I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
... then it will just be hacked by spammers and the origin will be forged.
... prohibits all secrecy with regard to laws, or the development processes for all laws.
An error that can happen in C code might be that register address is not given the "volatile" attribute, and is therefore not actually read in all cases where the code would seem to be doing so. A function intended to read the register might be doing a loop reading the register until some other condition becomes true. In most cases that condition is true immediately, but in rare cases that condition is delayed. So the function only read the register once and merely assumed it re-read it all the remaining times.
Other possible errors can involve handling calibration data. The sensor might need to be tested over a range of values to correlate electrical readings to meaningful physics. It would store these calibration points in memory and use them to convert a reading to data. But if the array used to do this has a "one-off bug", the readings can be corrupt sometimes.
The code could be using an invalid pointer someone. Once that happens, all bets are off for anything that depends on its values in memory not being changed by something else.
Lab tests do not necessarily give accurate results. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to the bumpy ride you'd get if you were in the police car during a chase. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to the unreliable electrical supply in the vehicle. The lab tests might not be subjecting the device to a wide variety of other gases that could be concurrently present with (or without) the alcohol being tested. Even if many of these variations are tested for in the lab, how about all the combinations together?
That's how things are wired in the USA for 240 volt circuits. The transformer secondary is tapped at the midpoint and grounded at that tap. All 3 wires are supplied to the building. 120 volt circuits can be wired between the midpoint neutral and either of the other wires. 240 volt circuits can be wired between the 2 non-neutral wires. While AC is, of course, alternating polarity in time, at any one instant, one of those wires is positive while the other is negative relative to the neutral. So the voltage difference between them will be 240 volts.
If you insert the two probes into the outlet holes for power, and one of those probes is broken, you can still get a reading that shows the charge potential for just one side. Digital meters pull so little current from the measurement that they actually can read charge potential alone. It could then show as much as 120 volts even for a 240 volt circuit, giving a reading that could appear to make sense since 120 volt circuits are the most common here, while the actual circuit is really 240 volts. A good electrician will cross check his meter to be sure it is not giving a faulty reading.
If the police officer relies on the reading from the device, then it is not really the police officer's judgment being presented, but just a re-iteration of what he read. Is the police officer able to testify about the accuracy of the device? Is the police officer able to testify about whether a device driver that reads values from an ADC register is doing so with the correct clock synchronization to ensure that does skew the time differential meaning of the results?
If the device can't be proven to be accurate, then it's no different than an expert witness who testified against the defendant later refusing to disclose his credentials that would, in theory, show him to be an expert in the field. Courts do throw out such testimonies, and sometimes even declare mistrials (if the judge feels the fraudulent testimony cannot be ignored by the jury). And such "experts" don't get used, anymore (if not actually jailed for contempt).
Of course defense attorneys try to get their clients off. That's their job. Prosecutors also try to get the defendant convicted. That's their job. The defendant is either really innocent or really guilty and it's the judge's job to make sure the process is headed to finding the correct answer.
This should then result in police departments returning these defective devices for a refund, and further lawsuits as a result. I wonder if they care more about their IP than selling a product. What we need to do is get the word out to all police departments and prosecutors that they face serious hurdles keeping real offenders off the streets if they use this company's products. Let these company executives choose between being able to prove the accuracy of the device in court (if it is so) or going out of business from lack of sales in all 50 states.
They just have an expert witness examine the code. It would be someone with experience in the kind of assembly code involved, and experience developing firmware for measurement devices like this. It is the testimony of the expert, not the source code itself, that would be presented to the jury. Just because you can't grok assembly code doesn't mean no one can. Obviously someone had to write the stuff.
Sadly, it may be the case that this manufacturer hired someone like you to develop it, and it was their first time writing for that CPU architecture, and under the memory and speed constraints involved in the hardware selected for the device. Perhaps it gives flaky results simply because values are not read from registers in sufficient time for it to have the correct meaning. The hardware may be providing the next interval reading, but the software assumes it's from an earlier time interval, and differentiates the values incorrectly. There are lot of other possible problems that can happen when interfacing between software and hardware. Just look at all the bugs device drivers in common computer systems have.
Don't forget here that we are talking about a device that gets substantially less testing than a driver in Windows, and gets deployed for use in mobile environments that subject the device to hostile conditions like vibration and mishandling. And consider that there are fewer of these devices made and sold than there are beta test copies of a new version of Windows. Which will have the greater scale of testing in the intended environment?
Schwartz used electricity as an example.
"No one . . . needs to see a schematic of wiring to know that when he flips the switch on the wall, the light will come on," Schwartz said.
And what would this guy do if he finds that sometimes the light doesn't come on? Or the light goes off on its own? Or comes on by itself? Or flickers and buzzes? An electrician would need to know the wiring involved. A diagram or schematic would be used, if available, or else he would have to trace the wires (reverse engineering).
And this analogy doesn't even apply to a measurement device. What if he uses a volt meter that says the voltage is 120 volts ... does he assume that because the meter deflected that it's reading is correct? It could be a 240 volt circuit that has each wire only 120 volts relative to ground.
Any device that cannot be independently verified as operating correctly at all times should not have any of its results submitted in court for any purpose other than to argue that the device is defective in a case against the manufacturer.